Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19741337›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in lipidology2009

Macrophage heterogeneity in atherosclerotic plaques.

Jason L Johnson, Andrew C Newby

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in lipidology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 83 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
83citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

83 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Immunotherapy in the Context of Aortic Valve Diseases.Cardiovascular drugs and therapy · 2024
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. The dense-core plaques of Alzheimer's disease are granulomas.The Journal of experimental medicine · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

23 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jason L JohnsonBristol Heart Institute, University of Bristol, Level 7, Bristol Royal Infirmary, Bristol BS2 8HW, UK.
Andrew C Newby

Funding

British Heart Foundation FS/07/053/24069British Heart Foundation RG/09/006/27918
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThe varied behaviour of macrophages and foam cells during atherosclerosis and its clinical sequelae prompt the question whether all these activities can be the property of a single cell population. RECENT

findingsSubsets of monocytes with distinct patterns of surface markers and behaviours during inflammation have recently been characterized and shown to have complementary roles during progression of atherosclerosis. A variety of macrophage phenotypes derived from these monocyte subsets in response to mediators of innate and acquired immunity have also been found in plaques. Based on functional properties and genomic signatures, they may have different impacts on facets of plaque development, including fibrous cap and lipid core formation. SUMMARY: Monocyte and macrophage phenotypic diversity is important in atherogenesis. More work is needed to define consistent marker sets for the different foam cell phenotypes in experimental animals and humans. Cell tracking studies are needed to establish their relationship with monocyte subtypes. In addition, genetic and pharmacological manipulation of phenotypes will be useful to define their functions and exploit the resulting therapeutic potential.

Indexed as

AnimalsAtherosclerosisHumansInflammationMacrophagesMonocytesPhenotype

Identifiers

PMID19741337
PMCPMC2850554

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.