ArticleProbiotics and antimicrobial proteins2014
In vitro comparison of the effects of probiotic, commensal and pathogenic strains on macrophage polarization.
Article in Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lactic Acid Bacteria with Probiotic Potential Regulating Macrophages: Mechanisms, Regulatory Features, and Clinical Applications.Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins · 2026Review
- A Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus secretome induces immunoregulatory transcriptional, functional and immunometabolic signatures in human THP-1 monocytes.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Therapeutic potential of popular fermented dairy products and its benefits on human health.Frontiers in nutrition · 2024Review
- Bacteria and macrophages in the tumor microenvironment.Frontiers in microbiology · 2023Review
- Probiotics During the Therapeutic Management of Periodontitis.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2022Review
- Article
- Intestinal Microbiota - An Unmissable Bridge to Severe Acute Pancreatitis-Associated Acute Lung Injury.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Review
- The Anti-Tumor Effect ofCancers · 2021Article
- Innate Phagocyte Polarization in the Oral Cavity.Frontiers in immunology · 2021Review
- Milk fermented withCurrent research in food science · 2020Article
- Macrophage Polarization Induced by Probiotic Bacteria: a Concise Review.Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins · 2020Review
- A Novel Lactic Acid Bacteria Mixture: Macrophage-Targeted Prophylactic Intervention in Colorectal Cancer Management.Microorganisms · 2020Article
- Effects of Probiotics BaSC06 on Intestinal Digestion and Absorption, Antioxidant Capacity, Microbiota Composition, and Macrophage Polarization in Pigs for Fattening.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2020Article
- Heterogeneous macrophages: Supersensors of exogenous inducing factors.Scandinavian journal of immunology · 2019Review
- Article
- Intestinal microbiota: a novel perspective in colorectal cancer biotherapeutics.OncoTargets and therapy · 2018Review
- Macrophage polarization in response to oral commensals and pathogens.Pathogens and disease · 2016Article
- Phenotypic diversity and emerging new tools to study macrophage activation in bacterial infectious diseases.Frontiers in immunology · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Macrophages are important with respect to both innate and adaptive immune responses and are known to differentiate into pro-inflammatory M1- or anti-inflammatory M2-phenotypes following activation. In order to study how different bacteria affect macrophage polarization, we exposed murine RAW 264.7 macrophages to sixteen different strains representing probiotic strains, pathogens, commensals and strains of food origin. Increased inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS) or arginase-1 gene expression indicates M1 or M2 polarization, respectively, and was quantified by qRT-PCR. Strains of Escherichia and Salmonella elevated iNOS expression more so than strains of Enterococcus, Lactobacillus and Lactococcus, indicating that Gram-negative strains are more potent M1 inducers. However, strain-specific responses were observed. For instance, Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 was a poor inducer of iNOS gene expression compared to the other E. coli strains, while Enterococcus faecalis Symbioflor-1 was more potent in this respect compared to all the eleven Gram-positive strains tested. Macrophage polarization was further characterized by quantifying secreted pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines. Exposure to the pathogen E. coli 042 produced a cytokine profile indicating M1 differentiation, which is in accordance with the PCR data. However, exposure to most strains resulted in either high or low secretion levels of all cytokines tested, rather than a clear M1 or M2 profile. In general, the Gram-negative strains induced high levels of cytokine secretion compared to the Gram-positive strains. Interestingly, strains of human origin had a higher impact on macrophages compared to strains of food origin.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24676762What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.