Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25852557›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2015

M2 polarization enhances silica nanoparticle uptake by macrophages.

Jessica Hoppstädter, Michelle Seif, Anna Dembek, Christian Cavelius, Hanno Huwer, Annette Kraegeloh, Alexandra K Kiemer

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed
8.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

63 citing papers in PubMed, 129 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Engineering the Immune Response to Biomaterials.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  9. SiOScientific reports · 2025
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Frontiers in immunology · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

3 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Jessica HoppstädterDepartment of Pharmacy, Pharmaceutical Biology, Saarland University, Saarbruecken Germany.
Michelle SeifKorea Institute of Science and Technology Europe, Saarbruecken Germany.
Anna DembekDepartment of Pharmacy, Pharmaceutical Biology, Saarland University, Saarbruecken Germany.
Christian CaveliusNano Cell Interactions Group, INM - Leibniz Institute for New Materials, Saarbruecken Germany.
Hanno HuwerDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Voelklingen Heart Centre, Voelklingen Germany.
Annette KraegelohNano Cell Interactions Group, INM - Leibniz Institute for New Materials, Saarbruecken Germany.
Alexandra K KiemerDepartment of Pharmacy, Pharmaceutical Biology, Saarland University, Saarbruecken Germany.
Saarland University · DELeibniz-Institute for New Materials · DEKIST Europe · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While silica nanoparticles have enabled numerous industrial and medical applications, their toxicological safety requires further evaluation. Macrophages are the major cell population responsible for nanoparticle clearance in vivo. The prevailing macrophage phenotype largely depends on the local immune status of the host. Whereas M1-polarized macrophages are considered as pro-inflammatory macrophages involved in host defense, M2 macrophages exhibit anti-inflammatory and wound-healing properties, but also promote tumor growth. We employed different models of M1 and M2 polarization: granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor/lipopolysaccharide (LPS)/interferon (IFN)-γ was used to generate primary human M1 cells and macrophage colony-stimulating factor (M-CSF)/interleukin (IL)-10 to differentiate M2 monocyte-derived macrophages (MDM). PMA-differentiated THP-1 cells were polarized towards an M1 type by LPS/IFN-γ and towards M2 by IL-10. Uptake of fluorescent silica nanoparticles (Ø26 and 41 nm) and microparticles (Ø1.75 μm) was quantified. At the concentration used (50 μg/ml), silica nanoparticles did not influence cell viability as assessed by MTT assay. Nanoparticle uptake was enhanced in M2-polarized primary human MDM compared with M1 cells, as shown by flow cytometric and microscopic approaches. In contrast, the uptake of microparticles did not differ between M1 and M2 phenotypes. M2 polarization was also associated with increased nanoparticle uptake in the macrophage-like THP-1 cell line. In accordance, in vivo polarized M2-like primary human tumor-associated macrophages obtained from lung tumors took up more nanoparticles than M1-like alveolar macrophages isolated from the surrounding lung tissue. In summary, our data indicate that the M2 polarization of macrophages promotes nanoparticle internalization. Therefore, the phenotypical differences between macrophage subsets should be taken into consideration in future investigations on nanosafety, but might also open up therapeutic perspectives allowing to specifically target M2 polarized macrophages.

Indexed as

alveolar macrophageendocytosisinflammationlung macrophagesmononuclear phagocyte systemphagocytosisreal-time RT-PCRtumor-associated macrophage

Identifiers

PMID25852557
PMCPMC4369656
OpenAlexW2053740860

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.