ArticleImmunology and cell biology2017
Phagocytosis of live versus killed or fluorescently labeled bacteria by macrophages differ in both magnitude and receptor specificity.
Article in Immunology and cell biology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- The authors respond to feedback onFrontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Saccharomyces cerevisiae β-glucan improves the response of trained macrophages to severe P. aeruginosa infections.Inflammation research : official journal of the European Histamine Research Society ... [et al.] · 2024Article
- Aptamer-Based Diagnostic Systems for the Rapid Screening of TB at the Point-of-Care.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Phagocytosis by macrophages depends on histamine H2 receptor signaling and scavenger receptor 1.MicrobiologyOpen · 2019Article
- TLR2 Promotes Monocyte/Macrophage Recruitment Into the Liver and Microabscess Formation to Limit the Spread ofFrontiers in immunology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Scavenger receptor (SR)-mediated opsonin-independent phagocytosis of bacteria by macrophages has been suggested to represent an important, early mechanism of anti-bacterial host defense. However, although the ability to bind bacteria has been demonstrated to be a shared feature of all types of SRs, in many cases the evidence is limited to the demonstration of increased binding of killed, fluorescently labeled bacteria to non-phagocytic cells transfected with these receptors. We sought to verify the ability of SRs to mediate non-opsonic phagocytosis of live Escherichia coli (Ec) and Staphylococcus aureus (Sa), model species of Gram-negative and -positive bacteria, respectively, and to assess the relative contributions of different SRs expressed on murine macrophages in this process. We found that the class A SR SR-A/CD204 was the major receptor mediating phagocytosis of fluorescently labeled Sa, whereas different SRs had highly redundant roles in the phagocytosis of live Sa. Conversely, different SRs contributed to the phagocytosis of fluorescently labeled Ec. In comparison, phagocytosis of live Ec was of much lower magnitude and was selectively mediated by SR-A. These results question the use of fluorescently labeled bacteria as valid replacements for live bacteria. The low magnitude of opsonin-independent phagocytosis of Ec and unimpaired phagocytosis of Sa in SR-A- or CD36-deficient macrophages indicate that the defect in this process might not be responsible for the reported impaired bacteria clearance in mice deficient in these receptors. We postulate that this impairment might result to a larger extent from inhibition of intracellular bacteria killing caused by pro-inflammatory cytokines, produced in excessive amounts by SR-deficient cells in response to bacterial products.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.