Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32070241›Full record

ArticleTissue engineering. Part C, Methods2020

Characterizing the Macrophage Response to Immunomodulatory Biomaterials Through Gene Set Analyses.

Sarah E Blatt, Emily B Lurier, Gregory E Risser, Kara L Spiller

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Tissue engineering. Part C, Methods, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 36% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Affinity-based controlled release of interleukin-4 from scaffolds via biotin-streptavidin interactions for immunomodulation.Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Bone response in vivo of Ti-45Zr alloy as dental implant material.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Rational Design of Immunomodulatory Hydrogels for Chronic Wound Healing.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2021
    Review
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sarah E BlattBiomaterials and Regenerative Medicine Laboratory, School of Biomedical Engineering, Science and Health Systems, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Emily B LurierBiomaterials and Regenerative Medicine Laboratory, School of Biomedical Engineering, Science and Health Systems, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Gregory E RisserBiomaterials and Regenerative Medicine Laboratory, School of Biomedical Engineering, Science and Health Systems, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Kara L SpillerBiomaterials and Regenerative Medicine Laboratory, School of Biomedical Engineering, Science and Health Systems, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Drexel University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The primary regulators of the innate immune response to implanted biomaterials are macrophages, which change phenotype over time to regulate multiple phases of the tissue repair process. Immunomodulatory biomaterials that target macrophage phenotype are a promising approach for promoting tissue repair. Although expression of multiple markers has been widely used to characterize macrophage phenotype, the complexity of the macrophage response to biomaterials makes interpretation difficult. The aim of this study was to put forth an objective method to characterize macrophage phenotype with respect to specific biological processes or standard phenotypes of interest. We investigated the utility of gene set analyses to analyze macrophages as they respond to model biomaterials in comparison to "reference" M1 and M2a macrophage phenotypes. Primary human macrophages were seeded onto crosslinked collagen scaffolds with or without adsorption of the proinflammatory cytokine interferon-gamma (IFNg). Gene expression of a custom-curated panel of 48 genes, representing the M1 and M2a gene signatures as well as other genes important for angiogenesis and tissue repair, was quantified using NanoString on days 3, 5, and 8 of culture. A dataset of phenotype controls, consisting of M0, M1, and M2a macrophages, was used as a source of comparison and to validate the methods of characterization. Gene expression of M1 and M2a markers showed mixed upregulation and downregulation by macrophages seeded on collagen and IFNg-adsorbed collagen scaffolds, highlighting the need for more holistic analyses. Euclidean distance measurements to the reference phenotypes were unable to resolve differences between groups. In contrast, rotation gene set testing with and without gene weighting based on the genes' ability to differentiate between M1, M2a, and M0 controls, followed by gene set variation analysis, showed that collagen scaffolds inhibited the classic M1 phenotype without promoting a classic M2a phenotype, and that IFNg-adsorbed collagen scaffolds promoted the M1 phenotype and inhibited the M2a phenotype. In summary, this work demonstrates a powerful, objective methodology for characterizing the macrophage response to biomaterials in comparison to reference macrophage phenotypes. With the addition of more macrophage phenotypes with defined gene expression signatures, this method could prove beneficial for characterizing complex hybrid phenotypes.

Indexed as

Gene Expression RegulationImmunomodulationBiocompatible MaterialsHumansInterferon-gammaMacrophagesPhenotypeTissue ScaffoldsBiocompatible MaterialsInterferon-gammagene set analysismacrophagephenotype

Identifiers

PMID32070241
PMCPMC7103580
OpenAlexW3006804697

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.