ArticlePeerJ2020
Pro-inflammatory response ensured by LPS and Pam3CSK4 in RAW 264.7 cells did not improve a fungistatic effect on
Article in PeerJ, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biomolecular Corona Remodelling ofJournal of extracellular biology · 2026Article
- High-throughput single-cell analysis reveals Omp38-specific monoclonal antibodies that protect againstEmerging microbes & infections · 2025Article
- Antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory effects of antimicrobial peptide Lf-KR against carbapenem-resistant Escherichia coli.BMC microbiology · 2025Article
- PAM-1: an antimicrobial peptide with promise against ceftazidime-avibactam resistantFrontiers in microbiology · 2024Article
- Article
- A crosstalk between type 2 innate lymphoid cells and alternative macrophages in lung development and lung diseases (Review).Molecular medicine reports · 2021Review
- Luteolin transforms the polarity of bone marrow-derived macrophages to regulate the cytokine storm.Journal of inflammation (London, England) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe macrophage lineage is characterized by plasticity due to the acquisition of distinct functional phenotypes, and two major subsets are evaluated; classical M1 activation (strong microbicidal activity) and alternative M2 activation (immunoregulatory functions). The M1 subset expresses inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS), which is a primary marker to identify these cells, whereas M2 macrophages are characterized by expression of Arginase-1, found in inflammatory zone 1 (Fizz1), chitinase-like molecule (Ym-1), and CD206. The micro-environmental stimuli and signals in tissues are critical in the macrophage polarization. Toll-like receptors (TLR) ligands, such as lipopolysaccharide (LPS), palmitoyl-3-cysteine-serine-lysine-4 (Pam3CSK4), and ArtinM (mannose-binding lectin) are inductors of M1 subset. The impact of TLR2 and TLR4 signals to fight against METHODS AND
resultsWe demonstrated that P3C4, LPS, and ArtinM induced an increase in the levels of iNOS transcripts in RAW 264.7 cells, whereas the relative expression of arginase-1, Ym-1, and Fizz1 was significantly increased in the presence of IL-4 alone. The effects of TLR2 and TLR4 agonists on repolarization from the M2 to M1 subset was evaluated, and the first stimulus was composed of IL-4 and, after 24 h of incubation, the cells were submitted to a second stimulus of P3C4, LPS, ArtinM, or Medium. These TLR agonists induced the production of TNF-
conclusionPolarized RAW 264.7 cells to the M1 subset with TLR2 and TLR4 agonists did not inhibit the growth of
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.