Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33775905›Full record

ReviewActa biomaterialia2021

Macrophage phenotypes in tissue repair and the foreign body response: Implications for biomaterial-based regenerative medicine strategies.

Karen E Martin, Andrés J García

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Acta biomaterialia, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 183 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
183citing papers in PubMed
18.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

183 citing papers in PubMed, 336 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Bioactivity-Guided Isolation of Stigmasterol fromPharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

123 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Karen E MartinWoodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA; Petit Institute for Bioengineering and Biosciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA.
Andrés J GarcíaWoodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA; Petit Institute for Bioengineering and Biosciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA. Electronic address: andres.garcia@me.gatech.edu.
Georgia Institute of Technology · US

Funding

Hydrogels for hMSC delivery & engraftmentR01AR062368 · NIAMS · GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI GARCIA, ANDRES J · 2012 to 2022
$3.5M
Osseo-reparative, integrin-specific materialsR01AR062920 · NIAMS · GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI GARCIA, ANDRES J · 2012 to 2021
$3.2M
NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR062368NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR062920
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Macrophages are a highly heterogeneous and plastic population of cells that are crucial for tissue repair and regeneration. This has made macrophages a particularly attractive target for biomaterial-directed regenerative medicine strategies. However, macrophages also contribute to adverse inflammatory and fibrotic responses to implanted biomaterials, typically related to the foreign body response (FBR). The traditional model in the field asserts that the M2 macrophage phenotype is pro-regenerative and associated with positive wound healing outcomes, whereas the M1 phenotype is pro-inflammatory and associated with pathogenesis. However, recent studies indicate that both M1 and M2 macrophages play different, but equally vital, roles in promoting tissue repair. Furthermore, recent technological developments such as single-cell RNA sequencing have allowed for unprecedented insights into the heterogeneity within the myeloid compartment, related to activation state, niche, and ontogenetic origin. A better understanding of the phenotypic and functional characteristics of macrophages critical to tissue repair and FBR processes will allow for rational design of biomaterials to promote biomaterial-tissue integration and regeneration. In this review, we discuss the role of temporal and ontogenetic macrophage heterogeneity on tissue repair processes and the FBR and the potential implications for biomaterial-directed regenerative medicine applications. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: This review outlines the contributions of different macrophage phenotypes to different phases of wound healing and angiogenesis. Pathological outcomes, such as chronic inflammation, fibrosis, and the foreign body response, related to disruption of the macrophage inflammation-resolution process are also discussed. We summarize recent insights into the vast heterogeneity of myeloid cells related to their niche, especially the biomaterial microenvironment, and ontogenetic origin. Additionally, we present a discussion on novel tools that allow for resolution of cellular heterogeneity at the single-cell level and how these can be used to build a better understanding of macrophage heterogeneity in the biomaterial immune microenvironment to better inform immunomodulatory biomaterial design.

Indexed as

Biocompatible MaterialsForeign BodiesHumansMacrophagesPhenotypeRegenerative MedicineWound HealingBiocompatible MaterialsForeign body responseImmunomodulatory biomaterialsMacrophagesRegenerative medicineTissue repair

Identifiers

PMID33775905
PMCPMC8464623
OpenAlexW3146582890

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.