ArticleBiomedicines2021
MARCO
Article in Biomedicines, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Retrorsine impairs liver regeneration by inducing progenitor cell-senescenceAnnals of medicine · 2026Article
- ApolipoproteinEiScience · 2026Article
- Macrophages expressing macrophage receptor with collagen structure attenuate liver fibrosis through a tissue restoration phenotype.JCI insight · 2026Article
- Review
- Article
- Unravelling approaches to study macrophages: from classical to novel biophysical methodologies.PeerJ · 2025Review
- Single-Cell RNA-Seq Uncovers Cellular Heterogeneity from Deep Fascia in Necrotizing Fasciitis Patients.Journal of inflammation research · 2025Article
- Targeting Macrophage Polarization for Reinstating Homeostasis following Tissue Damage.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Bidirectional regulation of the cGAS-STING pathway in the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment and its association with immunotherapy.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Review
- Liver and Muscle Transcriptomes Differ in Mid-Lactation Cows Divergent in Feed Efficiency in the Presence or Absence of Supplemental Rumen-Protected Choline.Metabolites · 2023Article
- An Eye on Kupffer Cells: Development, Phenotype and the Macrophage Niche.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Macrophages in Health and Non-Infectious Disease 2.0.Biomedicines · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMacrophages play a key role in liver regeneration. The fates of resident macrophages after 70% resection are poorly investigated. In this work, using the MARCO macrophage marker (abbreviated from macrophage receptor with collagenous structure), we studied the dynamics of mouse liver resident macrophages after 70% resection.
methodsIn BALB/c male mice, a model of liver regeneration after 70% resection was reproduced. The dynamics of markers CD68, TIM4, and MARCO were studied immunohistochemically and by using a Western blot.
resultsThe number of MARCO- and CD68-positive macrophages in the regenerating liver increased 1 day and 3 days after resection, respectively. At the same time, the content of the MARCO protein increased in the sorted macrophages of the regenerating liver on the third day.
conclusionsThe data indicate that the number of MARCO-positive macrophages in the regenerating liver increases due to the activation of MARCO synthesis in the liver macrophages. The increased expression of MARCO by macrophages can be regarded as a sign of their activation. In the present study, stimulation with LPS led to an increase in the expression of the
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.