Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37213504›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2023

Macrophage polarization during

Larisa Janžič, Jernej Repas, Mojca Pavlin, Špela Zemljić-Jokhadar, Alojz Ihan, Andreja Nataša Kopitar

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2023. 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
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Not all Group BFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Mononuclear Aluminum-Fluoride Ions, AlFMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  6. Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Glycolytic metabolism: Food for immune cells, fuel for depression?Brain, behavior, & immunity - health · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Larisa JanžičDepartment of Cell Immunology, Institute of Microbiology and Immunology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Jernej RepasInstitute of Biophysics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Mojca PavlinInstitute of Biophysics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Špela Zemljić-JokhadarInstitute of Biophysics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Alojz IhanDepartment of Cell Immunology, Institute of Microbiology and Immunology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Andreja Nataša KopitarDepartment of Cell Immunology, Institute of Microbiology and Immunology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
University of Ljubljana · SI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Methods: Here, we examined the impact of 12 previously genotyped GBS isolates belonging to different serotypes and sequence types on the immune response of THP-1 macrophages. Results: Flow cytometry analysis showed isolate-specific differences in phagocytic uptake, ranging from 10% for isolates of serotype Ib, which possess the virulence factor protein β, to over 70% for isolates of serotype III. Different isolates also induced differential expression of co-stimulatory molecules and scavenger receptors with colonizing isolates inducing higher expression levels of CD80 and CD86 compared to invasive isolates. In addition, real-time measurements of metabolism revealed that macrophages enhanced both glycolysis and mitochondrial respiration after GBS infection, with isolates of serotype III being the most potent activators of glycolysis and glycolytic ATP production. Macrophages also showed differential resistance to GBS-mediated cell cytotoxicity as measured by LDH release and real-time microscopy. The differences were evident both between serotypes and between isolates obtained from different specimens (colonizing or invasive isolates) demonstrating the higher cytotoxicity of vaginal compared with blood isolates. Conclusions: Thus, the data suggest that GBS isolates differ in their potential to become invasive or remain colonizing. In addition, colonizing isolates appear to be more cytotoxic, whereas invasive isolates appear to exploit macrophages to their advantage, avoiding the immune recognition and antibiotics.

Indexed as

cytotoxicityimmunometabolismimmunophenotypingmacrophagesphagocytosisStreptococcus agalactiae

Identifiers

PMID37213504
PMCPMC10192866
OpenAlexW4368367723

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.