Expression data of macrophage phenotypes treated with interleukin-1alpha
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
ORGANISM(S): Mus musculus
SUBMITTER: Soken Tsuchiya
PROVIDER: E-GEOD-53680 | biostudies-arrayexpress |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-arrayexpress
Similar Datasets
Project description:Identification of the difference in responsiveness to interleukin-1alpha between M1 and M2 macrophage phenotypes.
2014-09-21 | GSE53680 | GEO
Project description:Recent studies suggest the presence of both âclassically activatedâ M1 and âalternatively activatedâ M2 macrophages in human atherosclerotic tissue, yet due to the lack of validated markers the reported localization patterns of these macrophage phenotypes within plaques are ambiguous. In the present study, we searched for markers that indisputably can identify differentiated M1 and M2 macrophages independently of stimuli that affect the activation status of the two subpopulations. We used these validated markers to assess the presence of M1 and M2 macrophages in different zones of human carotid artery atherosclerotic plaques obtained from 12 patients. Using microarray and qPCR technology we show that the frequently used macrophage subpopulation markers MCP-1 and CD206 do not discriminate between M1 and M2 macrophages. However, we confirm the subtype specificity of the classical M2 marker CD163 and we report that the genes INHBA and DSP (both M1) and SEPP1 and MARCKS (both M2) are highly suitable for macrophage phenotyping. mRNA expression of the pan-macrophage marker CD68 in the shoulder zones of the plaques and in adjacent tissue segments correlated positively with mRNA expression levels of SEPP1, MARCKS and CD163 (r=0.86, 0.94 and 0.96, and r= 0.86, 0.98 and 0.69, respectively) but not with the expression of the M1 markers DSP and INHBA. In contrast, mRNA expression of CD68 in the core of the plaques correlated positively with expression of DSP and INHBA (r=0.73 and 0.49) but not with SEPP1, MARCKS and CD163. These findings suggest that M1 macrophages predominate in the core of human carotid atherosclerotic plaques while M2 macrophages prevail at the periphery of the plaque. Keywords: Expression profiling by array Monocytes from healthy volunteers were differentiated into M1 and M2 macrophages by incubation with granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) or macrophage colony-stimulating factor (M-CSF), respectively. After 5 days cells were exposed to oxidized LDL. Total RNA was isolated and subjected to gene expression profiling.
2016-06-01 | E-GEOD-22543 | biostudies-arrayexpress
Project description:Expression data of macrophage phenotypes treated with interleukin-1alpha
| PRJNA232630 | ENA
Project description:Classically (M1) and alternatively activated (M2) macrophages play distinct roles in various physiological and disease processes. Understanding the gene transcription programs that contribute to macrophage polarization along the M1/M2 spectrum may lead to new tools to detect and therapeutically manipulate macrophage phenotype. Here, we define the M1 and M2 macrophage signature through mRNA microarray. The M1 macrophage signature was defined by 629 up-regulated and 732 down-regulated genes while the M2 macrophage signature was formed by 388 up-regulated and 425 down-regulated genes. While a subset of probes was common to both M1 and M2 cells, others were exclusive to each macrophage subset. The common M1/M2 pathways were characterized by changes in various transcriptional regulators and signaling partners, including increases in Kruppel-like Factor (Klf) 4, but decreases in Klf2. To identify M1 and M2 biomarkers that help discriminate these populations, we selected genes that were increased during M1 or M2 differentiation but decreased in the opposite population. Among top novel M1-distinct genes, we identified CD38, G-protein coupled receptor 18 (Gpr18) and Formyl peptide receptor 2 (Fpr2). Among top M2 genes, we found early growth response protein 2 (Egr2) and Myc. We validated these genes by Real-Time PCR and developed a CD38/Egr2-based flow cytometry assay that discriminates between M1 and M2 macrophages. Overall, this work defines the M1 and M2 signature and identifies several novel M1 and M2 genes that may be used to distinguish and manipulate M1 and M2 macrophages. Total RNA was prepared from bone marrow-derived macrophages of wild-type mice (n=2-3 independent mice) treated in M0, M1 or M2 conditions (n=2-3 replicates per condition originating from different mice)
2015-12-08 | E-GEOD-69607 | biostudies-arrayexpress
Project description:Using RNA-Seq, we reported novel findings in the comparison of transcriptome profiles of isogenic HMDM and IPSDM during differentiation and polarization. First, IPSDM lost expression of pluripotency markers, had remarkably distinct gene expression profiles relative to precursor iPSCs, and had largely similar gene expression as HMDM. Second, macrophage polarization to M1 was associated with a dramatic change in the transcriptome; expression profiles of IPSDM- and HMDM-derived M1 lines were highly correlated with each other but much less so with their respective IPSDM and HMDM precursors. Third, M2-HMDM lines had limited difference in gene expression compared to their non-polarized precursors, likely due to the known M2-like phenotype of M-CSF differentiated macrophages and their similarity to the IL-4 derived M2 phenotype Finally, through RNA-Seq we identified many new genes modulated during polarization in both HMDM and IPSDM thus providing novel, and potentially regulatory, candidates that warrant further study. iPS, IPSDM (including M1/M2) and HMDM (including M1/M2)cells were sequenced by Illumina HiSeq 2000 with poly-A selection
2015-07-08 | E-GEOD-55536 | biostudies-arrayexpress
Project description:Proteomic studies of macrophage polarization to pro-inflammatory (M1) or tissue reparative (M2) phenotypes has identified interferon-induced proteins with tetratricopeptide repeats (IFIT1, IFIT2 and IFIT3) as potential biomarkers of inflammatory diseases such as atherosclerosis.
2018-03-15 | PXD008204 | Pride
Project description:Monocytes mature to macrophages in the presence of the lineage determining cytokine M-CSF. They can be further polarized into M1 or M2 macrophages with distinct functional properties. We used microarrays to detail the global programme of gene expression underlying macrophage maturation and polarization and identified distinct classes of up-regulated genes during this process. Experiment Overall Design: Freshly isolated monocytes were cultured in the presence of M-CSF for 7 days, and then polarized to M1 or M2 cells. The study includes Monocytes at day 0, macrophages at day 3 and 7, M1 and m2 polarized macrophages.
2007-11-02 | E-GEOD-5099 | biostudies-arrayexpress
Project description:Classically (M1) and alternatively activated (M2) macrophages play distinct roles in various physiological and disease processes. Understanding the gene transcription programs that contribute to macrophage polarization along the M1/M2 spectrum may lead to new tools to detect and therapeutically manipulate macrophage phenotype. Here, we define the M1 and M2 macrophage signature through mRNA microarray. The M1 macrophage signature was defined by 629 up-regulated and 732 down-regulated genes while the M2 macrophage signature was formed by 388 up-regulated and 425 down-regulated genes. While a subset of probes was common to both M1 and M2 cells, others were exclusive to each macrophage subset. The common M1/M2 pathways were characterized by changes in various transcriptional regulators and signaling partners, including increases in Kruppel-like Factor (Klf) 4, but decreases in Klf2. To identify M1 and M2 biomarkers that help discriminate these populations, we selected genes that were increased during M1 or M2 differentiation but decreased in the opposite population. Among top novel M1-distinct genes, we identified CD38, G-protein coupled receptor 18 (Gpr18) and Formyl peptide receptor 2 (Fpr2). Among top M2 genes, we found early growth response protein 2 (Egr2) and Myc. We validated these genes by Real-Time PCR and developed a CD38/Egr2-based flow cytometry assay that discriminates between M1 and M2 macrophages. Overall, this work defines the M1 and M2 signature and identifies several novel M1 and M2 genes that may be used to distinguish and manipulate M1 and M2 macrophages.
2015-12-08 | GSE69607 | GEO
Project description:Primary human macrophages were cultured 1, 3 or 6 days with different stimuli. Macrophages are key cell types of the innate immune system regulating host defense, inflammation, tissue homeostasis and cancer. Within this functional spectrum diverse and often opposing phenotypes are displayed which are dictated by environmental clues and depend on highly plastic transcriptional programs. Among these the ‘classical’ (M1) and ‘alternative’ (M2) macrophage polarization phenotypes are the best characterized. Understanding macrophage polarization in humans may reveal novel therapeutic intervention possibilities for chronic inflammation, wound healing and cancer. Systematic loss of function screening in human primary macrophages is limited due to lack of robust gene delivery methods and limited sample availability. To overcome these hurdles we developed cell-autonomous assays using the THP-1 cell line allowing genetic screens for human macrophage phenotypes. To confirm the relevance of the THP1-based system we performed microarray studies on THP1 cells and primary human cells subjected to various conditions.
2017-08-25 | E-MTAB-5913 | biostudies-arrayexpress
Project description:In this work, we conducted an in-depth characterization of protein glycosylation including total glycoproteins and surface ones across different macrophage phenotypes using mass spectrometry (MS)-based proteomics. The global analysis of glycoproteins was performed using the boronic acid-conjugated dendrimer beads-based enrichment method. The N-glycoproteome was found to undergo more pronounced changes in M1 macrophages compared to M2 macrophages. To examine the alterations of surface glycoproteins, we employed enzymatic and chemical reactions to label surface glycoproteins. The remodeling of the glycoproteome in macrophage polarization is primarily driven by changes in protein expression and sugar donors rather than changes in the protein glycosylation machinery. Comparative analysis of cell-surface glycoproteins between M1 and M2 macrophages reveals phenotype-specific N-glycosylation patterns. Moreover, we identified potential targets for suppressing M2 macrophages, including CD36, FLT1, Siglec11, THSD7A, and SLC12A2. Finally, we characterized the site-specific changes of cell-surface glycoproteins between M1 and M2 macrophages related to their local protein structures and adjacent residues. The dramatic alterations in N-glycosylation sites were located within crucial protein domains, including the immunoglobulin (Ig)-like domain, fibronectin type III domain, and growth factor domain. Global and site-specific analysis of protein glycosylation and surface glycoproteins advance our understanding of different types of macrophages and provide valuable and unprecedented information for future functional and mechanistic investigations of human macrophages, leading to a better understanding of cancer immunity and the development of immunotherapy.
2024-08-08 | PXD053647 | Pride