E Gibon1, F Loi2, Luis A Córdova3, J Pajarinen2, T Lin2, L Lu2, A Nabeshima2, Z Yao2, Stuart B Goodman4. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University, R116, 300 Pasteur Drive, Stanford, CA 94305, USA; Laboratoire de Biomécanique et Biomatériaux Ostéo-Articulaires -UMR CNRS 7052, Faculté de Médecine - Université Paris7, 10 avenue de Verdun, 75010 Paris, France; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hopital Cochin, APHP, Université Paris5, 27 rue du Faubourg Saint-Jacques, 75014 Paris, France. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University, R116, 300 Pasteur Drive, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University, R116, 300 Pasteur Drive, Stanford, CA 94305, USA; Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Chile-Conicyt, Santiago, Chile. 4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University, R116, 300 Pasteur Drive, Stanford, CA 94305, USA; Department of Bioengineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and (by courtesy) Bioengineering, Stanford University Medical Center Outpatient Center, 450 Broadway St., M/C 6342, Redwood City, CA 94063, USA.
Abstract
Macrophages are an important component of the inflammatory cascade by initiating and modulating the processes leading to tissue regeneration and bone healing. Depending on the local environment, macrophages can be polarized into M1 (pro-inflammatory) or M2 (anti-inflammatory) phenotypes. In order to assess the effects of aging on macrophage function, bone marrow macrophage polarization using primary bone marrow macrophages (BMMs) from young (8 weeks old) and aged (72 weeks old) wild-type male C57BL/6J mice was analyzed. Fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) analysis (CD11b, iNOS, CD206), qRT-PCR (iNOS, TNF-α, CD206, Arginase 1), and ELISA (TNF-α, IL-1ra) were performed to compare the M1 and M2 phenotypic markers in young and aged mouse macrophages. Once M1 and M2 macrophage phenotypes were confirmed, the results showed that TNF-α mRNA was significantly upregulated in aged M1s after interferon gamma (INF-γ) exposure. Arginase 1 and CD206 mRNA expression were still upregulated with IL4 stimulation in aged macrophages, but to a lesser extend than those from younger animals. TNF-α secretion was also significantly increased in aged M1s compared to young M1s, following lipopolysaccharide (LPS) exposure. However, the IL-1ra secretion did not increase accordingly in aged mice. The results demonstrate that, compared to younger animals, aging of bone marrow derived macrophages increases the resting levels of oxidative stress, and the ratios of pro- to anti-inflammatory markers. These age-related changes in macrophage polarization may explain in part the attenuated response to adverse stimuli and delay in processes such as fracture healing seen in the elderly. LAY SUMMARY: Bone healing is a complex process that involves both biological and mechanical factors. Macrophages are key cells that regulate the events involved in bone healing, especially the initial inflammatory phase. In this biological cascade of events, macrophages present as different functional phenotypes including uncommitted (M0), pro-inflammatory (M1), and anti-inflammatory (M2), a process called macrophage polarization. A clear understanding of the effects of aging on macrophage polarization is critical to modulating adverse events such as fractures, atraumatic bone loss, and tissue regeneration in an aging population.
Macrophages are an important component of the inflammatory cascade by initiating and modulating the processes leading to tissue regeneration and bone healing. Depending on the local environment, macrophages can be polarized into M1 (pro-inflammatory) or M2 (anti-inflammatory) phenotypes. In order to assess the effects of aging on macrophage function, bone marrow macrophage polarization using primary bone marrow macrophages (BMMs) from young (8 weeks old) and aged (72 weeks old) wild-type male C57BL/6J mice was analyzed. Fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) analysis (CD11b, iNOS, CD206), qRT-PCR (iNOS, TNF-α, CD206, Arginase 1), and ELISA (TNF-α, IL-1ra) were performed to compare the M1 and M2 phenotypic markers in young and aged mouse macrophages. Once M1 and M2 macrophage phenotypes were confirmed, the results showed that TNF-α mRNA was significantly upregulated in aged M1s after interferon gamma (INF-γ) exposure. Arginase 1 and CD206 mRNA expression were still upregulated with IL4 stimulation in aged macrophages, but to a lesser extend than those from younger animals. TNF-α secretion was also significantly increased in aged M1s compared to young M1s, following lipopolysaccharide (LPS) exposure. However, the IL-1ra secretion did not increase accordingly in aged mice. The results demonstrate that, compared to younger animals, aging of bone marrow derived macrophages increases the resting levels of oxidative stress, and the ratios of pro- to anti-inflammatory markers. These age-related changes in macrophage polarization may explain in part the attenuated response to adverse stimuli and delay in processes such as fracture healing seen in the elderly. LAY SUMMARY: Bone healing is a complex process that involves both biological and mechanical factors. Macrophages are key cells that regulate the events involved in bone healing, especially the initial inflammatory phase. In this biological cascade of events, macrophages present as different functional phenotypes including uncommitted (M0), pro-inflammatory (M1), and anti-inflammatory (M2), a process called macrophage polarization. A clear understanding of the effects of aging on macrophage polarization is critical to modulating adverse events such as fractures, atraumatic bone loss, and tissue regeneration in an aging population.
Entities:
Keywords:
Aging; Bone healing; Bone marrowmacrophage; Polarization
Authors: Christina Zachos; Nadine Steubesand; Andreas Seekamp; Sabine Fuchs; Sebastian Lippross Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2014-06-24 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: Linda Vi; Gurpreet S Baht; Heather Whetstone; Adeline Ng; Qingxia Wei; Raymond Poon; Sivakami Mylvaganam; Marc Grynpas; Benjamin A Alman Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: James P Barrett; Derek A Costello; Joan O'Sullivan; Thelma R Cowley; Marina A Lynch Journal: J Neuroinflammation Date: 2015-04-09 Impact factor: 8.322
Authors: Meera G Nair; Yurong Du; Jacqueline G Perrigoue; Colby Zaph; Justin J Taylor; Michael Goldschmidt; Gary P Swain; George D Yancopoulos; David M Valenzuela; Andrew Murphy; Margaret Karow; Sean Stevens; Edward J Pearce; David Artis Journal: J Exp Med Date: 2009-04-06 Impact factor: 14.307
Authors: Laura Y Lu; Florence Loi; Karthik Nathan; Tzu-Hua Lin; Jukka Pajarinen; Emmanuel Gibon; Akira Nabeshima; Luis Cordova; Eemeli Jämsen; Zhenyu Yao; Stuart B Goodman Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2017-03-13 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: M S Valentine; P A Link; J A Herbert; F J Kamga Gninzeko; M B Schneck; K Shankar; J Nkwocha; A M Reynolds; R L Heise Journal: Cell Mol Bioeng Date: 2018-06-19 Impact factor: 2.321
Authors: Linda Vi; Gurpreet S Baht; Erik J Soderblom; Heather Whetstone; Qingxia Wei; Bridgette Furman; Vijitha Puviindran; Puviindran Nadesan; Matthew Foster; Raymond Poon; James P White; Yasuhito Yahara; Adeline Ng; Tomasa Barrientos; Marc Grynpas; M Arthur Mosely; Benjamin A Alman Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2018-12-05 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Eemeli Jämsen; Jukka Pajarinen; Tzu-Hua Lin; Chi-Wen Lo; Akira Nabeshima; Laura Lu; Karthik Nathan; Kari K Eklund; Zhenyu Yao; Stuart B Goodman Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2019-09-18 Impact factor: 3.494