Literature DB >> 30826478

Material stiffness influences the polarization state, function and migration mode of macrophages.

Rukmani Sridharan1, Brenton Cavanagh2, Andrew R Cameron1, Daniel J Kelly1, Fergal J O'Brien3.   

Abstract

Biomaterial implantation is followed by an inflammatory cascade dominated by macrophages, which determine implant acceptance or rejection through pro- and anti-inflammatory polarization states (Anderson et al., 2008; Brown and Badylak, 2013). It is known that chemical signals such as bacterial endotoxins and cytokines (IL4) can direct macrophage polarization (Mantovani et al., 2004); however, recent evidence implicates biophysical cues in this process (McWhorter et al., 2015; Patel et al., 2012). Here we report that THP-1 derived macrophages cultured on collagen-coated polyacrylamide gels of varying stiffness adapt their polarization state, functional roles and migration mode according to the stiffness of the underlying substrate. Through gene expression and protein secretion analysis, we show that stiff polyacrylamide gels (323 kPa) prime macrophages towards a pro-inflammatory phenotype with impaired phagocytosis in macrophages, while soft (11 kPa) and medium (88 kPa) stiffness gels prime cells towards an anti-inflammatory, highly phagocytic phenotype. Furthermore, we show that stiffness dictates the migration mode of macrophages; on soft and medium stiffness gels, cells display Rho-A kinase (ROCK)-dependent, podosome-independent fast amoeboid migration and on stiff gels they adopt a ROCK-independent, podosome-dependent slow mesenchymal migration mode. We also provide a mechanistic insight into this process by showing that the anti-inflammatory property of macrophages on soft and medium gels is ROCK-dependent and independent of the ligand presented to them. Together, our results demonstrate that macrophages adapt their polarization, function and migration mode in response to the stiffness of the underlying substrate and suggest that biomaterial stiffness is capable of directing macrophage behaviour independent of the biochemical cues being presented to them. The results from this study establish an important role for substrate stiffness in directing macrophage behaviour, and will lead to the design of immuno-informed biomaterials that are capable of modulating the macrophage response after implantation. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: Biomaterial implantation is followed by an inflammatory cascade dominated by macrophages, which determine implant acceptance or rejection through pro- and anti-inflammatory polarization states. It is known that chemical signals can direct macrophage polarization; however, recent evidence implicates biophysical cues in this process. Here we report that macrophages cultured on gels of varying stiffness adapt their polarization state, functional roles and migration mode according to the stiffness of the underlying substrate. The results from this study establish an important role for substrate stiffness in directing macrophage behaviour, and will lead to the design of immuno-informed biomaterials that are capable of modulating the macrophage response after implantation.
Copyright © 2019 Acta Materialia Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomaterials; Immune response; Macrophage polarization; Mechanotransduction

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30826478     DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2019.02.048

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Biomater        ISSN: 1742-7061            Impact factor:   8.947


  51 in total

1.  Assaying How Phagocytic Success Depends on the Elasticity of a Large Target Structure.

Authors:  Megan Davis-Fields; Layla A Bakhtiari; Ziyang Lan; Kristin N Kovach; Liyun Wang; Elizabeth M Cosgriff-Hernandez; Vernita D Gordon
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  2019-09-13       Impact factor: 4.033

2.  Progress in Vocal Fold Regenerative Biomaterials: An Immunological Perspective.

Authors:  Patrick T Coburn; Xuan Li; Jianyu Y Li; Yo Kishimoto; Nicole Y K Li-Jessen
Journal:  Adv Nanobiomed Res       Date:  2021-12-18

Review 3.  Engineering in vitro immune-competent tissue models for testing and evaluation of therapeutics.

Authors:  Jennifer H Hammel; Jonathan M Zatorski; Sophie R Cook; Rebecca R Pompano; Jennifer M Munson
Journal:  Adv Drug Deliv Rev       Date:  2022-01-11       Impact factor: 15.470

4.  Inflammation Drives Stiffness Mediated Uptake of Lipoproteins in Primary Human Macrophages and Foam Cell Proliferation.

Authors:  Manasvini Ammanamanchi; Melanie Maurer; Heather N Hayenga
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2021-11-03       Impact factor: 3.934

Review 5.  Host-biomaterial interactions in mesh complications after pelvic floor reconstructive surgery.

Authors:  Roxanna E Abhari; Matthew L Izett-Kay; Hayley L Morris; Rufus Cartwright; Sarah J B Snelling
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2021-09-20       Impact factor: 14.432

6.  Mechanobiology of Pulmonary Diseases: A Review of Engineering Tools to Understand Lung Mechanotransduction.

Authors:  Caymen Novak; Megan N Ballinger; Samir Ghadiali
Journal:  J Biomech Eng       Date:  2021-11-01       Impact factor: 2.097

7.  Behaviour at the peritoneal interface of next-generation prosthetic materials for hernia repair.

Authors:  Gemma Pascual; Selma Benito-Martínez; Marta Rodríguez; Bárbara Pérez-Köhler; Francisca García-Moreno; Juan M Bellón
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2021-01-28       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 8.  The Dynamic Interaction between Extracellular Matrix Remodeling and Breast Tumor Progression.

Authors:  Jorge Martinez; Patricio C Smith
Journal:  Cells       Date:  2021-04-29       Impact factor: 6.600

Review 9.  Engineering of Immune Microenvironment for Enhanced Tissue Remodeling.

Authors:  Ga Ryang Ko; Jung Seung Lee
Journal:  Tissue Eng Regen Med       Date:  2022-01-18       Impact factor: 4.169

Review 10.  Biomedical Implants with Charge-Transfer Monitoring and Regulating Abilities.

Authors:  Donghui Wang; Ji Tan; Hongqin Zhu; Yongfeng Mei; Xuanyong Liu
Journal:  Adv Sci (Weinh)       Date:  2021-06-24       Impact factor: 16.806

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.