D. Yan, Yongming Zhang, Yu-hua Ji, Tao Wang, Xiao-Xing Xiong, Heng Zhao
{"title":"Re-visit the concept of M1 versus M2 phenotypes of BV2 microglia and test their effects on stroke outcome in mice","authors":"D. Yan, Yongming Zhang, Yu-hua Ji, Tao Wang, Xiao-Xing Xiong, Heng Zhao","doi":"10.4103/2470-7511.334399","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Backgrounds: Whether there are distinctive macrophage functional phenotypes of M1 versus M2 has been debated. We re-examined them by studying M1/M2 gene and protein expressions in cultured BV2 microglial cells and their effects on stroke outcomes in vivo. Methods: BV2 microglia cells were cultured and polarized with lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and interleukin-4 (IL-4) to produce M (LPS) and M (IL-4) phenotypes, which were originally defined as M1 and M2 phenotypes, respectively. Typical M1 and M2 gene or protein expression patterns were analyzed in M (LPS) and M (IL-4) phenotypes and their distinctive effects on stroke outcomes were compared. Results: M (LPS) and M (IL-4) had distinctive morphologies. M (IL-4) had significantly higher gene expressions of the typical M2 markers and other anti-inflammatory genes, while M (LPS) had higher gene expression of typical M1 markers and other pro-inflammatory genes. Nevertheless, M2 gene expressions were also enhanced in M (LPS), and M1 gene expressions were increased in M (IL-4), although with relatively lower levels. Adoptive transfer of M (IL-4) reduced infarction and improved neurological scores, while M (LPS) macrophages generated the opposite effect. Fluorescence activated cell sorting (FACS) and confocal studies suggest that M (IL-4) inhibited, while M (LPS) promoted the infiltration of monocyte-derived macrophages and iNOS-positive cells. Conclusions: M (LPS) and M (IL-4) from cultured BV2 cells indeed are distinctive functional phenotypes, but it is inaccurate to simply classify them into M1 and M2 phenotypes based on a few typical gene and protein markers.","PeriodicalId":52908,"journal":{"name":"Cardiology Plus","volume":"6 1","pages":"264 - 273"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardiology Plus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/2470-7511.334399","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Backgrounds: Whether there are distinctive macrophage functional phenotypes of M1 versus M2 has been debated. We re-examined them by studying M1/M2 gene and protein expressions in cultured BV2 microglial cells and their effects on stroke outcomes in vivo. Methods: BV2 microglia cells were cultured and polarized with lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and interleukin-4 (IL-4) to produce M (LPS) and M (IL-4) phenotypes, which were originally defined as M1 and M2 phenotypes, respectively. Typical M1 and M2 gene or protein expression patterns were analyzed in M (LPS) and M (IL-4) phenotypes and their distinctive effects on stroke outcomes were compared. Results: M (LPS) and M (IL-4) had distinctive morphologies. M (IL-4) had significantly higher gene expressions of the typical M2 markers and other anti-inflammatory genes, while M (LPS) had higher gene expression of typical M1 markers and other pro-inflammatory genes. Nevertheless, M2 gene expressions were also enhanced in M (LPS), and M1 gene expressions were increased in M (IL-4), although with relatively lower levels. Adoptive transfer of M (IL-4) reduced infarction and improved neurological scores, while M (LPS) macrophages generated the opposite effect. Fluorescence activated cell sorting (FACS) and confocal studies suggest that M (IL-4) inhibited, while M (LPS) promoted the infiltration of monocyte-derived macrophages and iNOS-positive cells. Conclusions: M (LPS) and M (IL-4) from cultured BV2 cells indeed are distinctive functional phenotypes, but it is inaccurate to simply classify them into M1 and M2 phenotypes based on a few typical gene and protein markers.