Cited by 896Tissue Engineering and Regenerative MedicineWound Healing and TreatmentsBone Tissue Engineering Materials

Macrophage phenotype and remodeling outcomes in response to biologic scaffolds with and without a cellular component

Open access
Brown, Bryan N., Valentin, Jolene E., Stewart-Akers, Ann M., McCabe, George P., Badylak, Stephen F.·2009·Biomaterials

Abstract

Recently, macrophages have been characterized as having an M1 or M2 phenotype based on receptor expression, cytokine and effector molecule production, and function. The effects of macrophage phenotype upon tissue remodeling following the implantation of a biomaterial are largely unknown. The objectives of this study were to determine the effects of a cellular component within an implanted extracellular matrix (ECM) scaffold upon macrophage phenotype, and to determine the relationship between macrophage phenotype and tissue remodeling. Partial-thickness defects in the abdominal wall musculature of Sprague-Dawley rats were repaired with autologous body wall tissue, acellular allogeneic rat body wall ECM, xenogeneic pig urinary bladder tissue, or acellular xenogeneic pig urinary bladder ECM. At 3, 7, 14, and 28 days the host tissue response was characterized using histologic, immunohistochemical, and RT-PCR methods. The acellular test articles were shown to elicit a predominantly M2 type response and resulted in constructive remodeling, while those containing a cellular component, even an autologous cellular component, elicited a predominantly M1 type response and resulted in deposition of dense connective tissue and/or scarring. We conclude that the presence of cellular material within an ECM scaffold modulates the phenotype of the macrophages participating in the host response following implantation, and that the phenotype of the macrophages participating in the host response appears to be related to tissue remodeling outcome.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.11.040

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • During degradation of implanted ECM bioscaffolds, ECM components are released and promote the transition to a remodeling phase.

    “What is more, it is widely accepted that during the degradation of implanted ECM bioscaffolds, ECM components are released into the environment and promote the transition to a remodeling phase [18,44,74,78].”

    From Immune Response to Extracellular Matrix Bioscaffolds: A Comprehensive Review (2025) · cites this paper as [74]

    The Introduction identifies biomaterial degradation products as possible stimuli for macrophages, and the Discussion says rapid ECM-scaffold degradation is followed by constructive tissue remodeling (page numbers not provided). The paper does not establish that released ECM components promote the transition to a remodeling phase; that causal mechanism is stronger than its evidence. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Inadequate decellularization retains high amounts of DAMPs or endotoxin, and excessive crosslinking biases macrophages toward pro-inflammatory phenotypes that drive fibrosis and poor remodeling.

    “Mechanistically, inadequate decellularization retains high amounts of damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) or endotoxin, and excessive crosslinking biases macrophages toward pro-inflammatory phenotypes that drive fibrosis and poor remodeling [73,74].”

    From Immune Response to Extracellular Matrix Bioscaffolds: A Comprehensive Review (2025) · cites this paper as [74]

    The Discussion (page not provided) reports that chemically crosslinked scaffolds elicited a predominantly M1 macrophage response and chronic inflammation, whereas non-crosslinked scaffolds elicited an M2 response and constructive remodeling. It also notes residual DNA fragments after decellularization, but does not say inadequate decellularization retains high amounts of DAMPs or endotoxin. The reported crosslinking comparison does not establish that excessive crosslinking drives fibrosis specifically. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Cellular scaffolds had a majority of M1 phenotype and provided a dense, poorly organized collagenous FBC, while decellularized scaffolds favored the M2 phenotype, and displayed both neomatrix formation and early angiogenesis.

    “Immunohistochemical and gene expression analysis using CCR7 and iNOS for M1 and CD163 and Arg for M2 macrophages revealed that cellular scaffolds had a majority of M1 phenotype and provided a dense, poorly organized collagenous FBC, while decellularized scaffolds favored the M2 phenotype, and displayed both neomatrix formation and early angiogenesis.”

    From Unraveling and Harnessing the Immune Response at the Cell–Biomaterial Interface for Tissue Engineering Purposes (2024) · cites this paper as [180]

    The Results (§3.2) report an M1-skewed response to cellular scaffolds and an M2-skewed response to acellular scaffolds. The histopathology Results (§3.1) describe dense, poorly organized collagenous connective tissue after a cellular xenograft, and neomatrix deposition and early angiogenesis after acellular scaffolds. They do not identify the dense tissue as a foreign body capsule (FBC), so that characterization is not supported. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Recognizing the predominant macrophage phenotypic profile can provide a tool to predict and possibly promote a tissue regenerative outcome.

    “Recognition of the predominant MΦ phenotypic profile can provide a tool by which a tissue regenerative outcome can be predicted and possibly promoted [4].”
  • The presence of even an autologous cellular component attracted M1 cells, which was not observed in cell-free constructs.

    “Brown et al. [83], who demonstrated that the presence of even an autologous cellular component attracted M1 cells, which was not observed in cell free constructs.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brown, B. N., Valentin, J. E., Stewart-Akers, A. M., McCabe, G. P., & Badylak, S. F.
Affiliations
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
Corresponding author
Badylak, Stephen F.
Venue
Biomaterials
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-03
Volume
30
Issue
8
Pages
1482-1491
ISSN
0142-9612 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1999579326
Cited by
896
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 46 · 2022: 61 · 2021: 73 · 2020: 47 · 2019: 69 · 2018: 63 · 2017: 73 · 2016: 59 · 2015: 70 · 2014: 76 · 2013: 60 · 2012: 38
FWCI
36.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Biomaterials (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (F31EB007914)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Wound Healing and Treatments
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Bone Tissue Engineering Materials
Keywords
macrophage phenotype, macrophage polarization, tissue remodeling, extracellular matrix scaffolds, acellular scaffolds, cellular scaffolds, host tissue response, scar formation, connective tissue deposition
MeSH terms
Animals, Cell Nucleus, Gene Expression Regulation, Immunohistochemistry, Indoles, Macrophages, Phenotype, Transplantation, Autologous, Transplantation, Heterologous, Transplantation, Homologous, Rats, Sprague-Dawley, Muscle, Skeletal, Prosthesis Implantation, Sus scrofa, Rats, Tissue Scaffolds

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review