Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 457

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Human macrophage polarization in vitro: Maturation and activation methods compared

Open access
Vogel, Daphne Y.S., Glim, Judith E., Stavenuiter, Andrea W.D., Breur, Marjolein, Heijnen, Priscilla, Amor, Sandra, Dijkstra, Christine D., Beelen, Robert H.J.·2014·Immunobiology

Abstract

Macrophages form a heterogeneous cell population displaying multiple functions, and can be polarized into pro- (M1) or anti-inflammatory (M2) macrophages, by environmental factors. Their activation status reflects a beneficial or detrimental role in various diseases. Currently several in vitro maturation and activation protocols are used to induce an M1 or M2 phenotype. Here, the impact of different maturation factors (NHS, M-CSF, or GM-CSF) and activation methods (IFN-γ/LPS, IL-4, dexamethason, IL-10) on the macrophage phenotype was determined. Regarding macrophage morphology, pro-inflammatory (M1) activation stimulated cell elongation, and anti-inflammatory (M2) activation induced a circular appearance. Activation with pro-inflammatory mediators led to increased CD40 and CD64 expression, whereas activation with anti-inflammatory factors resulted in increased levels of MR and CD163. Production of pro-inflammatory cytokines was induced by activation with IFN-γ/LPS, and TGF-β production was enhanced by the maturation factors M-CSF and GM-CSF. Our data demonstrate that macrophage marker expression and cytokine production in vitro is highly dependent on both maturation and activation methods. In vivo macrophage activation is far more complex, since a plethora of stimuli are present. Hence, defining the macrophage activation status ex vivo on a limited number of markers could be indecisive. From this study we conclude that maturation with M-CSF or GM-CSF induces a moderate anti- or pro-inflammatory state respectively, compared to maturation with NHS. CD40 and CD64 are the most distinctive makers for human M1 and CD163 and MR for M2 macrophage activation and therefore can be helpful in determining the activation status of human macrophages ex vivo.

Overview

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.imbio.2014.05.002

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

1 retracted

Show all 44 references

Cited by

See all 457

Metadata

Authors
Vogel, D. Y. S., Glim, J. E., Stavenuiter, A. W. D., Breur, M., Heijnen, P., Amor, S., Dijkstra, C. D., & Beelen, R. H. J.
Venue
Immunobiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-09
Volume
219
Issue
9
Pages
695-703
ISSN
0171-2985 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1963578712
Cited by
457
References
44
FWCI
9.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Human macrophage polarization in vitro: Maturation and activation methods compared. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.imbio.2014.05.002
The paper
Vogel, D. Y. S., Glim, J. E., Stavenuiter, A. W. D., Breur, M., Heijnen, P., Amor, S., Dijkstra, C. D., & Beelen, R. H. J. (2014). Human macrophage polarization in vitro: Maturation and activation methods compared. Immunobiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imbio.2014.05.002

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.