Cited by 729Tissue Engineering and Regenerative MedicineWound Healing and TreatmentsBone Tissue Engineering Materials

Macrophage Phenotype as a Determinant of Biologic Scaffold Remodeling

Badylak, Stephen F., Valentin, Jolene E., Ravindra, Anjani K., McCabe, George P., Stewart-Akers, Ann M.·2008·Tissue Engineering Part A

Abstract

Macrophage phenotype can be characterized as proinflammatory (M1) or immunomodulatory and tissue remodeling (M2). The present study used a rat model to determine the macrophage phenotype at the site of implantation of two biologic scaffolds that were derived from porcine small intestinal submucosa (SIS) and that differed mainly according to their method of processing: the Restore device (SIS) and the CuffPatch device (carbodiimide crosslinked form of porcine-derived SIS (CDI-SIS)). An autologous tissue graft was used as a control implant. Immunohistologic methods were used to identify macrophage surface markers CD68 (pan macrophages), CD80 and CCR7 (M1 profile), and CD163 (M2 profile) during the remodeling process. All graft sites were characterized by the dense population of CD68+ mononuclear cells present during the first 4 weeks. The SIS device elicited a predominantly CD163+ response (M2 profile, p < 0.001) and showed constructive remodeling at 16 weeks. The CDI-SIS device showed a predominately CD80+ and CCR7+ response (M1 profile, p < 0.03), and at 16 weeks was characterized by chronic inflammation. The autologous tissue graft showed a predominately CD163+ response (M2) at 1 week, with a dual M1/M2 population (CD80+, CCR7+, and CD163+) by 2 and 4 weeks and moderately well organized connective tissue by 16 weeks. The processing methods used during the manufacturing of a biologic scaffold can have a profound influence upon the macrophage phenotype profile and downstream remodeling events. Routine histologic examination alone is inadequate to determine the phenotype of mononuclear cells that participate in the host response to the scaffold.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/ten.tea.2007.0264

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • ECM degradation peptides promote M2-like phenotypes in vitro and in vivo.

    “promotion of M2-like phenotypes in vitro [40,44,153] and in vivo [152,154,155].”
  • Macrophages polarized toward M2 are identified by high expression levels of IL-10, CD163, and amplification of Arginase 1 (Arg1), switching focus to releasing signals for constructive tissue remodeling.

    “Macrophages that polarized toward to the M2 phenotype are identified by high expression levels of IL‐10, CD163, and amplification of the Arginase 1 (Arg1) enzyme, hereby switching the focus to releasing signals for constructive tissue remodeling.[ 68 ]”
  • ECM-based scaffold materials promote a switch from predominantly M1 cells immediately after implantation to a population enriched in M2 cells by 7-14 days post implantation.

    “Briefly, scaffold materials composed of extracellular matrix (ECM) have been shown to promote a switch from a predominantly M1 cell population immediately following implantation to a population enriched in M2 cells by 7–14 days post implantation [154–156].”
  • Modification of ECM scaffolds with chemical crosslinking agents that delay or prevent macrophage-mediated degradation inhibits the beneficial M2 response and results in scar tissue formation.

    “However, modification of such scaffold materials with chemical crosslinking agents which delay or prevent macrophage mediated degradation inhibits the formation of the beneficial M2 response and results in downstream scar tissue formation [154].”
  • This constructive remodeling response is directly linked to the material's ability to modulate macrophage phenotype.

    “This constructive remodeling response has been directly linked to the ability of the material to modulate macrophage phenotype [154–157].”

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Badylak, S. F., Valentin, J. E., Ravindra, A. K., McCabe, G. P., & Stewart-Akers, A. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
  • McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Corresponding author
Badylak, Stephen F.
Venue
Tissue Engineering Part A
Published
2008-11
Volume
14
Issue
11
Pages
1835-1842
ISSN
  • 1937-3341 (ISSN-L)
  • 1937-335X
OpenAlex
W2042569529
Cited by
729
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 50 · 2020: 49 · 2019: 46 · 2018: 41 · 2017: 67 · 2016: 62 · 2015: 47 · 2014: 71 · 2013: 63 · 2012: 34
FWCI
28.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Tissue Engineering Part A (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (R01AR054940)
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, M1/M2 macrophages, porcine small intestinal submucosa, carbodiimide crosslinking, chronic inflammation, CD163, CD80, CCR7, CD68, tissue grafts
MeSH terms
CD163 Antigen, Animals, Immunohistochemistry, Macrophages, Random Allocation, Receptors, Cell Surface, Swine, Antigens, Differentiation, Myelomonocytic, Antigens, CD, Rats, Sprague-Dawley, B7-1 Antigen, Tissue Engineering, Rats, Receptors, CCR7, 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