Cited by 656Wound Healing and TreatmentsLiver physiology and pathologyImmune cells in cancer

Mechanisms of Organ Injury and Repair by Macrophages

Open access
Vannella, Kevin M., Wynn, Thomas A.·2017·Annual Review of Physiology

Abstract

Macrophages regulate tissue regeneration following injury. They can worsen tissue injury by producing reactive oxygen species and other toxic mediators that disrupt cell metabolism, induce apoptosis, and exacerbate ischemic injury. However, they also produce a variety of growth factors, such as IGF-1, VEGF-α, TGF-β, and Wnt proteins that regulate epithelial and endothelial cell proliferation, myofibroblast activation, stem and tissue progenitor cell differentiation, and angiogenesis. Proresolving macrophages in turn restore tissue homeostasis by functioning as anti-inflammatory cells, and macrophage-derived matrix metalloproteinases regulate fibrin and collagen turnover. However, dysregulated macrophage function impairs wound healing and contributes to the development of fibrosis. Consequently, the mechanisms that regulate these different macrophage activation states have become active areas of research. In this review, we discuss the common and unique mechanisms by which macrophages instruct tissue repair in the liver, nervous system, heart, lung, skeletal muscle, and intestine and illustrate how macrophages might be exploited therapeutically.

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 · 10.1146/annurev-physiol-022516-034356

Cites

127 of 127 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?

  • The relative quantification of CD68 and CD163 proteins roughly distinguishes the activation of M1 and M2 macrophages.

    “The relative quantification of CD68 and CD163 proteins roughly distinguishes the activation of M1 and M2 macrophages (Vannella and Wynn, 2017;Huang et al., 2018;Kim et al., 2019).”

    From Nanosilver alleviates foreign body reaction and facilitates wound repair by regulating macrophage polarization (2023) · cites this paper as Vannella and Wynn, 2017

    In “Polarizing Toward Repair” (page not provided), the paper mentions CD68-positive macrophages but does not identify CD68 as an M1 marker; it describes the protective macrophages as neither M(IFN-γ)- nor M(IL-4)-like. Searches for CD163 and for relative CD68/CD163 quantification found no passage establishing that the two proteins distinguish M1 from M2 activation. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Pro-fibrotic macrophages commonly coordinate scar formation via interactions with fibroblasts, the major cellular source of pathological extracellular matrix deposition during fibrosis.

    “pro-fibrotic macrophages commonly coordinate scar formation via a range of interactions with fibroblasts, the major cellular source of pathological extracellular matrix deposition during fibrosis18,27,74–78.”

    From Fibrosis: from mechanisms to medicines (2020) · cites this paper as [77]

  • Proximity is crucial for crosstalk between macrophages and contractile fibroblasts.

    “Previous work has shown that proximity is crucial to allow crosstalk between macrophages and contractile fibroblasts27,77,78”

    From Fibrosis: from mechanisms to medicines (2020) · cites this paper as [77]

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

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vannella, K. M., & Wynn, T. A.
Affiliations
National Institutes of Health (US)
Venue
Annual Review of Physiology
Published
2017-02-10
Volume
79
Issue
1
Pages
593-617
ISSN
  • 0066-4278 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-1585
OpenAlex
W2467677013
Cited by
656
References
127
Citations by year
2026: 52 · 2025: 76 · 2024: 102 · 2023: 78 · 2022: 89 · 2021: 73 · 2020: 66 · 2019: 60 · 2018: 41 · 2017: 19
FWCI
5.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Annual Review of Physiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Wound Healing and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hepatology › Liver physiology and pathology
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Immune cells in cancer
Keywords
macrophages, tissue repair, tissue regeneration, wound healing, macrophage polarization, reactive oxygen species, apoptosis, growth factors, angiogenesis, myofibroblast activation, matrix metalloproteinases, fibrosis, liver, nervous system, heart, lung, skeletal muscle, intestine, anti-inflammatory macrophages
MeSH terms
Animals, Cell Differentiation, Homeostasis, Humans, Macrophages, Regeneration, Wound Healing

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