Cell size of alveolar macrophages: an interspecies comparison.
Open accessAbstract
Alveolar macrophages (AM) play a critical role in the removal of inhaled particles or fibers from the lung. Species differences in AM size may affect the number and size range of particles/fibers that can be actually phagocytized and cleared by AM. The purpose of this study was to compare the cell size of rat, hamster, monkey, and human AM by selective flow cytometric analysis of cell volume. Resident AM from CD rats, Syrian golden hamsters, cynomolgus monkeys, and nonsmoking, healthy human volunteers were harvested by standard bronchoalveolar lavage procedures. Morphometric analysis of AM was performed using a flow cytometer that generates volume signals based on the Coulter-type measurement of electrical resistance. We found that hamster and rat AM had diameters of 13.6 +/- 0.4 microns (n = 8) and 13.1 +/- 0.2 microns (n = 12), respectively. Comparatively, the AM from monkeys (15.3 +/- 0.5 microns, n = 7) and human volunteers (21.2 +/- 0.3 microns, n = 10) were larger than those from rats and hamsters. The AM from humans were significantly larger (p < 0.05) than those from all other species studied, corresponding to a 4-fold larger cell volume of human AM (4990 +/- 174 microns 3) compared to hamster (1328 +/- 123 microns 3) and rat (1166 +/- 42 microns 3) AM. In summary, we have found marked species differences in the cell size of AM. We suggest that the number and size range of particles/fibers that can be phagocytized and cleared by AM may differ among species due to inherent or acquired species differences in AM cell size.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Inconsistencies in the literature may stem from the use of cell lines or murine primary cells, which do not fully represent primary human monocyte-derived macrophages.
“These inconsistencies may stem from the use of cell lines or murine primary cells, which do not fully represent the behaviour of primary human monocyte-derived macrophages.”
From Soft tissue-mimicking hydrogel stiffness modulates polarisation of human monocyte-derived macrophages (2025) · cites this paper as [26]
The Results (p. 1262) report that human alveolar macrophages are significantly larger than rat and hamster alveolar macrophages, and the paper suggests this may affect particle clearance. This lends some support to caution about cross-species comparisons, but the study does not examine cell lines, primary human monocyte-derived macrophages, or whether their differing behaviour explains inconsistencies in the literature. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredMost works on stiffness and macrophages have predominantly relied on cell lines or murine primary cells, with limited investigation using primary human monocyte-derived macrophages.
“Additionally, most works have predominantly relied on cell lines or murine primary cells, with limited investigation using primary human monocyte-derived macrophages.”
From Soft tissue-mimicking hydrogel stiffness modulates polarisation of human monocyte-derived macrophages (2025) · cites this paper as [26]
The Methods (pp. 1261–1262) describe comparing the size of alveolar macrophages collected from rats, hamsters, monkeys, and humans. Searches for stiffness, cell lines, and primary human monocyte-derived macrophages found no passage assessing which cell types predominate in stiffness research. (LLM, conf=0.75)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 25 · Cited by 285
- Authors
- Krombach, F., Münzing, S., Allmeling, A. M., Gerlach, J. T., Behr, J., & Dörger, M.
- Affiliations
- Institut für Chirurgische Forschung (DE)
- ORCID
- Behr, J
- Venue
- Environmental Health Perspectives
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 1997-09
- Volume
- 105
- Issue
- suppl 5
- Pages
- 1261-1263
- ISSN
- 0091-6765 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-9924
- PMC
- PMC1470168
- OpenAlex
- W2044851945
- Cited by
- 285
- References
- 25
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 11
- FWCI
- 2.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- public-domain
- Locations
- Environmental Health Perspectives (publishedVersion, public-domain)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Occupational and environmental lung diseases
- Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Immunotoxicology and immune responses
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Interstitial Lung Diseases and Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis
- Keywords
- alveolar macrophages, cell size, cross-species comparison, cell volume, phagocytosis, particle clearance, bronchoalveolar lavage, rats, hamster, Macaca fascicularis, human
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Animals, Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid, Female, Flow Cytometry, Cricetinae, Humans, Macaca fascicularis, Male, Mesocricetus, Rats, Inbred Strains, Species Specificity, Macrophages, Alveolar, Cell Size, Rats
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
