Cited by 616Wound Healing and TreatmentsLiver physiology and pathologyImmune cells in cancer

Selective and Specific Macrophage Ablation Is Detrimental to Wound Healing in Mice

Open access
Mirza, Rita, DiPietro, Luisa A., Koh, Timothy J.·2009·The American Journal of Pathology

Abstract

Macrophages are thought to play important roles during wound healing, but definition of these roles has been hampered by our technical inability to specifically eliminate macrophages during wound repair. The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that specific depletion of macrophages after excisional skin wounding would detrimentally affect healing by reducing the production of growth factors important in the repair process. We used transgenic mice that express the human diphtheria toxin (DT) receptor under the control of the CD11b promoter (DTR mice) to specifically ablate macrophages during wound healing. Mice without the transgene are relatively insensitive to DT, and administration of DT to wild-type mice does not alter macrophage or other inflammatory cell accumulation after injury and does not influence wound healing. In contrast, treatment of DTR mice with DT prevented macrophage accumulation in healing wounds but did not affect the accumulation of neutrophils or monocytes. Such macrophage depletion resulted in delayed re-epithelialization, reduced collagen deposition, impaired angiogenesis, and decreased cell proliferation in the healing wounds. These adverse changes were associated with increased levels of tumor necrosis factor-alpha and reduced levels of transforming growth factor-beta1 and vascular endothelial growth factor in the wound. In summary, macrophages seem to promote both wound closure and dermal healing, in part by regulating the cytokine envi…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2353/ajpath.2009.090248

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mirza, R., DiPietro, L. A., & Koh, T. J.
Affiliations
University of Illinois Chicago (US)
Corresponding author
Koh, Timothy J.
Venue
The American Journal of Pathology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-12
Volume
175
Issue
6
Pages
2454-2462
ISSN
0002-9440 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1977631233
Cited by
616
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 43 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 47 · 2016: 48 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 47 · 2013: 43 · 2012: 27
FWCI
23.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal Of Pathology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5p20gm078426-04, GM-50875)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM050875, P20‐GM078426)
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, wound healing, macrophage depletion, diphtheria toxin receptor, CD11b, excision wound, re-epithelialization, collagen deposition, angiogenesis, TNF-α, TGF-β1, vascular endothelial growth factor, cytokine environment
MeSH terms
Animals, Diphtheria Toxin, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Macrophages, Mice, Transgenic, Skin, Wound Healing, Neovascularization, Physiologic, Intercellular Signaling Peptides and Proteins, Mice

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