Effect of M1–M2 Polarization on the Motility and Traction Stresses of Primary Human Macrophages
- 763 Downloads
Macrophages become polarized by cues in their environment and this polarization causes a functional change in their behavior. Two main subsets of polarized macrophages have been described. M1, or “classically activated” macrophages, are pro-inflammatory and M2, or “alternatively activated” macrophages, are anti-inflammatory. In this study, we investigated the motility and force generation of primary human macrophages polarized down the M1 and M2 pathways using chemokinesis assays and traction force microscopy on polyacrylamide gels. We found that M1 macrophages are significantly less motile and M2 macrophages are significantly more motile than unactivated M0 macrophages. We also showed that M1 macrophages generate significantly less force than M0 or M2 macrophages. We further found that M0 and M2, but not M1, macrophage force generation is dependent on ROCK signaling, as identified using the chemical inhibitor Y27632. Finally, using the chemical inhibitor blebbistatin, we found that myosin contraction is required for force generation by M0, M1, and M2 macrophages. This study represents the first investigation of the changes in the mechanical motility mechanisms used by macrophages after polarization.
KeywordsM1/M2 Macrophage Polarization Mechanotransduction Chemokinesis Traction force microscopy
C-C chemokine receptor type 7
C-C chemokine ligand type 22
- IL-12, -23, -4, -10, -1β
Interleukin-12, 23, 4, 10, 1β
Macrophage colony stimulating factor
Matrix metallopeptidase 9
Tumor necrosis factor alpha
This work was supported by NIH GM1094287 and HL18208.
Conflict of Interest
Laurel E. Hind, Emily B. Lurier, Micah Dembo, Kara L. Spiller, and Daniel A. Hammer declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
All human subjects research was carried out in accordance with institutional guidelines and was approved by a University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board under HL18208. The authors performed no animal studies in this work.
- 7.Cougoule, C., E. Van Goethem, V. Le Cabec, F. Lafouresse, L. Dupre, V. Mehraj, J. L. Mege, C. Lastrucci, and I. Maridonneau-Parini. Blood leukocytes and macrophages of various phenotypes have distinct abilities to form podosomes and to migrate in 3D environments. Eur. J. Cell Biol. 91:938–949, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Dembo, M. The LIBTRC User’s Guide for Version 2.4. Boston, 2010.Google Scholar
- 10.Dunn, G. A. Characterising a kinesis response: time averaged measures of cell speed and directional persistence. Agents Actions Suppl. 12:14–33, 1983.Google Scholar
- 21.Pless, D. D., Y. C. Lee, S. Roseman, and R. L. Schnaar. Specific cell adhesion to immobilized glycoproteins demonstrated using new reagents for protein and glycoprotein immobilization. J. Biol. Chem. 258:2340–2349, 1983.Google Scholar
- 24.Solinas, G., S. Schiarea, M. Liguori, M. Fabbri, S. Pesce, L. Zammataro, F. Pasqualini, M. Nebuloni, C. Chiabrando, A. Mantovani, and P. Allavena. Tumor-conditioned macrophages secrete migration-stimulating factor: a new marker for M2-polarization, influencing tumor cell motility. J. Immunol. 185:642–652, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar