Advertisement

Regulation of Macrophages by Extracellular Matrix Composition and Adhesion Geometry

  • Thuy U. Luu
  • Wendy F. Liu
Article
  • 47 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Special Edition: Quartet editor Evan Scott

Abstract

The extracellular matrix is a dynamic structural component of tissue and plays a key role in wound healing by providing adhesive cues that regulate cell behavior during tissue repair. Macrophages are essential regulators of inflammation and tissue remodeling, and adaptively change their function in different microenvironments. Although much is known about how soluble factors including cytokines and chemokines influence immune cell function, much less is known about how insoluble cues including those presented by the matrix regulate their behavior. The goal of this study is to understand the potential role of different adhesive proteins and their geometric presentation in regulating macrophage behavior. Previously, using micropatterning and topographical features, we observed that macrophage elongation helps to promote polarization towards a pro-healing phenotype. In this work, we found that adhesion to different extracellular matrix ligands had only a moderate effect on macrophage cytokine secretion in response to prototypical activating stimuli. However, expression of arginase-1, a marker of pro-healing phenotype, was enhanced when cells were cultured on laminin, Matrigel, and vitronectin when compared to collagen, fibronectin, or fibrinogen. When micropatterned into lines, almost all matrix ligands allowed elongation of macrophages and a concomitant increase in arginase-1 expression. Together, these data demonstrate that extracellular matrix composition and adhesion geometry influence macrophage cell shape and function.

Lay Summary

In this study, we examined the effects of different extracellular matrix proteins on the phenotypic polarization of macrophages, a major innate immune cell involved in defense against pathogens, wound healing, and progression of many diseases. Our results suggest that the cytokine secretion response of macrophages to inflammatory or wound-healing stimuli was largely independent of the type of adhesion protein on which they were cultured, although laminin, Matrigel, and vitronectin promoted the expression of the pro-healing marker arginase-1. Interestingly, these matrix proteins are all prevalent in tumor environments, where pro-healing macrophages are often observed. Macrophages forced to elongate on patterned substrates of nearly all ECMs increased their expression of arginase-1. The extracellular matrix is dynamic in structure and composition during healing after injury and progression of many diseases including tissue fibrosis, cancer, or cardiovascular disease. This work may provide insight to how adhesion to different matrix environments and geometries regulates macrophages, and their impact on disease.

Keywords

Extracellular matrix Cell elongation Macrophage Polarization 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Praveen Krishna Veerasubramanian and Linda McCarthy for technical assistance in the laboratory.

Funding Information

This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR) Grant DP2DE023319 and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Grant 1R21AI128519-01A1.. T. U. L. was supported by a California Institute of Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) Training Fellowship (TG2-01152).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

All protocols involving animals were approved by University of California Irvine’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, which is accredited by the Association for the Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALACi).

Supplementary material

40883_2018_65_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (415 kb)
Table S1 (PDF 414 kb)
40883_2018_65_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (639 kb)
Table S2 (PDF 638 kb)
40883_2018_65_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (65 kb)
Supplemental Methods (PDF 65.2 kb)
40883_2018_65_MOESM4_ESM.pdf (822 kb)
Figure S1 (PDF 822 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Wynn TA, Chawla A, Pollard JW. Macrophage biology in development, homeostasis and disease. Nature. 2013;496(7446):445–55.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson JM, Rodriguez A, Chang DT. Foreign body reaction to biomaterials. Semin Immunol. 2008;20(2):86–100.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smim.2007.11.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Martinez FO, Gordon S. The M1 and M2 paradigm of macrophage activation: time for reassessment. F1000Prime Rep. 2014;6:13.  https://doi.org/10.12703/P6-13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yu X, Buttgereit A, Lelios I, Utz SG, Cansever D, Becher B, et al. The cytokine TGF-beta promotes the development and homeostasis of alveolar macrophages. Immunity. 2017;47(5):903–12 e4.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2017.10.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clark RAF, DellaPelle P, Manseau E, Lanigan JM, Dvorak HF, Colvin RB. Blood vessel fibronectin increases in conjunction with endothelial cell proliferation and capillary ingrowth during wound healing. J Investig Dermatol. 1982;79(5):269–76.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1523-1747.ep12500076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    O’Toole EA. Extracellular matrix and keratinocyte migration. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2001;26(6):525–30.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2230.2001.00891.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leight JL, Wozniak MA, Chen S, Lynch ML, Chen CS. Matrix rigidity regulates a switch between TGF-β1-induced apoptosis and epithelial-mesenchymal transition. Mol Biol Cell. 2012;23:781–91.  https://doi.org/10.1091/mbc.E11-06-0537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hinz B. The extracellular matrix and transforming growth factor-beta1: tale of a strained relationship. Matrix Biol. 2015;47:54–65.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matbio.2015.05.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Duffy RM, Sun Y, Feinberg AW. Understanding the role of ECM protein composition and geometric micropatterning for engineering human skeletal muscle. Ann Biomed Eng. 2016;44(6):2076–89.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-016-1592-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Frangogiannis NG. The extracellular matrix in myocardial injury, repair, and remodeling. J Clin Invest. 2017;127(5):1600–12.  https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI87491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jennewein C, Tran N, Paulus P, Ellinghaus P, Eble JA, Zacharowski K. Novel aspects of fibrin(ogen) fragments during inflammation. Mol Med. 2011;17(5–6):568–73.  https://doi.org/10.2119/molmed.2010.00146. Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chow S, Di Girolamo N. Vitronectin: a migration and wound healing factor for human corneal epithelial cells. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014;55(10):6590–600.  https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.14-15054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Barker TH, Engler AJ. The provisional matrix: setting the stage for tissue repair outcomes. Matrix Biol. 2017;60-61:1–4.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matbio.2017.04.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Giussani M, Merlino G, Cappelletti V, Tagliabue E, Daidone MG. Tumor-extracellular matrix interactions: identification of tools associated with breast cancer progression. Semin Cancer Biol. 2015;35:3–10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semcancer.2015.09.012. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pickup MW, Mouw JK, Weaver VM. The extracellular matrix modulates the hallmarks of cancer. EMBO Rep. 2014;15:1243–53.  https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201439246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Slattery ML, John E, Torres-Mejia G, Stern M, Lundgreen A, Hines L, et al. Matrix metalloproteinase genes are associated with breast cancer risk and survival: the Breast Cancer Health Disparities Study. PLoS One. 2013;8(5):e63165.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0063165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sorensen HT, Friis S, Olsen JH, Thulstrup AM, Mellemkjaer L, Linet M, et al. Risk of liver and other types of cancer in patients with cirrhosis: a nationwide cohort study in Denmark. Hepatology. 1998;28(4):921–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Neglia JP, Fitzsimmons SC, Maisonneuve P, Schoni MH, Schoni-Affolter F, Corey M, et al. The risk of cancer among patients with cystic fibrosis. NEJM. 1995;332(8):494–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Du J, Wang Y, Jia L. ECM and atherosclerosis, in Atherosclerosis: risks, mechanisms, and therapies. In: Wang H, Patterson C, editors. Atherosclerosis: risks, mechanisms, and therapies. 1st ed. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2015. p. 343–51.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    RTA M, MGA E, JPM C, MJE K, PHM S, Merkx M, et al. Imaging collagen in intact viable healthy and atherosclerotic arteries using fluorescently labeled CNA35 and two-photon laser scanning microscopy. Mol Imaging. 2007;6(4):247–60.  https://doi.org/10.2310/7290.2007.00021.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wesley RB II, Meng X, Godin D, Galis ZS. Extracellular matrix modulates macrophage functions characteristic to atheroma: collagen type I enhances acquisition of resident macrophage traits by human peripheral blood monocytes in vitro. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 1998;18(3):432–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Armstrong JW, Chapes SK. Effects of extracellular matrix proteins on macrophage differentiation, growth, and function: comparison of liquid and agar culture systems. J Exp Zool. 1994;269(3):178–87.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jez.1402690303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Toral D, Zaveri JSL, Dolgova NV, Clare-Salzler MJ, Keselowsky BG. Integrin-directed modulation of macrophage responses to biomaterials. Biomaterials. 2014;35:3504–15.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.01.007. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McWhorter FY, Wang T, Nguyen P, Chung T, Liu WF. Modulation of macrophage phenotype by cell shape. PNAS. 2013;110(43):17253–8.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1308887110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wang T, Luu TU, Chen A, Khine M, Liu WF. Topographical modulation of macrophage phenotype by shrink-film multi-scale wrinkles. Biomater Sci. 2016;4(6):948–52.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c6bm00224b.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Luu TU, Gott SC, Woo BWK, Rao MP, Liu WF. Micro- and nanopatterned topographical cues for regulating macrophage cell shape and phenotype. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2015;7:28665–72.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.5b10589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Waldo SW, Li Y, Buono C, Zhao B, Billings EM, Chang J, et al. Heterogeneity of human macrophages in culture and in atherosclerotic plaques. Am J Pathol. 2008;172(4):1112–26.  https://doi.org/10.2353/ajpath.2008.070513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Neubrand VE, Pedreno M, Caro M, Forte-Lago I, Delgado M, Gonzalez-Rey E. Mesenchymal stem cells induce the ramification of microglia via the small RhoGTPases Cdc42 and Rac1. Glia. 2014;62(12):1932–42.  https://doi.org/10.1002/glia.22714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chen S, Jones JA, Xu Y, Low HY, Anderson JM, Leong KW. Characterization of topographical effects on macrophage behavior in a foreign body response model. Biomaterials. 2010;31(13):3479–91.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.01.074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Biswas S, Bachay G, Chu J, Hunter DD, Brunken WJ. Laminin-dependent interaction between astrocytes and microglia: a role in retinal angiogenesis. Am J Pathol. 2017;187(9):2112–27.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajpath.2017.05.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fridman R, Giaccone G, Kanemoto T, Martin GR, Gazdar AF, Mulshine JL. Reconstituted basement membrane (matrigel) and laminin can enhance the tumorgenicity and the drug resistance of small cell lung cancer cell lines. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1990;87:6698–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hao W, Zhang X, Xiu B, Yang X, Hu S, Liu Z, et al. Vitronectin: a promising breast cancer serum biomarker for early diagnosis of breast cancer in patients. Tumour Biol. 2016;37(7):8909–16.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13277-015-4750-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Murata K, Motayama T, Kotake C. Collagen types in various layers of the human aorta and their changes with the atherosclerotic process. Atherosclerosis. 1986;60:251–62.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9150(86)90172-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Stary HC, Chandler AB, Dinsmore RE, Fuster V, Glagov S, Insull W, et al. A definition of advanced types of atherosclerotic lesions and a histological classification of atherosclerosis. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 1995;15:1512–31.  https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.92.5.1355. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Shekhonin BV, Domogatsky SP, Idelson GL, Koteliansky VE, Rukosuev VS. Relative distribution of fibronectin and type I, III, IV, V collagens in normal and atherosclerotic intima of human arteries. Atherosclerosis. 1987;67:9–16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9150(87)90259-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Colin S, Chinetti-Gbaguidi G, Staels B. Macrophage phenotypes in atherosclerosis. Immmunol Rev. 2014;262:153–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chinetti-Gbaguidi G, Colin S, Staels B. Macrophage subsets in atherosclerosis. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2015;12(1):10–7.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrcardio.2014.173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mirza R, DiPietro LA, Koh TJ. Selective and specific macrophage ablation is detrimental to wound healing in mice. Am J Pathol. 2009;175(6):2454–62.  https://doi.org/10.2353/ajpath.2009.090248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Xue M, Jackson CJ. Extracellular matrix reorganization during wound healing and its impact on abnormal scarring. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle). 2015;4(3):119–36.  https://doi.org/10.1089/wound.2013.0485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gauglitz GG, Korting HC, Pavicic T, Ruzicka T, Jeschke MG. Hypertrophic scarring and keloids: pathomechanisms and current and emerging treatment strategies. Mol Med. 2011;17(1–2):113–25.  https://doi.org/10.2119/molmed.2009.00153. Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hsieh JY, Smith TD, Meli VS, Tran TN, Botvinick EL, Liu WF. Differential regulation of macrophage inflammatory activation by fibrin and fibrinogen. Acta Biomater. 2017;47:14–24.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2016.09.024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Blakney AK, Swartzlander MD, Bryant SJ. The effects of substrate stiffness on the in vitro activation of macrophages and in vivo host response to poly(ethylene glycol)-based hydrogels. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2012;100(6):1375–86.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.34104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Swartzlander MD, Lynn AD, Blakney AK, Kyriakides TR, Bryant SJ. Understanding the host response to cell-laden poly(ethylene glycol)-based hydrogels. Biomaterials. 2013;34(4):952–64.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.10.037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Previtera ML, Sengupta A. Substrate stiffness regulates proinflammatory mediator production through TLR4 activity in macrophages. PLoS One. 2015;10(12):e0145813.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0145813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Regenerative Engineering Society 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Pharmacological SciencesUniversity of California, IrvineIrvineUSA
  2. 2.The Edwards Lifesciences Center for Advanced Cardiovascular TechnologyUniversity of California, IrvineIrvineUSA
  3. 3.Department of Biomedical EngineeringUniversity of California, IrvineIrvineUSA
  4. 4.Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials ScienceUniversity of California, IrvineIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations