Abstract
Chronic kidney disease (CKD) has become a major health problem worldwide. This review describes the role of macrophages in CKD and highlights the importance of anti-inflammatory M2 macrophage activation in both renal fibrosis and wound healing processes. Furthermore, the mechanisms by which M2 macrophages induce renal repair and regeneration are still under debate and currently demand more attention. The M1/M2 macrophage balance is related to the renal microenvironment and could influence CKD progression. In fact, an inflammatory renal environment and M2 plasticity can be the major hurdles to establishing macrophage cell-based therapies in CKD. M2 macrophage cell-based therapy is promising if the M2 phenotype remains stable and is ‘fixed’ by in vitro manipulation. However, a greater understanding of phenotype polarization is still required. Moreover, better strategies and targets to induce reparative macrophages in vivo should guide future investigations in order to abate kidney diseases.
Keywords: alternatively activated macrophages, end-stage renal failure, phenotype polarization, therapeutic strategy
Macrophage origin and heterogeneity
Macrophages belong to the mononuclear phagocytic system (MPS) [1, 2] and comprise a heterogeneous population of cells that have the capacity to perform a wide range of critical functions [3]. They play an important role in tissue homeostasis and immune responses in normal and diseased kidneys [2, 4]. Macrophages are present in all tissues and originate from common myeloid progenitor cells in the bone marrow [1, 5] under the influence of colony-stimulating factor 1 (CSF-1) [6]. Monocyte development sequentially gives rise to monoblasts, pro-monocytes and finally monocytes, which are released from the bone marrow into the bloodstream [7]. Monocytes then migrate from the blood to the injured tissue and replenish tissue macrophage numbers, especially during inflammation. Macrophages are crucial components of innate immunity; their main function is to clear the interstitial environment of extraneous cellular material [7] and also to generate an adaptive immune response by serving as antigen-presenting cells (APCs) and by recruiting other immune cells such as lymphocytes [5, 8].
Macrophages are divided into different subpopulations based on their functionality and anatomical location, e.g. Kupffer cells, Langerhans cells and microglial cells [9]. They are defined as tissue-resident phagocytic cells that contribute to critical roles in homeostasis, surveillance and tissue injury and repair [5, 10]. In the tissue injury scenario, blood monocytes are recruited to the site of damage and undergo differentiation in response to microenvironment signals to which they are exposed [11]. Therefore, macrophage infiltration in the kidney is a common feature of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in humans, and the correlation between the degree of macrophage infiltration and the severity of renal injury suggests an effector function for macrophages [10]. Hence, during CKD, resident and infiltrating macrophages undergo a range of activation responses such as phagocytosis and production of pro-inflammatory cytokines and toxic metabolites [6].
CKD is becoming one of the most important health problems worldwide [12] and greatly affects patients' quality of life [13]. There is broad agreement that all primary causes of CKD share a common pathogenic pathway of progressive injury resulting from the destructive consequences of scarring (fibrosis) [14]. The development of CKD is characterized by an accumulation of extracellular matrix (ECM) proteins in the glomerulus and interstitium [13], which is thought to be promoted by an aberrant wound healing response involving tubular epithelial cells (TECs), myofibroblasts, fibrocytes and immune cells, among others, thus leading to progressive fibrosis in the kidney and loss of viable nephrons [15].
Following recruitment to the damaged kidney, macrophages can be broadly classified into two different subtypes, depending on their local microenvironment: classically activated (M1) and alternatively activated (M2) macrophages [10, 14, 16]. Although they have been strongly associated with tissue injury [17], they also have a critical role in both host defence and tissue repair [18, 19]. Pro-inflammatory M1 macrophages are produced by exposure to interferon (IFN)-γ or lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and are considered pro-inflammatory due to their capacity to release certain cytokines such as interleukin (IL)-1, IL-6 and tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α [20]. In contrast, M2 macrophages have anti-inflammatory functions and express arginase, mannose receptor and IL-10, among others (Table 1) [10, 20]. Alternatively activated M2 macrophages can be further categorized into three subgroups: M2a induced by IL-4 and/or IL-13, which display a wound-healing (tissue repair) role; M2b induced by immune complexes and M2c, with anti-inflammatory effects and induced by IL-10, transforming growth factor (TGF)-β or glucocorticoids [7, 21]. Thus, macrophages are highly heterogeneous cells that exhibit distinct phenotypes and functionality in response to microenvironment stimuli, leading to the previously described classification system [5, 10]. Although extensive in vitro studies have supported the phenotype classification, this does not necessarily reflect their true phenotypes in vivo [5].
Table 1.
Distinct macrophage populations
| Macrophage phenotype | Stimulation | Effect | Marker expression |
|---|---|---|---|
| M1 | IFN-γ, TNF-α, LPS, GM-GSF | Pro-inflammatory | CD86, CD80, MHC II, Ly6Chi, TLR2, TLR4 |
| M2a | IL-4 and/or IL-13 | Profibrotic | MR/CD206, MHC II, Arg-1 |
| M2b | IC + LPS | Immunoregulation | CD86, MHC II |
| M2c | IL-10, TGF-β, apoptotic cells, glucocorticoids | Anti-inflammatory | MR/CD206, B7-H4, TLR1, TLR8 |
Depending on the microenvironment, macrophages can differentiate into specific populations with distinct functions.
GM-CSF, granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor; IC, immune complexes; IL, interleukin; IFN, interferon; LPS, lipopolysaccharide; MHC II, major histocompatibility complex class II; TLR, toll-like receptor; TNF, tumour necrosis factor.
Pro-inflammatory M1 macrophages in CKD
Early phases of CKD trigger a remarkable infiltrate of immune cells, firstly neutrophils, natural killer (NK) cells and T helper (Th)1/17 cells, followed soon after by M1 macrophages [5]. At sites of tissue injury, the interstitial microenvironment is dominated by pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs) such as adenosine triphosphate (ATP), high mobility group box 1 (HMGB-1) and uric acid, derived from damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) released by necrotic cells [5, 21–24]. During toxic, infectious or traumatic injuries, PAMPs activate resident macrophages as well as parenchymal cells via innate pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) [25, 26], thus leading to the secretion of pro-inflammatory cytokines and providing defence against pathogens and also a functional barrier to prevent further pathogen entries [5, 27, 28]. Inflammation kills host cells at the site of infection, which causes some non-specific collateral tissue damage [26, 29]. In sterile kidney injury, PAMPs are often absent, and DAMPs mostly drive the infiltration of inflammatory macrophages into the sterile kidney [5, 30, 31].
Macrophages detect endogenous danger signals via toll-like receptors (TLRs) [21, 22, 30, 32], intracellular PRRs and the IL-1 receptor (IL-1R) through the adaptor molecule myeloid differentiation primary response gene 88 (MyD88) [33]. Thus, a TLR ligand acting in an MyD88-dependent manner will induce TNF transcription, which can act in conjunction with IFN-γ in an autocrine manner to activate the macrophage population [7]. IFN-γ is released by NK cells in response to stress and infections, which can prime macrophages to secrete pro-inflammatory cytokines [34]. The combination of these two signals results in a macrophage population with enhanced microbicidal effects as well as in increased production of pro-inflammatory cytokines (IL-6, IL-1 and TNF-α), superoxide anions and oxygen and nitrogen radicals. The two signals together also promote cytotoxic adaptive immunity by upregulating major histocompatibility complex class II (MHC II) in conjunction with co-stimulatory molecules (CD40, CD80 and CD86) [35, 36]. Mulay et al. [26] support a theory in which renal injury and inflammation are reciprocally enhanced in an autoamplification loop, referred to as necroinflammation. Cell necrosis releases DAMPs and alarmins that activate infiltrating monocytes via TLRs towards a pro-inflammatory phenotype. Thus, infiltrating macrophages, in turn, further contribute to necroinflammation due to the secretion of numerous pro-inflammatory cytokines [26]; therefore, inhibiting activated pro-inflammatory macrophages would prevent immunopathology in injured kidneys.
These M1 macrophages promote Th1 and Th17 responses and are therefore involved in initiating and sustaining inflammatory processes [7, 37]. In inflammation in mice, Ly6Chigh monocytes are recruited and differentiated into M1 macrophages that express CC-chemokine receptor 2 (CCR-2), thus responding to CC-chemokine ligand 2 (CCL-2), an important chemokine required for monocyte/macrophage recruitment to damaged sites [1, 38]. Pro-inflammatory macrophages also release matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) to enable their migration through basement membranes and interstitial ECM networks [5, 39]. LPS/IFN-γ-activated M1 macrophages induce renal fibrosis by secretion of MMP-9, which increase tubular cell ECM transition via the β-catenin pathway [5]. The transcription factor IRF5 also seems to play a key role in M1 macrophage polarization, suggesting that inhibiting IRF5 might be useful for chronic macrophage-induced inflammation [40].
The pathogenic role of macrophages has been demonstrated by depletion of kidney-resident macrophages with liposomal clodronate (LC) in different types of experimental kidney disease [41–43]. However, increasing evidence from extensive studies shows that macrophages also play a reparative role during disease progression.
Anti-inflammatory M2 macrophages in CKD
Macrophages that secrete anti-inflammatory cytokines and promote wound healing and tissue remodelling have been referred to as alternatively activated macrophages (AAMs) [5, 10], also called M2. The mechanisms by which kidney-resident M1 macrophages switch to an anti-inflammatory M2 phenotype are still not well understood. Detailed studies in which renal injury resolves have identified that macrophages undergo a phenotypic change during recovery and this confers a protective and reparative role [44–46]. Moreover, depletion of macrophages during this phase delays recovery, indicating a functional role for macrophages in renal repair [44]. Macrophages modulated ex vivo with IL-4 and/or IL-13 (M2a) express high levels of mannose receptor (CD206), produce anti-inflammatory IL-10 and have immunoregulatory functions [8, 47]. These cells secrete components of the ECM and therefore their main functions seem to be associated with wound healing and tissue remodelling and repair [7, 10]. Martinez et al. [48] demonstrated that when ECM clearance is deficient due to defects in the engulfment of dying cells, functional markers of renal injury, such as serum creatinine, blood urea nitrogen and proteinuria, progressively increase. This process causes persistent inflammation and consequently an increase in the M1:M2 ratio. Another category of AAMs is the M2b macrophages, which represents crosstalk with B cells. This category induces IL-10 secretion in addition to upregulating antigen presentation and promoting Th2 responses [49]. Both M2a and M2b macrophages have an immunoregulatory role through downregulation of IL-12, IL-6 and TNF [7]. Moreover, M2c macrophages are induced by IL-10, TGF-β and glucocorticoids [50]; this subset is known to exhibit anti-inflammatory cytokine production and suppressive functions in vitro, and they are often referred to as deactivated [21]. Similarly to classically activated macrophages, wound healing macrophages can develop in response to innate and adaptive signals [7]. IL-4 is one of the first signals released during tissue injury by basophils and mast cells, among others, and this early IL-4 production converts resident macrophages into a population reprogrammed to promote wound healing [7].
To date, the diverse roles of macrophages in in vivo studies are still not fully understood, although it is generally known that macrophages eagerly participate in the clearance of apoptotic and necrotic cells in injury resolution and tissue remodelling [5, 51, 52].
Persistent M2 macrophages are associated with fibrosis
Macrophage depletion via anti-macrophage serum or LC nearly always reduced persistent inflammation and also the subsequent development of fibrosis [17, 21]. Nevertheless, renal fibrosis may not only be triggered by pro-inflammatory M1 macrophages, but instead by insufficient epithelial healing or by profibrotic M2 macrophages and fibrocytes [21]. In the face of ongoing damage, sustained M2 macrophage infiltration may result in constant production of several wound healing growth factors [3], and what initially begins as a reparative mechanism may subsequently become harmful. In fact, persistence of the wound healing process could be pathological, resulting in irreversible fibrosis and progressive kidney tissue destruction [3]. On the other hand, M2 macrophages may help to resolve inflammation through high endocytic clearance capacities and the production of trophic factors that promote angiogenesis and mediate wound healing producing ECM [53, 54]. For instance, in vitro cytokines such as IL-4 and IL-13 further promote the M2 phenotype, which predominantly releases fibronectin 1 (FN-1) and other ECM molecules that could contribute directly to renal fibrosis [55, 56]. Likewise, Kim et al. [57] recently demonstrated that M2 macrophages play a more important role than M1 macrophages in the development of fibrosis in an in vitro cisplatin-treated culture. It is important to note that these studies were performed in vitro, and the role of macrophages as a contributing factor in the development of renal fibrosis in vivo remains under discussion.
Members of the TGF-β superfamily are the most extensively studied growth factors derived from macrophages, which are mainly associated with an M2-like phenotype [58], among other cell types such as TECs and myofibroblasts. Within the kidney, macrophage-derived TGF-β may promote fibrosis by paracrine activation of matrix-producing myofibroblasts [59]. Unilateral ureteral obstruction (UUO) is a well-characterized model to investigate the factors that contribute to renal fibrosis [5]. Therefore, many experimental approaches have been studied using this fibrosis model. For instance, Braga et al. [60] demonstrated that M2-phenotype macrophages contribute to renal fibrosis in an MyD88-dependent manner and through TLR signalling pathways. Moreover, galectin-3, a nuclear M2 marker, has been shown to be produced by kidney-resident macrophages and to enhance renal fibrosis in UUO [61]. López-Guisa et al. [62] also demonstrated that macrophages expressing the marker mannose receptor-2 (Mrc2) displayed a fibrosis-attenuating role in UUO [62], as mice deficient in Mrc2 exhibited worsened renal fibrosis. Indeed, to study the macrophage-specific role of TGF-β1 in the development of renal fibrosis, Huen et al. [63] developed mice with a homozygous deletion of TGF-β1 in myeloid lineage cells and demonstrated that despite TGF-β1 mRNA reduction and the prevention of downstream Smad activation, interstitial fibrosis and tubular injury were not significantly different after UUO compared with the control UUO group. Thus, they suggested that specifically targeting myeloid TGF-β1 may not be sufficient to combat the progression of renal fibrosis. Several studies targeting TGF-β1 have highlighted the complex role of cytokine in both injury and wound repair processes, showing that further research is necessary to clarify the functional impact of this complex. Taken together, renal fibrosis may not only be triggered by pro-inflammatory M1 macrophages, but M2 macrophages could also contribute somehow to the development of fibrosis and progressive fibrotic scarring [3].
Further studies in experimental animal models of CKD, such as diabetic nephropathy, undergo suggested that, at later disease stages, macrophages confer a shift towards chronic activation of the M2 phenotype [64, 65], which leads to glomerulosclerosis, tubular interstitial fibrosis and eventually organ failure [65, 66]. Thus, distinct macrophage subsets can coexist in kidney tissue and certain subsets can predominate at different disease stages, from the beginning of kidney damage to the recovery phase [5]. Shen et al. [67] demonstrated that phagocytosis by M1 macrophages to remove dead cells may only function in the early stages of UUO, and M2 macrophages appeared to be the major cell type in advanced stages. These results are in agreement with those reported by Cao et al. [5], who described how, in CKD, due to progressive and persistent injury and inflammation, M1 macrophages persistently remained at sites of tissue injury and consequently reduced numbers of M2-phenotype macrophages were recruited into the kidney. Therefore, M2 macrophages either coexist in small numbers or are absent because of permanent inflammation. Taken together, the mechanisms regulating the distinct functions of M2 macrophages during tissue repair or fibrosis remain largely unclear (Figure 1).
Fig. 1.
M1/M2 macrophage balance depending on chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression. Renal function varies over time, depending on the type of injury, the persistence and severity of the damage and the reparative ability of the kidney. In the early stages of CKD, pro-inflammatory macrophages (M1) infiltrate the injury site and release pro-inflammatory cytokines, which promote an inflammatory state. If the injury resolves, renal function as well as renal mass ameliorate, depending on damage severity and duration. Macrophages also switch to an anti-inflammatory (M2) phenotype, leading to a wound healing phase that may involve tissue fibrosis. However, if there is no injury resolution, M1 macrophages persist at injured sites and there is a decrease in the number of M2 macrophages, which could also subsequently undergo a phenotypic switch to M1. The continuous release of profibrotic and inflammatory factors promote renal fibrosis, leading to renal failure.
M2 macrophage cell-based therapy for renal repair and regeneration
The kidney has limited regenerative capacity. Therefore, interventions such as gene and cell-based therapies are being extensively developed as an alternative treatment modality for the prevention of progression to end-stage renal failure [68]. Nevertheless, there are very few therapies that induce renal repair in chronic nephropathies [69]. For instance, Flaquer et al. [70] demonstrated that hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) gene therapy was able to enhance the amount of bone marrow–derived cells in the diabetic kidney and showed that these cells located around the glomeruli were mainly M2 macrophages. Thus, rodent models are valuable for studying macrophage phenotypes in the context of CKD [71].
Among potential strategies, macrophage cell-based therapy provides a contrast of promising [18] and discordant results at the same time [54, 72, 73]. Macrophages modulated ex vivo and displaying an anti-inflammatory or reparatory activity have been used as cell-based therapy in a number of mouse models of CKD (Table 2). M2 macrophages must meet at least two conditions if they are to be used as a therapeutic tool in vivo: first, the ability to reach the injured tissue or organ, and second, a stable phenotype [10]. These two conditions are particularly important, since infused macrophages may be harmful if they switch from an anti-inflammatory to a pro-inflammatory phenotype.
Table 2.
Effects of macrophage cell-based therapy in different mouse models of CKD
| CKD mouse model | Characteristics | Macrophage cell-based therapy | Results | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unilateral ureteral obstruction (UUO) [56, 59, 73] |
|
|
|
|
| Adriamycin-induced nephropathy (AN) [18, 47, 62] | Gradual development of proteinuria, podocyte injury followed by glomerulosclerosis, tubulointerstitial inflammation and fibrosis |
|
|
The pathophysiology has not been clarified in full detail by the sequence of events, with proteinuria preceding the development of renal fibrotic lesions |
| Diabetic kidney disease [74] |
|
Splenocytes (M0 and M2a) | Amelioration of tubular atrophy, glomerular hypertrophy and interstitial expansion. Degree of interstitial fibrosis, but no effects on renal function |
|
Search criteria: ‘macrophage infusion kidney’, ‘m2 macrophage fibrosis’, ‘transfused macrophages’ and ‘alternatively activated macrophages kidney’.
Professor David Harris's group has extensively investigated the effects of infusing in vitro–generated M2 macrophages in rodent models of both acute kidney failure and CKD [18, 54, 72]. Using a mouse model of adriamycin nephropathy (AN), they demonstrated that a single intravenous injection of 1 × 106 macrophages generated by splenic CD11b+ cells and exposed to IL-10 and TGF-β (M2c) provided increased protection against renal structural and functional injury compared with IL-4/IL-13-exposed macrophages (M2a) [72]. These IL-10/TGF-β-modulated M2 macrophages (M2c) expressed high levels of B7-H4, whereas IL-4/IL-13-modulated macrophages (M2a) did not. Thus, these authors attributed the greater potency of M2c macrophages to the expression of the co-stimulation molecule B7-H4, which suppresses T cell proliferation and induces regulatory T cells both in vitro and in vivo. However, they also demonstrated that infused M2c macrophages did change their phenotype during the disease course, although not towards a distinct M1 phenotype [72, 74]. In a severe combined immunodeficient (SCID) mouse model of AN, the infusion of M2 macrophages isolated from the spleen and modulated ex vivo by IL-4 and IL-13 was associated with an amelioration of renal injury [54]. In contrast, a report by Cao et al. [18] showed that using the same mouse model but with M2 macrophages isolated from the bone marrow (BM-M2 macrophages) failed to reduce proteinuria and to preserve renal function, owing to a change in macrophage phenotype. Therefore, these studies demonstrated that transfused BM-M2 macrophages lost their suppressive function in vivo due to their proliferation, whereas splenic M2 macrophages (SP-M2) were protective because they did not proliferate. The enhanced proliferation of BM-M2 macrophages can be explained by their increased expression of macrophage colony-stimulating factor (M-CSF) receptor, in comparison with SP-M2 macrophages [18], which could be partly prevented by blocking CSF-1-mediated signalling. Transfer of SP-M2 macrophages seems to protect against renal injury, whereas transfer of BM-M2 macrophages appears to promote renal fibrosis [18, 75]. However, the bone marrow, rather than the spleen, represents an accessible source of macrophage precursors for AAM therapy. Therefore, the source of origin of macrophages is another critical issue to bear in mind due to the contradictory outcomes that have been published recently.
Nowadays, the use of anti-inflammatory and regenerative macrophage-derived molecules is increasing. Heme-oxygenase-1 (HO-1), for example, is a protective and anti-inflammatory enzyme upregulated in response to renal injury, whereas its downregulation is associated with susceptibility to damage [76, 77]. Chen et al. [78] demonstrated that sustained overexpression of HO-1 counteracted multiple detrimental renal fibrosis-associated pathological processes in a UUO mouse model. On the other hand, accumulating evidence suggests that TNF-α is involved in diabetic nephropathy progression [79, 80]. Furthermore, Awad et al. [80] demonstrated that blockade of TNF-α conferred kidney protection by reducing albuminuria, plasma creatinine, kidney macrophage recruitment and plasma cytokine levels. Therefore, their results suggest that inhibition of TNF-α may be a viable strategy to treat diabetic nephropathy in humans. Moreover, Lin et al. [81] found that the Wnt pathway may play an important role in tissue regeneration. They showed that Wnt7b was produced by macrophages and was required to stimulate renal repair and regeneration by acting on injured TECs to promote regeneration of the tubule basement membrane, thereby re-establishing renal function and reducing renal fibrosis.
Therefore, macrophages have been shown to be important in renal repair, wound healing and regeneration processes [5]. However, it is still unknown whether they can promote renal repair processes directly by fusing with other cells or transforming into new ones or indirectly by providing help to other cell types [82, 83].
Macrophages: future challenges
Macrophages have been shown to participate actively in tissue repair. Nevertheless, it is important to note that many intermediate phenotypes and many subpopulations are likely to coexist in the same tissue. Moreover, macrophages do not remain in a specific phenotype due to their cell plasticity; they may revert to a resting state and can be subsequently reactivated, depending on the microenvironment [3]. Therefore, a greater understanding is needed in this field [66]. Macrophage dynamics during the different phases of CKD progression are not fully known, and assessment of the predominant macrophage phenotype may be relevant in terms of defining the type of therapy [21]. AAMs have been demonstrated to be protective in reducing renal injury due to their anti-inflammatory role. However, whether these macrophages could become fibrolytic to reduce renal fibrosis still remains unknown [5]. Anders and Ryu [21] have proposed to classify tissue macrophages according to their predominant roles in different phases of kidney disease: pro-inflammatory, anti-inflammatory, profibrotic and fibrolytic macrophages. However, there is a lack of information regarding macrophage types and their dynamics, plasticity and function in human CKD. Hence, more studies are needed before testing macrophage cell-based therapy in humans, since macrophages represent a spectrum of activated phenotypes rather than discrete stable subpopulations [5, 84]. Therefore, better strategies to induce truly regenerative and reparative macrophages in vivo need to be developed.
Conflict of interest statement
None declared.
Acknowledgements
We thank Pau Cruzado-Boix for his assistance with the English language revision.
References
- 1.Nelson PJ, Rees AJ, Griffin MD et al. The renal mononuclear phagocytic system. J Am Soc Nephrol 2012; 23: 194–203 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Cao Q, Wang Y, Wang XM et al. Renal F4/80+ CD11c+ mononuclear phagocytes display phenotypic and functional characteristics of macrophages in health and in adriamycin nephropathy. J Am Soc Nephrol 2015; 26: 349–363 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Ricardo SD, van Goor H, Eddy AA. Macrophage diversity in renal injury and repair. J Clin Invest 2008; 118: 3522–3530 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Cao Q, Wang Y, Harris DCH. Pathogenic and protective role of macrophages in kidney disease. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol 2013; 305: 3–11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Cao Q, Harris DCH, Wang Y. Macrophages in kidney injury, inflammation, and fibrosis. Physiology (Bethesda) 2015; 30: 183–194 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Geissmann F, Manz MG, Jung S et al. Development of monocytes, macrophages, and dendritic cells. Science 2010; 327: 656–661 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Mosser DM, Edwards JP. Exploring the full spectrum of macrophage activation. Nat Rev Immunol 2008; 8: 958–969 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Rogers NM, Ferenbach DA, Isenberg JS et al. Dendritic cells and macrophages in the kidney: a spectrum of good and evil. Nat Rev Nephrol 2014; 10: 625–643 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Pollard JW. Trophic macrophages in development and disease. Nat Rev Immunol 2009; 9: 259–270 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Wang Y, Harris DCH. Macrophages in renal disease. J Am Soc Nephrol 2011; 22: 21–27 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Nikolic-Paterson DJ, Wang S, Lan HY. Macrophages promote renal fibrosis through direct and indirect mechanisms. Kidney Int Suppl 2014; 4: 34–38 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Rgen Bommer J. Prevalence and socio-economic aspects of chronic kidney disease. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2002; 17: 8–11 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Declèves A-E, Sharma K. Novel targets of antifibrotic and anti-inflammatory treatment in CKD. Nat Rev Nephrol 2014: 10: 257–267 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Eddy AA. Overview of the cellular and molecular basis of kidney fibrosis. Kidney Int Suppl 2014; 4: 2–8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Hou FF, Liu Y. New insights into the pathogenesis and therapeutics of kidney fibrosis. Kidney Int Suppl 2014; 4: 1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Meng X-M, Nikolic-Paterson DJ, Lan HY. Inflammatory processes in renal fibrosis. Nat Rev Nephrol 2014; 10: 493–503 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Ricardo SD, Van Goor H, Eddy AA. Science in medicine. Macrophage diversity in renal injury and repair. J Clin Invest 2008; 118: 3522–30 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Cao Q, Wang Y, Zheng D et al. Failed renoprotection by alternatively activated bone marrow macrophages is due to a proliferation-dependent phenotype switch in vivo. Kidney Int 2014: 85: 794–806 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Sica A, Mantovani A. Macrophage plasticity and polarization : in vivo veritas. J Clin Invest 2012; 122: 787–795 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Kinsey GR. Macrophage dynamics in AKI to CKD progression. J Am Soc Nephrol 2014; 25: 209–211 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Anders H-J, Ryu M. Renal microenvironments and macrophage phenotypes determine progression or resolution of renal inflammation and fibrosis. Kidney Int 2011; 80: 915–925 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Anders H-J. Toll-like receptors and danger signaling in kidney injury. J Am Soc Nephrol 2010; 21: 1270–1274 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Rosin DL, Okusa MD. Dangers within: DAMP responses to damage and cell death in kidney disease. J Am Soc Nephrol 2011; 22: 416–425 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Wu H, Ma J, Wang P et al. HMGB1 contributes to kidney ischemia reperfusion injury. J Am Soc Nephrol 2010; 21: 1878–1890 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Rock KL, Latz E, Ontiveros F et al. The sterile inflammatory response. Annu Rev Immunol 2010; 28: 321–342 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Mulay SR, Linkermann A, Anders H-J. Necroinflammation in kidney disease. J Am Soc Nephrol 2016; 27: 27–39 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Anders H-J. Immune system modulation of kidney regeneration—mechanisms and implications. Nat Rev Nephrol 2014; 10: 347–358 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Gurtner GC, Werner S, Barrandon Y et al. Wound repair and regeneration. Nature 2008; 453: 314–321 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Benoit M, Desnues B, Mege J-L. Macrophage polarization in bacterial infections. J Immunol 2008; 181: 3733–3739 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Kono H, Rock KL. How dying cells alert the immune system to danger. Nat Rev Immunol 2008; 8: 279–289 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Chen GY, Nuñez G. Sterile inflammation: sensing and reacting to damage. Nat Rev Immunol 2010; 10: 826–837 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Park JS, Svetkauskaite D, He Q et al. Involvement of toll-like receptors 2 and 4 in cellular activation by high mobility group box 1 protein. J Biol Chem 2004; 279: 7370–7377 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Chen C-J, Kono H, Golenbock D et al. Identification of a key pathway required for the sterile inflammatory response triggered by dying cells. Nat Med 2007; 13: 851–856 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Dale DC, Boxer L, Liles WC. The phagocytes: neutrophils and monocytes. Blood 2008; 112: 935–945 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Gordon S. The macrophage: past, present and future. Eur J Immunol 2007; 37(Suppl 1): 9–17 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Porta C, Riboldi E, Ippolito A et al. Molecular and epigenetic basis of macrophage polarized activation. Semin Immunol 2015; 27: 237–248 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Lichtnekert J, Kawakami T, Parks WC et al. Changes in macrophage phenotype as the immune response evolves. Curr Opin Pharmacol 2013; 13: 555–564 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Novak ML, Koh TJ. Phenotypic transitions of macrophages orchestrate tissue repair. Am J Pathol 2013; 183: 1352–1363 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Sorokin L. The impact of the extracellular matrix on inflammation. Nat Rev Immunol 2010; 10: 712–723 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Weiss M, Byrne AJ, Blazek K et al. IRF5 controls both acute and chronic inflammation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2015; 112: 11001–11006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Jo SK, Sung SA, Cho WY et al. Macrophages contribute to the initiation of ischaemic acute renal failure in rats. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2006; 21: 1231–1239 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Kitamoto K, Machida Y, Uchida J et al. Effects of liposome clodronate on renal leukocyte populations and renal fibrosis in murine obstructive nephropathy. J Pharmacol Sci 2009; 111: 285–292 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Lee S, Huen S, Nishio H et al. Distinct macrophage phenotypes contribute to kidney injury and repair. J Am Soc Nephrol 2011; 22: 317–326 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Zhang M, Yao B, Yang S et al. CSF-1 signaling mediates recovery from acute kidney injury. J Clin Invest 2012; 122: 4519–4532 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Vinuesa E, Hotter G, Jung M et al. Macrophage involvement in the kidney repair phase after ischaemia/reperfusion injury. J Pathol 2008; 214: 104–113 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Lech M, Gröbmayr R, Ryu M et al. Macrophage phenotype controls long-term AKI outcomes--kidney regeneration versus atrophy. J Am Soc Nephrol 2014; 25: 292–304 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Castoldi A, Naffah de Souza C, Câmara NOS et al. The macrophage switch in obesity development. Front Immunol 2016; 6: 1–11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Martinez J, Cunha LD, Park S et al. Noncanonical autophagy inhibits the autoinflammatory, lupus-like response to dying cells. Nature 2016; 533: 115–119 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] [Retracted]
- 49.Martinez FO, Gordon S. The M1 and M2 paradigm of macrophage activation: time for reassessment. F1000Prime Rep 2014; 6: 13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Martinez FO, Sica A, Mantovani A et al. Macrophage activation and polarization. Front Biosci 2008; 13: 453–461 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Huen SC, Cantley LG. Macrophage-mediated injury and repair after ischemic kidney injury. Pediatr Nephrol 2015; 30: 199–209 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Sola A, Weigert A, Jung M et al. Sphingosine-1-phosphate signalling induces the production of Lcn-2 by macrophages to promote kidney regeneration. J Pathol 2011; 225: 597–608 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Mosser DM. The many faces of macrophage activation. J Leukoc Biol 2003; 73: 209–212 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Wang Y, Wang YP, Zheng G et al. Ex vivo programmed macrophages ameliorate experimental chronic inflammatory renal disease. Kidney Int 2007; 72: 290–299 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Gratchev A, Guillot P, Hakiy N et al. Alternatively activated macrophages differentially express fibronectin and its splice variants and the extracellular matrix protein betaIG-H3. Scand J Immunol 2001; 53: 386–392 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Mantovani A, Sica A, Sozzani S et al. The chemokine system in diverse forms of macrophage activation and polarization. Trends Immunol 2004; 25: 677–686 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Kim M-G, Kim SC, Ko YS et al. The role of M2 macrophages in the progression of chronic kidney disease following acute kidney injury. PLoS One 2015; 10: e0143961. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Border WA, Noble NA. Transforming growth factor beta in tissue fibrosis. N Engl J Med 1994; 331: 1286–1292 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Iwano M, Plieth D, Danoff TM et al. Evidence that fibroblasts derive from epithelium during tissue fibrosis. J Clin Invest 2002; 110: 341–350 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Braga TT, Correa-Costa M, Guise YFS et al. MyD88 signaling pathway is involved in renal fibrosis by favoring a TH2 immune response and activating alternative M2 macrophages. Mol Med 2012; 18: 1231–1239 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Henderson NC, Mackinnon AC, Farnworth SL et al. Galectin-3 expression and secretion links macrophages to the promotion of renal fibrosis. Am J Pathol 2008; 172: 288–298 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.López-Guisa JM, Cai X, Collins SJ et al. Mannose receptor 2 attenuates renal fibrosis. J Am Soc Nephrol 2012; 23: 236–251 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63.Huen SC, Moeckel GW, Cantley LG. Macrophage-specific deletion of transforming growth factor-β1 does not prevent renal fibrosis after severe ischemia-reperfusion or obstructive injury. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol 2013; 305: 477–484 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.Nishida M, Okumura Y, Fujimoto S-I et al. Adoptive transfer of macrophages ameliorates renal fibrosis in mice. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2005; 332: 11–16 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Cucak H, Nielsen Fink L, Højgaard Pedersen M et al. Enalapril treatment increases T cell number and promotes polarization towards M1-like macrophages locally in diabetic nephropathy. Int Immunopharmacol 2015; 25: 30–42 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66.Gnudi L. A new chance to beat diabetic kidney disease: innate immunity and MCP-1: a matter of good and bad macrophages? Nephrol Dial Transplant 2015; 30: 525–527 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Shen B, Liu X, Fan Y et al. Macrophages regulate renal fibrosis through modulating TGFβ superfamily signaling. Inflammation 2014; 37: 2076–2084 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68.Hickson LJ, Eirin A, Lerman LO. Challenges and opportunities for stem cell therapy in patients with chronic kidney disease. Kidney Int 2016; 89: 767–778 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69.Remuzzi G, Benigni A, Remuzzi A. Mechanisms of progression and regression of renal lesions of chronic nephropathies and diabetes. J Clin Invest 2006; 116: 288–296 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70.Flaquer M, Franquesa M, Vidal A et al. Hepatocyte growth factor gene therapy enhances infiltration of macrophages and may induce kidney repair in db/db mice as a model of diabetes. Diabetologia 2012; 55: 2059–2068 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71.Alagesan S, Griffin MD. Alternatively activated macrophages as therapeutic agents for kidney disease: in vivo stability is a key factor. Kidney Int 2014; 85: 730–733 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72.Cao Q, Wang Y, Zheng D et al. IL-10/TGF-beta-modified macrophages induce regulatory T cells and protect against adriamycin nephrosis. J Am Soc Nephrol 2010; 21: 933–942 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73.Wilson H. Bone-marrow-derived macrophages genetically modified to produce IL-10 reduce injury in experimental glomerulonephritis. Mol Ther 2002; 6: 710–717 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74.Umemura N, Saio M, Suwa T et al. Tumor-infiltrating myeloid-derived suppressor cells are pleiotropic-inflamed monocytes/macrophages that bear M1- and M2-type characteristics. J Leukoc Biol 2008; 83: 1136–1144 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75.Wang S, Meng X-M, Ng Y-Y et al. TGF-β/Smad3 signalling regulates the transition of bone marrow-derived macrophages into myofibroblasts during tissue fibrosis. Oncotarget 2016; 7: 8809–8822 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76.Ferenbach DA, Nkejabega NCJ, McKay J et al. The induction of macrophage hemeoxygenase-1 is protective during acute kidney injury in aging mice. Kidney Int 2011; 79: 966–976 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77.Gueler F, Park J-K, Rong S et al. Statins attenuate ischemia-reperfusion injury by inducing heme oxygenase-1 in infiltrating macrophages. Am J Pathol 2007; 170: 1192–1199 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78.Chen X, Wei S-Y, Li J-S et al. Overexpression of heme oxygenase-1 prevents renal interstitial inflammation and fibrosis induced by unilateral ureter obstruction. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0147084. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79.Omote K, Gohda T, Murakoshi M et al. Role of the TNF pathway in the progression of diabetic nephropathy in KK-A(y) mice. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol 2014; 306: 1335–1347 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80.Awad AS, You H, Gao T et al. Macrophage-derived tumor necrosis factor-alpha mediates diabetic renal injury. Kidney Int 2015; 88: 722–733 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81.Lin S-L, Li B, Rao S et al. Macrophage Wnt7b is critical for kidney repair and regeneration. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2010; 107: 4194–4199 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82.Zhao Y, Glesne D, Huberman E. A human peripheral blood monocyte-derived subset acts as pluripotent stem cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2003; 100: 2426–2431 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83.Havemann K, Pujol BF, Adamkiewicz J. In vitro transformation of monocytes and dendritic cells into endothelial like cells. Adv Exp Med Biol 2003; 522: 47–57 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 84.Lumeng CN, Bodzin JL, Saltiel AR. Obesity induces a phenotypic switch in adipose tissue macrophage polarization. J Clin Invest 2007; 117: 175–184 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

