Skip to main content
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine logoLink to American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
editorial
. 2019 Sep 15;200(6):656–657. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201905-0952ED

The Transcriptional Signature in Alveolar Macrophages Dictates Acute Respiratory Distress Outcomes

Vickram Tejwani 1, Franco R D’Alessio 1
PMCID: PMC6775879  PMID: 31106567

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a severe inflammatory lung disease with high mortality (1). Unremitting lung inflammation portends a poor prognosis for patients with ARDS (2), but pharmacotherapies designed to suppress inflammation have failed to improve outcomes. Although many cell types are involved in tissue repair, macrophages have been shown to exhibit critical activity at all stages of repair and fibrosis due to their highly flexible programming (3). Interest in the role of alveolar macrophages (AMs) in ARDS was sparked in 1994 by Steinberg and colleagues, who showed a progressive increase in AMs on Days 3, 7, and 14 after ARDS onset in survivors compared with no change or a decrease in AMs in nonsurvivors (4). Since then, there has been an evolving recognition of distinct macrophage phenotypes, resulting in the identification of mechanisms that guide macrophages to take on proinflammatory, profibrotic, proinflammatory, antifibrotic, and proresolving roles. Emerging evidence supports the notion that phenotypically distinct AMs mediate different phases of acute lung inflammation and resolution (5). Building on this, persistent increased proinflammatory expression of the AM surface markers CD11b and myeloid-related proteins 8 and 14 was associated with decreased survival in patients with ARDS (6).

In this issue of the Journal, Morrell and colleagues (pp. 732–741) advance our understanding of AM transcriptional activation over the first 8 days of ARDS and its association with death or persistent mechanical ventilation at Day 28 (dead/intubatedDay28) (7). The authors obtained BAL fluid from patients who had been intubated for ARDS at Days 1, 4, and 8, unless they were deceased, had been extubated, or did not meet safety criteria for bronchoscopy. AMs were isolated by negative immunoselection followed by RNA extraction and microarray hybridization. Expression of PD-L1 (CD274) was upregulated in alive/extubatedDay28 cells on Day 1. Morrell and colleagues recently found that AMs from individuals who experienced a high number of ventilator-free days had significantly higher PD-L1 gene expression than those obtained from subjects who experienced a low number of ventilator-free days (8). Conversely, in this study, FKBP51 (FK506 binding protein 5) was upregulated in dead/intubatedDay28 cells. FKBP51 is a steroid-responsive gene, and in other conditions, such as eosinophilic esophagitis and asthma, it has been suggested to be glucocorticoid responsive (9, 10). Increased AM transcription of the FKBP51 gene early suggests a subgroup with a proinflammatory phenotype associated with increased dead/intubatedDay28 but that may derive greater benefit from glucocorticoid administration.

The authors used a gene set enrichment analysis to identify 50 “hallmark” gene sets defined in the Molecular Signature Database. In accordance with previously observed phases of ARDS, the association of AM transcription with alive/extubatedDay28 varied with different temporal measurements (Days 1, 4, and 8). A proinflammatory “M1-like” pathway that was enriched at Day 1 was associated with alive/extubatedDay28 and, conversely, persistent M1 polarization enrichment at Days 4 and 8 was associated with dead/intubatedDay28. Enrichment of an “M2-like” pathway (which is classically associated with healing) at Days 4 and 8 was associated with 28-day survival. Their analysis identified 32 individual genes that were enriched in alive/extubatedDay28 cells at Day 1 of ARDS and were enriched in dead/intubatedDay28 cells at Day 8.

This analysis provides important AM transcriptional signatures that were obtained serially over the first 8 days of ARDS, shows their association with survival and mechanical ventilation at Day 28, and underscores the importance of AMs in injury and resolution. Moreover, it reinforces the need to better phenotype patients with ARDS. Numerous clinical trials have failed, in part, due to a lack of subphenotyping and personalized treatment (11, 12). However, this study has some limitations that merit consideration. The RNA profile was assessed by microarray hybridization, which depends on the transcriptional abundance and may not be as accurate as RNA sequencing (13). Furthermore, although the M1 and M2 pathways are included in the Molecular Signature Database, questions remain as to whether this paradigm truly captures macrophage plasticity and diversity in vivo (14). Lastly, macrophage transcriptional profiles require confirmation by protein expression and ultimately cellular function. With emerging technologies such as mass cytometry (CyTOF) and multicolor flow cytometry, AMs can be evaluated for the expression of surface markers and transcription factors, and the production of proinflammatory and reparative cytokine profiles.

Serial changes of AM transcriptional profiles in ARDS and their association with mortality and mechanical ventilation at Day 28 have important implications. This study identifies a cellular etiology for differences observed in ARDS mortality. The authors point out that these temporal changes may be responsible for negative trials of granulocyte–macrophage colony–stimulating factor, which has a proinflammatory effect but may have been administered too late (on Days 3–7) (15), and statins, which have an antiinflammatory effect but were administered too early (within 48 h) after ARDS onset (16). In future studies examining the reprogramming of AMs to enhance their prorepair “M2 polarization” using, e.g., IL-4 complex (17) or MEK1/2 inhibitors (18), it will be important to consider the timing of treatment and ensure that it is not administered too soon after ARDS onset, to increase the likelihood of observing a benefit. This study will strengthen the rationale for further alveolar cellular phenotyping for ARDS, and the development of treatments that can target the repair mechanism and not solely dampen early inflammatory responses.

Supplementary Material

Supplements
Author disclosures

Footnotes

Supported by Department of Defense grant W81XWH-16-1-0510 (F.R.D’A.) and NIH grant T32 HL-7534-35 (V.T.).

Originally Published in Press as DOI: 10.1164/rccm.201905-0952ED on May 19, 2019

Author disclosures are available with the text of this article at www.atsjournals.org.

References

  • 1.Bellani G, Laffey JG, Pham T, Fan E, Brochard L, Esteban A, et al. Epidemiology, patterns of care, and mortality for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in intensive care units in 50 countries. JAMA. 2016;315:788–800. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.0291. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Doyle RL, Szaflarski N, Modin GW, Wiener-Kronish JP, Matthay MA. Identification of patients with acute lung injury: predictors of mortality. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1995;152:1818–1824. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.152.6.8520742. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Wynn TA, Barron L. Macrophages: master regulators of inflammation and fibrosis. Semin Liver Dis. 2010;30:245–257. doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1255354. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Steinberg KP, Milberg JA, Martin TR, Maunder RJ, Cockrill BA, Hudson LD. Evolution of bronchoalveolar cell populations in the adult respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1994;150:113–122. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.150.1.8025736. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Aggarwal NR, King LS, D’Alessio FR. Diverse macrophage populations mediate acute lung inflammation and resolution. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. 2014;306:L709–L725. doi: 10.1152/ajplung.00341.2013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Rosseau S, Hammerl P, Maus U, Walmrath H-D, Schütte H, Grimminger F, et al. Phenotypic characterization of alveolar monocyte recruitment in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. 2017;279:L25–L35. doi: 10.1152/ajplung.2000.279.1.L25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Morrell ED, Bhatraju PK, Mikacenic CR, Radella F, II, Manicone AM, Stapleton RD, et al. Alveolar macrophage transcriptional programs are associated with outcomes in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019;200:732–741. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201807-1381OC. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Morrell ED, Wiedeman A, Long SA, Gharib SA, West TE, Skerrett SJ, et al. Cytometry TOF identifies alveolar macrophage subtypes in acute respiratory distress syndrome. JCI Insight. 2018;3:99281. doi: 10.1172/jci.insight.99281. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Caldwell JM, Blanchard C, Collins MH, Putnam PE, Kaul A, Aceves SS, et al. Glucocorticoid-regulated genes in eosinophilic esophagitis: a role for FKBP51. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2010;125:879–888, e8. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2010.01.038. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Tajiri T, Matsumoto H, Niimi A, Ito I, Oguma T, Nakaji H, et al. Association of eosinophilic inflammation with FKBP51 expression in sputum cells in asthma. PLoS One. 2013;8:e65284. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0065284. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Calfee CS, Delucchi K, Parsons PE, Thompson BT, Ware LB, Matthay MA NHLBI ARDS Network. Subphenotypes in acute respiratory distress syndrome: latent class analysis of data from two randomised controlled trials. Lancet Respir Med. 2014;2:611–620. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(14)70097-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Shankar-Hari M, McAuley DF. Acute respiratory distress syndrome phenotypes and identifying treatable traits: the dawn of personalized medicine for ARDS. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017;195:280–281. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201608-1729ED. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Wang C, Gong B, Bushel PR, Thierry-Mieg J, Thierry-Mieg D, Xu J, et al. The concordance between RNA-seq and microarray data depends on chemical treatment and transcript abundance. Nat Biotechnol. 2014;32:926–932. doi: 10.1038/nbt.3001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Martinez FO, Gordon S. The M1 and M2 paradigm of macrophage activation: time for reassessment. F1000Prime Rep. 2014;6:13. doi: 10.12703/P6-13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Paine R, III, Standiford TJ, Dechert RE, Moss M, Martin GS, Rosenberg AL, et al. A randomized trial of recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor for patients with acute lung injury. Crit Care Med. 2012;40:90–97. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31822d7bf0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.McAuley DF, Laffey JG, O’Kane CM, Perkins GD, Mullan B, Trinder TJ, et al. Simvastatin in the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:1675–1703. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1403285. [Published erratum appears in N Engl J Med 375:2010.] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.D’Alessio FR, Craig JM, Singer BD, Files DC, Mock JR, Garibaldi BT, et al. Enhanced resolution of experimental ARDS through IL-4-mediated lung macrophage reprogramming. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. 2016;310:L733–L746. doi: 10.1152/ajplung.00419.2015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Long ME, Eddy WE, Gong KQ, Lovelace-Macon LL, McMahan RS, Charron J, et al. MEK1/2 inhibition promotes macrophage reparative properties. J Immunol. 2017;198:862–872. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1601059. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplements
Author disclosures

Articles from American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine are provided here courtesy of American Thoracic Society

RESOURCES