Skip to main content
NCBI home page
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2019 Nov 12;14(11):e0224621. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224621

Identification of a novel monocytic phenotype in Classic Hodgkin Lymphoma tumor microenvironment

Ginell R Post 1, Youzhong Yuan 1, Emily R Holthoff 1, Charles M Quick 1, Steven R Post 1,*
Editor: Sumitra Deb2
PMCID: PMC6850552  PMID: 31714922

Abstract

Classic Hodgkin lymphoma (CHL) characteristically shows few malignant cells in a microenvironment comprised of mixed inflammatory cells. Although CHL is associated with a high cure rate, recent studies have associated poor prognosis with absolute monocyte count in peripheral blood and increased monocyte/macrophages in involved lymph nodes. Thus, the role of monocytic infiltration and macrophage differentiation in the tumor microenvironment of CHL may be more relevant than absolute macrophage numbers to defining prognosis in CHL patients and potentially have therapeutic implications. Most studies identify tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) using markers (e.g., CD68) expressed by macrophages and other mononuclear phagocytes, such as monocytes. In contrast, Class A Scavenger Receptor (SR-A/CD204) is expressed by tissue macrophages but not monocytic precursors. In this study, we examined SR-A expression in CHL (n = 43), and compared its expression with that of other macrophage markers. We confirmed a high prevalence of mononuclear cells that stained with CD68, CD163, and CD14 in CHL lymph nodes. However, SR-A protein expression determined by immunohistochemistry was limited to macrophages localized in sclerotic bands characteristic of nodular sclerosis CHL. In contrast, SR-A protein was readily detectable in lymph nodes with metastatic tumor, extra-nodal CHL, T cell/histiocyte-rich large B cell lymphoma, and resident macrophages in non-malignant tissues, including spleen, lymph node, liver and lung. The results of SR-A protein expression paralleled the expression of SR-A mRNA determined by quantitative RT-PCR. These data provide evidence that tumor-infiltrating monocyte/macrophages in CHL have a unique phenotype that likely depends on the microenvironment of nodal CHL.

Introduction

Tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) modulate the development and progression of various cancers. In classic Hodgkin lymphomas (CHL), the number of TAMs exceeds the number of malignant Hodgkin and Reed Sternberg (HRS) cells [1, 2]. The importance of TAMs in CHL is exemplified by several reports indicating that primary treatment failure and decreased overall survival of adult CHL patients is associated with TAM density, measured by CD68, CD163 or colony-stimulating factor 1 receptor (CSF1R) immunoreactivity in diagnostic lymph node specimens [3–8]. In contrast, other studies have shown no prognostic association with CD68 or CD163 expression in adult CHL [9–12]. These discrepant results may relate to diverse patient populations, disease characteristics (e.g., morphologic subtype and EBV status), the methods and threshold values used to quantify macrophage infiltration, or the differentiation/activation state of TAMs [6, 7, 13].

Antibodies commonly used to immunohistochemically define TAMs in CHL include CD68, CD163, CD14, or CSF1R. Monoclonal antibodies to CD68 (KP1 and PG-M1) recognize macrosialin, a glycoprotein associated with lysosomes/endosomes, and bind to tissue macrophages, monocytes, granulocytic precursors, and fibroblasts [14–16]. CD163 is a glycoprotein belonging to the scavenger receptor superfamily [17, 18]. CD163 immunostaining is largely restricted to peripheral blood monocytes and subpopulations of tissue macrophages [18, 19]. Similarly, CSF1R is a receptor tyrosine kinase expressed on myeloid cells, including monocytes, macrophages, and osteoclasts [20, 21]. CD14 is marker of mature monocytes, and is variably expressed on tissue macrophages and follicular dendritic cells [22, 23]. Thus, each of these commonly used “macrophage-specific” markers may be detected on monocytes and other cell types.

The class A scavenger receptor (SR-A; CD204), a pattern recognition cell surface receptor that mediates endocytosis, adhesion, phagocytosis, and cell signaling, is induced during monocyte to macrophage differentiation [24–28]. SR-A expression is restricted to tissue macrophages with little detectable expression in other cell types [29, 30]. SR-A expression has been detected on TAMs in gliomas [31], pancreatic [32], kidney [33], esophageal [34], lung cancer [35], and T cell lymphoma [36]. SR-A expression by TAMs is associated with tumor progression in some, but not all of these tumor types [37]. Based on cell expression pattern, SR-A may be a more specific marker that distinguishes TAMs from other cell types and monocytes.

Because SR-A is a marker of differentiated macrophages, we compared the expression pattern of CD68, CD163, CD14 and SR-A in CHL tumor microenvironment. We found that most of the cells identified with CD68 and/or CD163 were negative for SR-A, with SR-A staining limited to macrophages in the collagenous bands characteristic of nodular sclerosis CHL (NSCHL). Notably, SR-A expression was readily detected in resident macrophages of the spleen, lymph node, liver, and lung, and in both nodal T cell/histiocyte-rich large B cell lymphoma (THRLBCL) and nodal metastatic carcinoma. The results of SR-A protein expression by immunohistochemistry paralleled SR-A mRNA expression determined by quantitative RT-PCR. The lack of SR-A expression on infiltrating cells in the microenvironment of nodal CHL, independent of histologic subtype, Epstein Barr viral (EBV) status and relapsed disease, indicates that these cells are immunophenotypically distinct from resident macrophage populations and TAMs in THRLBCL and nodal metastatic carcinoma.

Materials and methods

Sample selection

In this retrospective case analysis, we reviewed 43 cases of CHL (41 nodal and 2 non-nodal-liver and spleen), 4 cases of THRLBCL, and 5 lymph nodes with metastatic colon cancer. The diagnosis of CHL and THRLBCL were reviewed and confirmed by two clinical hematopathologists (GP and CY) based on morphologic features and immunohistochemical studies as defined by the WHO Classification [38, 39]. Nonmalignant tissues known to have differentiated macrophages, including spleen (n = 2), lymph node (n = 1), liver (n = 2), and lung (n = 2) were selected as positive controls for antibody staining. Formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded tissue (FFPE) specimens were sectioned at 5 μm for immunohistochemical staining or at 10 μm for RNA isolation. This study was reviewed by the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Institutional Review Board (IRB) which determined that this project is not human subject research as defined in 45 CFR 46.102.

Immunohistochemistry

All cases of CHL were immunostained with antibodies to SR-A and CD68 with a subset also immunostained with antibodies to CD163 (n = 18) and/or CD14 (n = 22). Cases of THRLBCL, metastatic tumor, and control tissues were also immunostained with antibodies to SR-A, CD68, CD163, and CD14. Immunohistochemistry was performed using two monoclonal antibodies to SR-A (MRS1; clone OTI9ES; 1:150 and clone UMAB 246; 1:600; OriGene), CD68 (Clone KP-1; Roche), CD163 (Clone MRQ-26 Cellmarque), CD14 (Clone EPR3653; Ventana), CD30 (Clone Ber-H2; Ventana) and CD20 (Clone L26 Ventana). Antigen retrieval and immunostaining for SR-A was performed manually in the UAMS Experimental Pathology Core using heat-induced epitope retrieval in 1mM EDTA in 10mM Tris buffer (pH 9.0) at >15 PSI (Biocare) for 20 minutes. Tissue sections were then incubated with goat anti-mouse (SR-A) followed by avidin-biotin-peroxidase complex (Dako) and developed with diaminobenzadine. All other antibodies were processed on an automated stainer (Ventana).

The intensity, pattern, and percent of CD68, CD163, CD14 and SR-A (clone OTI9ES) positive cells for each case was recorded by a third pathologist blinded to the final pathology (MQ). A second SR-A antibody (clone UMAB246) was used to stain a representative case for each tissue in order to confirm staining results with OTI9ES, but was not quantified. Statistical analysis was performed using a one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post-hoc test to compare relative staining in control tissues, lymph nodes with metastatic tumor and CHL.

RNA isolation and reverse transcription

Total RNA was extracted from sections of FFPE tissues using an RNA isolation kit (Qiagen RNeasy® FFPE; Valencia CA) according to the manufacturer’s recommendations. Briefly, two 10 μm thick sections from paraffin embedded tissue blocks were deparaffinized, incubated in lysis buffer containing proteinase K and DNase, and then applied to RNA-binding columns. The columns were washed with ethanol and RNA eluted in water. RNA samples were analyzed spectrophotometrically on a Nanodrop (NanoDrop 1000 Spectrophotometer, Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc, Wilmington, DE). Only samples with OD 260/280 ratio 1.7–2.1 were used for reverse transcription. cDNA was synthesized from 1 μg RNA by using the high capacity cDNA reverse transcription kit (Applied Biosystems) according to manufacturer’s recommended protocol.

Real time quantitative PCR

A subset of recent (<4 years old) CHL lymph node cases (2 NSCHL, 2 MCCHL, 1 LRCHL), lymph nodes with metastatic tumor, and control tissues were randomly selected for quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) analysis. qRT-PCR was performed using predesigned Applied Biosystems Taqman® real-time PCR gene expression assays (ThermoFisher) using 25 ng of cDNA and 10 nM gene-specific DNA primers [SR-A (Assay ID# Hs00234007), CD163 (Assay ID# Hs00174705), CD68 (Assay ID# Hs02836816), and GAPDH (#Hs03929097)] in a 20 μl reaction. An Applied Biosystems StepOne® Plus Real-Time PCR System was used for amplification using the assay-specified optimized parameters. Total RNA that was not reverse transcribed was used as a negative control. SR-A and CD163 expression in tissues were normalized to CD68 in the same sample, and then the normalized expression was compared with expression in THP-1 cells (ATCC, TIB202) that were differentiated to macrophages by culturing for 3 days in medium containing 200 ng/ml phorbol myristic acid (PMA).

Results

The forty-three cases of CHL identified in the pathology database and analyzed in this study are summarized in Table 1. Of the 43 cases, 33 (77%) were subclassified as nodular sclerosis (NSCHL) variant, six cases (14%) were mixed cellularity (MCCHL), two cases were lymphocyte rich (LRCHL) (4.5%), and two cases (4.5%) were extra-nodal (i.e., unclassified). The majority of cases involved lymph nodes (38/43), were EBV negative (19 of 27 cases with known EBV status), and represented diagnostic tumor specimens (33/43); the remaining ten specimens were relapsed disease.

Table 1. Summary of cases.

Number
(% total)		 Site (n) EBV+
(n = 27)		 Relapsed
(n = 10)
Nodal CHL Subtype
Nodular Sclerosis 33
(77%)		 Lymph node (31)
Mediastinum (2)		 3
1		 8
0
Mixed Cellularity 6
(14%)		 Lymph node (5)
Mediastinum (1)		 1
1		 1
0
Lymphocyte Rich 2
(4.5%)		 Lymph node (2) 0 0
Extra-nodal (unclassified) 2
(4.5%)		 Spleen (1)
Liver (1)		 1
1		 1
0
Open in a new tab

SR-A expression in nodal CHL

CHL histologic variants (NSCHL, MCCHL, LRCHL) were immunostained for CD30 to identify malignant HRS cells, and for CD68, CD163, and CD14 to identify TAMs (Fig 1). Consistent with previous reports, CD68, CD163, and CD14 antibodies strongly stained cells in the CHL tumor microenvironment in each of the variants. A majority of cells that were positive for CD68 (reference marker for macrophages) were also stained with CD163 and CD14. In contrast, the pattern of SR-A staining was distinctly different than that of CD68, CD163, and CD14. Specifically, SR-A immunostaining was negative in macrophages that were in close proximity to CD30 positive HRS tumor cells (i.e., TAMs). When detected, SR-A positive macrophages were only associated with the sclerotic bands associated with NSCHL. The staining pattern of SR-A in nodal CHL was similar when detected using a different monoclonal SR-A antibody (clone UMAB246).

Fig 1. Expression pattern of monocyte/macrophage markers in nodal CHL.

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

Shown are hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and immunostaining patterns of different cellular markers in FFPE sections from representative CHL morphologic variants [nodular sclerosis (NSCHL, left panels), mixed cellularity (MCCHL, middle panels) and lymphocyte rich (LRCHL, right panels)]. CD30 immunoreactivity was used to identify malignant HRS cells. Antibodies to CD68, CD163 and CD14 were used to stain monocyte/macrophages, and staining patterns for these antibodies compared with that of SR-A using two different monoclonal antibodies (clones OTI9ES and UMAB246). Notably, monocyte/macrophages in proximity to the malignant cells in nodal CHL were positive for these three monocyte/macrophage markers. In contrast, antibody staining for SR-A in nodal CHL was limited to the fibrotic bands characteristic of NSCHL.

The overall results comparing CD163, CD14, and SR-A (OTI9ES) staining of TAMs in CHL with that of CD68 (reference marker for macrophages) are summarized in Fig 2. There was strong overlap (67%, p = 0.0003) between CD163 and CD68 staining of cells in tissues (Fig 2A). Similarly, CD14 stained 72% (p = 0.002) of the CD68 positive cells. There was no difference (p = 0.81) between CD163 and CD14 with respect to staining CD68 positive cells. Importantly, SR-A showed a pattern of staining in CHL that was significantly different than CD68, CD163, and CD14, with an overall staining of 15% (p<0.0001) of the CD68 positive cells (Fig 2A). Consistent with SR-A staining in fibrotic bands of NSCHL, this subtype tended to have more SR-A positive cells than other CHL subtypes, although this difference was not significant (p>0.05); Fig 2B). Although the number of cases was low, there was no apparent differences in staining overlap based on positive EBV status (green), relapsed disease (blue) or both (red). However, given that SR-A was not detected in the tumor microenvironment of any of the nodal CHL cases, it is reasonable to conclude that the lack of SR-A expression in this environment is independent of EBV status and relapsed disease.

Fig 2. Analysis of CD163, CD14, and SR-A expression compared to CD68 in CHL lymph nodes.

Fig 2

Open in a new tab

Tissue sections of nodal CHL stained with CD68, CD163, CD14, and SR-A (OTI9ES) were scored by a pathologist. (A) The graph depicts the percent of CD68 positive cells that were also stained with CD163, CD14, or SR-A. * denotes significant differences (p<0.05) from CD68 assessed by one-way t-test; # denotes significant difference (p<0.05) from CD163 and CD14 determined by one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post-hoc test. (B) SR-A staining relative to CD68 in nodal CHL based on morphologic subtype. As shown in Fig 1, SR-A staining of the NSCHL was detected in fibrotic bands (Green symbol: EBV positive cases; Blue symbol: relapsed disease; Red symbol: EBV positive, relapsed disease).

SR-A expression in tissue macrophages

Resident macrophages are found in several tissues including splenic red pulp cords, lymph node, liver (Kupffer cells), and lung (alveolar macrophages). Given the unexpected absence of SR-A staining in TAMs compared to CD68, CD163 and CD14 in nodal CHL, we examined the staining pattern of these immunohistochemical markers in tissue-resident macrophage populations. Both CD68 and CD163 stained red pulp mononuclear cells in the spleen, sinus histiocytes in the lymph node, hepatic Kupffer cells, and alveolar macrophages of the lung (Fig 3). The staining pattern of CD14 differed from that of CD68 and CD163, being positive in a small subset of mononuclear cells in the splenic red pulp, nodal and hepatic sinuses, pulmonary parenchyma and hepatic sinusoidal lining cells; but negative in alveolar macrophages and hepatic Kupffer cells. As reported previously [23], CD14 also uniquely labeled follicular dendritic cells in the germinal centers of lymph nodes. In contrast to the staining pattern of nodal CHL, SR-A staining of tissue-resident macrophages in these tissues was similar to both CD68 and CD163 (Fig 3).

Fig 3. Expression pattern of monocyte/macrophage markers in spleen, lymph node, liver, and lung.

Fig 3

Open in a new tab

Shown are representative H&E and immunostaining patterns of resident tissue monocyte/macrophages in FFPE sections of spleen, lymph node, liver, and lung. SR-A staining (OTI9ES and UMAB246) shows a similar pattern to CD68 and CD163 in the splenic cords and sinus histiocytes (lymph nodes), Kuppfer cells (liver) and alveolar macrophages (lung). CD14 staining was different from the other macrophages markers in splenic red pulp cords, Kuppfer cells (liver), and alveolar macrophages (lung).

The overall results comparing CD163, CD14, and SR-A staining of resident mononuclear cells with that of CD68 are summarized in Fig 4. There was no difference between CD163 and CD68 staining of cells in tissues (p = 0.363); whereas, CD14 stained 16% (p<0.0001) of the CD68 positive cells. The low degree of overlap reflects CD14 staining many cells that were not CD68 positive (Fig 3). Although the overall cellular staining of SR-A in tissues was lower than that of CD68 (60%; p = 0.014), SR-A showed a staining pattern similar to both CD68 and CD163 (Fig 3), with the lowest amount seen in lymph nodes where SR-A staining was limited to mononuclear cells in the sinus (Fig 3).

Fig 4. Analysis of CD163, CD14 and SR-A expression compared to CD68 in resident tissue monocyte/macrophages.

Fig 4

Open in a new tab

A) Tissue-resident monocyte/macrophages in FFPE sections of spleen, lymph node, liver, and lung were immunostained and scored for the percent of CD68 positive cells that also stained with CD163, CD14, or SR-A (OTI9ES). Symbols represent the percent of CD68 positive cells that were co-stained in individual samples. Bars depict the means and range for the individual tissue type. B) Average of CD68 positive monocyte/macrophages that also stained with CD163, CD14, or SR-A across tissue types. Bars depict the mean and SEM. * denotes significant differences (p<0.05) from CD68 assessed by one-way t-test; # denotes significant difference (p<0.05) from CD163 determined by one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post-hoc test.

SR-A expression in other malignancies and non-nodal CHL

Having established that SR-A staining differed between nodal CHL and tissue-resident macrophages, we examined the staining patterns of the monocyte/macrophage markers in other tumor microenvironments including lymph nodes with metastatic colon cancer, CHL involving the liver, and THRLBCL. Similar to CHL, THRLBCL is a B cell lymphoma with a small number of malignant B cells in a background of reactive T cells and histiocytes. The goal of these studies was to determine if SR-A stains TAMs in lymph nodes involved by a different B cell lymphoma and metastatic carcinoma and in CHL involving non-nodal tissue. As shown in Fig 5, CD68, CD163, CD14, and SR-A staining (OTI9ES and UMAB246) were detected in nodal THRLBCL and lymph nodes with metastatic colon cancer. Interestingly, in contrast to SR-A staining of nodal CHL, SR-A expression in TAMs of extra-nodal CHL (liver) was comparable to both CD68 and CD163 (Fig 5). Using CD68 as a reference macrophage marker, we found the overall cellular overlap in these malignancies was 101% (p = 0.88) for CD163, 60% (p = 0.06) for CD14, and 60% (p = 0.02) for SR-A (Fig 6).

Fig 5. Expression pattern of monocyte/macrophage markers in nodal T cell/histiocyte-rich large B cell Lymphoma (THRLBCL), nodal metastatic colon cancer, and hepatic CHL.

Fig 5

Open in a new tab

Shown are representative H&E and immunostaining patterns of monocyte/macrophages in FFPE sections of nodal THRLBCL (left panels), nodal metastatic colon carcinoma (center panels) and extra-nodal CHL (right panels). CD20 identifies malignant B cells in THRLBCL, cytokeratin (CK) shows malignant metastatic tumor cells, and CD30 detects malignant HRS cells in CHL. SR-A staining (OTI9ES and UMAB246) shows a similar pattern to CD68, CD163 and CD14 in each tissue.

Fig 6. Analysis of CD163, CD14, and SR-A expression in TAMs.

Fig 6

Open in a new tab

A) Tumor-associated macrophages present in sections of THRLBCL, metastatic colon cancer, and hepatic CHL were immunostained and scored for the percent of CD68 positive cells that also stained with CD163, CD14, or SR-A (OTI9ES). Symbols represent the percent of CD68 positive cells that were co-stained in individual samples. Bars depict the means and range for the individual tumor types. B) Average of CD68 positive TAMs that also stained with CD163, CD14, or SR-A across tumor types. Bars depict the mean and SEM. * denotes significant differences (p<0.05) from CD68 assessed by one-way t-test; # denotes significant difference (p<0.05) from CD163 determined by one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post-hoc test.

SR-A expression by qRT-PCR

The absence of SR-A staining determined by immunohistochemistry indicates that TAMs in nodal CHL are phenotypically different than resident tissue macrophages, and TAMs in other malignancies including extranodal CHL, THRLBCL, and lymph nodes with metastatic carcinoma. To provide additional support for this observation, we quantified CD68, CD163, and SR-A expression by qRT-PCR of RNA isolated from FFPE blocks in a subset of cases and differentiated human THP-1 macrophages (Fig 7). To account for potential differences in macrophage numbers, the expression of CD163 and SR-A were normalized to CD68 in the same sample, and then results expressed as a fraction of CD68 expression detected in THP-1 macrophages. CD163 expression was readily detected in nodal CHL (NSCHL, MCCHL variants), lung and liver (tissue) and did not differ between NSCHL and MCCHL subtypes (Fig 7A). In contrast, SR-A expression, which was readily detected in both lung and liver, could not be reliably detected in nodal CHL, except at low levels in NSCHL (Fig 7B).

Fig 7. CD163, CD14 and SR-A expression in nodal CHL, lung and liver assessed by qRT-PCR.

Fig 7

Open in a new tab

Total RNA was prepared from FFPE sections of nodal NSCHL (n = 2) and MCCHL (n = 2), from tissue (lung and liver), and differentiated THP-1 macrophages (positive control). After reverse transcription, qRT-PCR was used to quantify expression of CD68, CD163, and SR-A. Relative expression of CD163 and SR-A in macrophages was calculated by normalizing their Ct values to that of CD68 in the same sample (ΔCt), and then to their expression in THP-1 macrophages (ΔΔCt). CD163 expression was readily detected in nodal CHL and lung/liver (tissue), and to a lesser extent in NSCHL and MCCHL. SR-A expression was readily detected in tissue, but was only detected at very low levels in NSCHL and not detected (ND) in MCCHL.

Discussion

Increased macrophage infiltration has been associated with adverse prognosis in adult nodal CHL. This association was originally established from results of gene expression profiling that showed over-representation in the gene signatures of monocyte/macrophages and from immunohistochemistry using antibodies to CD68 [4]. To provide additional insight regarding the immunophenotype of TAMs in CHL, cases of nodal CHL were immunostained for SR-A. In contrast to CD68, CD163, and CD14 which are expressed by monocytes and macrophages, SR-A expression is restricted to differentiated tissue macrophages. Our results show that cellular SR-A immunoreactivity is similar to that of CD68 in nonmalignant tissue-resident macrophages (Figs 3 and 4), lymph nodes with metastatic carcinoma, nodal THRLBCL and extra-nodal CHL (Figs 5 and 6). In contrast, the mononuclear cells in nodal CHL strongly express CD68, CD163 and CD14, but SR-A expression in nodal CHL was not detected in the cell-rich tumor microenvironment and was limited to the sclerotic bands characteristic of the NSCHL (Fig 1). The findings of decreased SR-A protein expression by immunohistochemistry paralleled qRT-PCR results showing a lack of SR-A mRNA in nodal MCCHL and low-level transcripts in nodal NSCHL. SR-A staining of resident tissue macrophages, macrophages in extra-nodal CHL, and macrophages other tumor microenvironments support the conclusion that the lack of SR-A staining of mononuclear cells in nodal CHL reflects a monocytic phenotype that is unique to the microenvironment of nodal CHL.

Notably, SR-A expression was identified on CD68 positive macrophages in the fibrotic bands characteristic of NSCHL (Fig 1). Malignant HRS cells induce IL-6 secretion by fibroblasts [40], and secrete cytokines such as IL-13, TNF-α and TGF-β that not only modulate SR-A expression in human monocyte-derived macrophages [41–44], but also increase fibroblast proliferation and deposition of a collagen-rich extracellular matrix characteristic of the NSCHL [45]. SR-A mediates the adhesion of macrophages to extracellular matrix and may enhance their retention at sites of matrix deposition (e.g., sclerotic bands) [46–56]. This matrix-rich environment may be distinct from that of the cell-rich, matrix-poor environment in nodal CHL. Expression of SR-A only in the sclerotic bands characteristic of nodal NSCHL suggests that macrophages in this matrix-rich microenvironment may be exposed to factors, such as collagen, that regulate macrophage retention and monocyte-macrophage differentiation.

The absence of SR-A expression in nodal CHL could arise from different mechanisms. First, SR-A expression may be selectively down-regulated in macrophages in the immediate tumor microenvironment. Macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) and macrophage colony-stimulating factor (M-CSF), cytokines that regulate SR-A expression [57], are present in the CHL tumor microenvironment. Treatment of primary monocytes with M-CSF stimulates their differentiation into macrophages and increases SR-A expression [21, 58–61]. Other factors, including TLR ligands [62], high glucose [63], and ligands for SR-A [59] also increase macrophage expression of SR-A. Interestingly, following removal of stimulus, SR-A expression returns to its original basal level [59]. In contrast, IL-6, IFN-γ, TNF-α, and TGF-β reportedly reduce SR-A expression by 50–70% in human monocyte-derived macrophages [41–44]. However, to our knowledge there are no reports of signals that completely inhibit macrophage expression of SR-A. Therefore, it seems unlikely that the absence of SR-A expression by TAMs in the immediate tumor microenvironment in nodal CHL results from the selective repression of SR-A transcription.

SR-A expression is absent in monocytes and becomes expressed during their differentiation into macrophages [24–28]. Thus, another mechanism for the lack of SR-A expression in TAMs of nodal CHL is that SR-A expression was not upregulated during the differentiation of recruited monocytes. In support of such a possibility, GM-CSF reportedly significantly reduces, although does not completely block, the induction of SR-A expression during the differentiation of human monocyte-derived macrophages [64]. Although we cannot exclude the possibility that failure to detect SR-A in nodal CHL results from a failure to induce SR-A during macrophage differentiation, it seems unlikely because TAMs in extra-nodal CHL, TAMs in other tumors, and resident tissue macrophages all express SR-A indicating that such a mechanism would be unique to TAMs in the tumor microenvironment of nodal CHL.

An alternative explanation is that TAMs in the microenvironment of nodal CHL are not fully differentiated macrophages. In addition to not expressing SR-A, this possibility is suggested by the finding that the inflammatory cells strongly express the monocyte marker CD14, as well as CD163 and CD68, antigens shared by monocytes and macrophages. This is relevant because adverse outcome in CHL patients is predicted by an absolute monocyte count >750 cells/μL in peripheral blood at diagnosis [65]. Further, in CHL patients with relapsed disease post-allotransplant, tumor-infiltrating mononuclear cells are derived from circulating monocytes and not resident macrophages [66]. Functionally, Vari et al recently showed that in adult CHL PD-L1/CD163/CD14 expressing mononuclear cells suppress NK cell activation [67]. Together, these results indicate a potential role for recruited monocytes in CHL pathogenesis.

Overall, our results indicate that in nodal CHL, regardless of morphologic variant, EBV status or relapsed disease, monocytes are recruited into the tumor microenvironment but do not differentiate into a TAM phenotype characteristic of tissue-resident macrophages or TAMs in other settings. Therefore, identifying the unique factors in the nodal microenvironment of CHL that underlie monocyte infiltration and result in restricted differentiation will advance our understanding of the complexity of TAM phenotypes and may suggest novel therapeutic strategies for treating CHL patients.

Supporting information

S1 File. Supporting data.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file. (16.9KB, xlsx)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Beixiang He, Jacqueline Post, and Jennifer James for technical assistance.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This study was supported by an NIH award to SRP (R21CA185691) and intramural funding from the Department of Pathology. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Kuppers R. The biology of Hodgkin's lymphoma. Nat Rev Cancer. 2009;9(1):15–27. 10.1038/nrc2542 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Aldinucci D, Gloghini A, Pinto A, De Filippi R, Carbone A. The classical Hodgkin's lymphoma microenvironment and its role in promoting tumour growth and immune escape. The Journal of pathology. 2010;221(3):248–63. 10.1002/path.2711 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Guo B, Cen H, Tan X, Ke Q. Meta-analysis of the prognostic and clinical value of tumor-associated macrophages in adult classical Hodgkin lymphoma. BMC Med. 2016;14(1):159 10.1186/s12916-016-0711-6 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Steidl C, Lee T, Shah SP, Farinha P, Han G, Nayar T, et al. Tumor-associated macrophages and survival in classic Hodgkin's lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(10):875–85. 10.1056/NEJMoa0905680 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Koh YW, Park C, Yoon DH, Suh C, Huh J. CSF-1R expression in tumor-associated macrophages is associated with worse prognosis in classical Hodgkin lymphoma. Am J Clin Pathol. 2014;141(4):573–83. Epub 2014/03/13. 10.1309/AJCPR92TDDFARISU . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Zaki MA, Wada N, Ikeda J, Shibayama H, Hashimoto K, Yamagami T, et al. Prognostic implication of types of tumor-associated macrophages in Hodgkin lymphoma. Virchows Arch. 2011;459(4):361–6. Epub 2011/08/30. 10.1007/s00428-011-1140-8 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Komohara Y, Niino D, Ohnishi K, Ohshima K, Takeya M. Role of tumor-associated macrophages in hematological malignancies. Pathol Int. 2015;65(4):170–6. 10.1111/pin.12259 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Touati M, Delage-Corre M, Monteil J, Abraham J, Moreau S, Remenieras L, et al. CD68-positive tumor-associated macrophages predict unfavorable treatment outcomes in classical Hodgkin lymphoma in correlation with interim fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography assessment. Leuk Lymphoma. 2015;56(2):332–41. Epub 2014/04/29. 10.3109/10428194.2014.917636 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Azambuja D, Natkunam Y, Biasoli I, Lossos IS, Anderson MW, Morais JC, et al. Lack of association of tumor-associated macrophages with clinical outcome in patients with classical Hodgkin's lymphoma. Ann Oncol. 2012;23(3):736–42. Epub 2011/05/24. 10.1093/annonc/mdr157 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Sanchez-Espiridion B, Martin-Moreno AM, Montalban C, Medeiros LJ, Vega F, Younes A, et al. Immunohistochemical markers for tumor associated macrophages and survival in advanced classical Hodgkin's lymphoma. Haematologica. 2012;97(7):1080–4. 10.3324/haematol.2011.055459 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Harris JA, Jain S, Ren Q, Zarineh A, Liu C, Ibrahim S. CD163 versus CD68 in tumor associated macrophages of classical Hodgkin lymphoma. Diagnostic pathology. 2012;7:12 Epub 2012/02/01. 10.1186/1746-1596-7-12 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Agur A, Amir G, Paltiel O, Klein M, Dann EJ, Goldschmidt H, et al. CD68 staining correlates with the size of residual mass but not with survival in classical Hodgkin lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma. 2015;56(5):1315–9. Epub 2014/09/11. 10.3109/10428194.2014.963081 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Scott DW, Steidl C. The classical Hodgkin lymphoma tumor microenvironment: macrophages and gene expression-based modeling. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2014;2014(1):144–50. Epub 2015/02/20. 10.1182/asheducation-2014.1.144 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Falini B, Flenghi L, Pileri S, Gambacorta M, Bigerna B, Durkop H, et al. PG-M1: a new monoclonal antibody directed against a fixative-resistant epitope on the macrophage-restricted form of the CD68 molecule. Am J Pathol. 1993;142(5):1359–72. Epub 1993/05/01. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Pulford KA, Rigney EM, Micklem KJ, Jones M, Stross WP, Gatter KC, et al. KP1: a new monoclonal antibody that detects a monocyte/macrophage associated antigen in routinely processed tissue sections. J Clin Pathol. 1989;42(4):414–21. Epub 1989/04/01. 10.1136/jcp.42.4.414 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Kunisch E, Fuhrmann R, Roth A, Winter R, Lungershausen W, Kinne RW. Macrophage specificity of three anti-CD68 monoclonal antibodies (KP1, EBM11, and PGM1) widely used for immunohistochemistry and flow cytometry. Annals of the rheumatic diseases. 2004;63(7):774–84. Epub 2004/06/15. 10.1136/ard.2003.013029 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.PrabhuDas MR, Baldwin CL, Bollyky PL, Bowdish DME, Drickamer K, Febbraio M, et al. A Consensus Definitive Classification of Scavenger Receptors and Their Roles in Health and Disease. J Immunol. 2017;198(10):3775–89. Epub 2017/05/10. 10.4049/jimmunol.1700373 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Lau SK, Chu PG, Weiss LM. CD163: a specific marker of macrophages in paraffin-embedded tissue samples. Am J Clin Pathol. 2004;122(5):794–801. Epub 2004/10/20. 10.1309/QHD6-YFN8-1KQX-UUH6 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Hogger P, Dreier J, Droste A, Buck F, Sorg C. Identification of the integral membrane protein RM3/1 on human monocytes as a glucocorticoid-inducible member of the scavenger receptor cysteine-rich family (CD163). J Immunol. 1998;161(4):1883–90. Epub 1998/08/26. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Stanley ER, Guilbert LJ, Tushinski RJ, Bartelmez SH. CSF-1—a mononuclear phagocyte lineage-specific hemopoietic growth factor. J Cell Biochem. 1983;21(2):151–9. 10.1002/jcb.240210206 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Sweet MJ, Hume DA. CSF-1 as a regulator of macrophage activation and immune responses. Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz). 2003;51(3):169–77. Epub 2003/08/05. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Landmann R, Muller B, Zimmerli W. CD14, new aspects of ligand and signal diversity. Microbes Infect. 2000;2(3):295–304. Epub 2000/04/12. 10.1016/s1286-4579(00)00298-7 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Marmey B, Boix C, Barbaroux JB, Dieu-Nosjean MC, Diebold J, Audouin J, et al. CD14 and CD169 expression in human lymph nodes and spleen: specific expansion of CD14+CD169- monocyte-derived cells in diffuse large B-cell lymphomas. Human pathology. 2006;37(1):68–77. Epub 2005/12/20. 10.1016/j.humpath.2005.09.016 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Wu H, Moulton K, Horvai A, Parik S, Glass CK. Combinatorial interactions between AP-1 and ets domain proteins contribute to the developmental regulation of the macrophage scavenger receptor gene. Mol Cell Biol. 1994;14(3):2129–39. Epub 1994/03/01. 10.1128/mcb.14.3.2129 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Geng Y, Kodama T, Hansson GK. Differential expression of scavenger receptor isoforms during monocyte-macrophage differentiation and foam cell formation. Arterioscler Thromb. 1994;14(5):798–806. Epub 1994/05/01. 10.1161/01.atv.14.5.798 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Horvai A, Palinski W, Wu H, Moulton KS, Kalla K, Glass CK. Scavenger receptor A gene regulatory elements target gene expression to macrophages and to foam cells of atherosclerotic lesions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1995;92(12):5391–5. Epub 1995/06/06. 10.1073/pnas.92.12.5391 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Moulton KS, Wu H, Barnett J, Parthasarathy S, Glass CK. Regulated expression of the human acetylated low density lipoprotein receptor gene and isolation of promoter sequences. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1992;89(17):8102–6. Epub 1992/09/01. 10.1073/pnas.89.17.8102 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Moulton KS, Semple K, Wu H, Glass CK. Cell-specific expression of the macrophage scavenger receptor gene is dependent on PU.1 and a composite AP-1/ets motif. Mol Cell Biol. 1994;14(7):4408–18. Epub 1994/07/01. 10.1128/mcb.14.7.4408 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Gough PJ, Greaves DR, Suzuki H, Hakkinen T, Hiltunen MO, Turunen M, et al. Analysis of macrophage scavenger receptor (SR-A) expression in human aortic atherosclerotic lesions. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 1999;19(3):461–71. Epub 1999/03/12. 10.1161/01.atv.19.3.461 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Naito M, Kodama T, Matsumoto A, Doi T, Takahashi K. Tissue distribution, intracellular localization, and in vitro expression of bovine macrophage scavenger receptors. Am J Pathol. 1991;139(6):1411–23. Epub 1991/12/01. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Komohara Y, Ohnishi K, Kuratsu J, Takeya M. Possible involvement of the M2 anti-inflammatory macrophage phenotype in growth of human gliomas. The Journal of pathology. 2008;216(1):15–24. Epub 2008/06/17. 10.1002/path.2370 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Yoshikawa K, Mitsunaga S, Kinoshita T, Konishi M, Takahashi S, Gotohda N, et al. Impact of tumor-associated macrophages on invasive ductal carcinoma of the pancreas head. Cancer science. 2012;103(11):2012–20. Epub 2012/08/31. 10.1111/j.1349-7006.2012.02411.x . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Komohara Y, Hasita H, Ohnishi K, Fujiwara Y, Suzu S, Eto M, et al. Macrophage infiltration and its prognostic relevance in clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Cancer science. 2011;102(7):1424–31. Epub 2011/04/02. 10.1111/j.1349-7006.2011.01945.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Shigeoka M, Urakawa N, Nakamura T, Nishio M, Watajima T, Kuroda D, et al. Tumor associated macrophage expressing CD204 is associated with tumor aggressiveness of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer science. 2013;104(8):1112–9. Epub 2013/05/08. 10.1111/cas.12188 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Hirayama S, Ishii G, Nagai K, Ono S, Kojima M, Yamauchi C, et al. Prognostic impact of CD204-positive macrophages in lung squamous cell carcinoma: possible contribution of Cd204-positive macrophages to the tumor-promoting microenvironment. Journal of thoracic oncology: official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. 2012;7(12):1790–7. Epub 2012/11/17. 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3182745968 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Saito Y, Komohara Y, Niino D, Horlad H, Ohnishi K, Takeya H, et al. Role of CD204-positive tumor-associated macrophages in adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma. J Clin Exp Hematop. 2014;54(1):59–65. Epub 2014/06/20. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Takeya M, Komohara Y. Role of tumor-associated macrophages in human malignancies: friend or foe? Pathol Int. 2016;66(9):491–505. Epub 2016/07/23. 10.1111/pin.12440 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Jaffe ES, Stein H, Swerdlow SH. Classic Hodgkin lymphoma In: Swerdlow SH, Campo E, Harris NL, Jaffe ES, Pileri SA, Stein H, et al. , editors. WHO Classification of Tumors of Haematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues. 4th ed Lyon: IARC; 2017. p. 435–42. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Ott G, Delabie J, Gascoyne RD, Campo E, Stein H, Jaffe ES. T-cell/histiocytes-rich large B-cell lymphoma In: Swerdlow SH, Campo E, Harris NL, Jaffe ES, Pileri SA, Stein H, et al. , editors. WHO Classification of Tumors of Haematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues. 4th ed Lyon: IARC; 2017. p. 289–99. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Cattaruzza L, Gloghini A, Olivo K, Di Francia R, Lorenzon D, De Filippi R, et al. Functional coexpression of Interleukin (IL)-7 and its receptor (IL-7R) on Hodgkin and Reed-Sternberg cells: Involvement of IL-7 in tumor cell growth and microenvironmental interactions of Hodgkin's lymphoma. Int J Cancer. 2009;125(5):1092–101. Epub 2009/04/25. 10.1002/ijc.24389 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Liao HS, Matsumoto A, Itakura H, Doi T, Honda M, Kodama T, et al. Transcriptional inhibition by interleukin-6 of the class A macrophage scavenger receptor in macrophages derived from human peripheral monocytes and the THP-1 monocytic cell line. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 1999;19(8):1872–80. Epub 1999/08/14. 10.1161/01.atv.19.8.1872 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Geng YJ, Hansson GK. Interferon-gamma inhibits scavenger receptor expression and foam cell formation in human monocyte-derived macrophages. J Clin Invest. 1992;89(4):1322–30. Epub 1992/04/01. 10.1172/JCI115718 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Hsu HY, Nicholson AC, Hajjar DP. Inhibition of macrophage scavenger receptor activity by tumor necrosis factor-alpha is transcriptionally and post-transcriptionally regulated. J Biol Chem. 1996;271(13):7767–73. 10.1074/jbc.271.13.7767 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Bottalico LA, Wager RE, Agellon LB, Assoian RK, Tabas I. Transforming growth factor-beta 1 inhibits scavenger receptor activity in THP-1 human macrophages. J Biol Chem. 1991;266(34):22866–71. Epub 1991/12/05. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Aldinucci D, Lorenzon D, Olivo K, Rapana B, Gattei V. Interactions between tissue fibroblasts in lymph nodes and Hodgkin/Reed-Sternberg cells. Leuk Lymphoma. 2004;45(9):1731–9. Epub 2004/06/30. 10.1080/10428190410001683633 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Doi T, Higashino K, Kurihara Y, Wada Y, Miyazaki T, Nakamura H, et al. Charged collagen structure mediates the recognition of negatively charged macromolecules by macrophage scavenger receptors. J Biol Chem. 1993;268(3):2126–33. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Mazur A, Holthoff E, Vadali S, Kelly T, Post SR. Cleavage of Type I Collagen by Fibroblast Activation Protein-alpha Enhances Class A Scavenger Receptor Mediated Macrophage Adhesion. PloS one. 2016;11(3):e0150287 Epub 2016/03/05. 10.1371/journal.pone.0150287 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Neyen C, Pluddemann A, Roversi P, Thomas B, Cai L, van der Westhuyzen DR, et al. Macrophage scavenger receptor A mediates adhesion to apolipoproteins A-I and E. Biochemistry. 2009;48(50):11858–71. Epub 2009/11/17. 10.1021/bi9013769 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Santiago-Garcia J, Kodama T, Pitas RE. The class A scavenger receptor binds to proteoglycans and mediates adhesion of macrophages to the extracellular matrix. J Biol Chem. 2003;278(9):6942–6. Epub 2002/12/19. 10.1074/jbc.M208358200 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Kirkham PA, Spooner G, Ffoulkes-Jones C, Calvez R. Cigarette smoke triggers macrophage adhesion and activation: role of lipid peroxidation products and scavenger receptor. Free radical biology & medicine. 2003;35(7):697–710. Epub 2003/10/30. 10.1016/S0891-5849(03)00390-3 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Santiago-Garcia J, Mas-Oliva J, Innerarity TL, Pitas RE. Secreted forms of the amyloid-beta precursor protein are ligands for the class A scavenger receptor. J Biol Chem. 2001;276(33):30655–61. Epub 2001/06/05. 10.1074/jbc.M102879200 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Gowen BB, Borg TK, Ghaffar A, Mayer EP. The collagenous domain of class A scavenger receptors is involved in macrophage adhesion to collagens. J Leukoc Biol. 2001;69(4):575–82. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Gowen BB, Borg TK, Ghaffar A, Mayer EP. Selective adhesion of macrophages to denatured forms of type I collagen is mediated by scavenger receptors. Matrix biology: journal of the International Society for Matrix Biology. 2000;19(1):61–71. 10.1016/s0945-053x(99)00052-9 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.van Velzen AG, Suzuki H, Kodama T, van Berkel TJ. The role of scavenger receptor class A in the adhesion of cells is dependent on cell type and cellular activation state. Exp Cell Res. 1999;250(1):264–71. 10.1006/excr.1999.4530 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.El Khoury J, Thomas CA, Loike JD, Hickman SE, Cao L, Silverstein SC. Macrophages adhere to glucose-modified basement membrane collagen IV via their scavenger receptors. J Biol Chem. 1994;269(14):10197–200. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Fraser I, Hughes D, Gordon S. Divalent cation-independent macrophage adhesion inhibited by monoclonal antibody to murine scavenger receptor. Nature. 1993;364(6435):343–6. 10.1038/364343a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Kuppers R, Engert A, Hansmann ML. Hodgkin lymphoma. J Clin Invest. 2012;122(10):3439–47. Epub 2012/10/02. 10.1172/JCI61245 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.de Villiers WJ, Fraser IP, Hughes DA, Doyle AG, Gordon S. Macrophage-colony-stimulating factor selectively enhances macrophage scavenger receptor expression and function. J Exp Med. 1994;180(2):705–9. 10.1084/jem.180.2.705 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Nikolic D, Calderon L, Du L, Post SR. SR-A ligand and M-CSF dynamically regulate SR-A expression and function in primary macrophages via p38 MAPK activation. BMC Immunol. 2011;12:37 Epub 2011/07/09. 10.1186/1471-2172-12-37 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Hamilton JA. CSF-1 signal transduction. J Leukoc Biol. 1997;62(2):145–55. 10.1002/jlb.62.2.145 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Pixley FJ, Stanley ER. CSF-1 regulation of the wandering macrophage: complexity in action. Trends Cell Biol. 2004;14(11):628–38. Epub 2004/11/03. 10.1016/j.tcb.2004.09.016 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Xu WY, Wang L, Wang HM, Wang YQ, Liang YF, Zhao TT, et al. TLR2 and TLR4 agonists synergistically up-regulate SR-A in RAW264.7 through p38. Molecular immunology. 2007;44(9):2315–23. Epub 2006/12/19. 10.1016/j.molimm.2006.11.013 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Fukuhara-Takaki K, Sakai M, Sakamoto Y, Takeya M, Horiuchi S. Expression of class A scavenger receptor is enhanced by high glucose in vitro and under diabetic conditions in vivo: one mechanism for an increased rate of atherosclerosis in diabetes. J Biol Chem. 2005;280(5):3355–64. Epub 2004/11/24. 10.1074/jbc.M408715200 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.van der Kooij MA, Morand OH, Kempen HJ, van Berkel TJ. Decrease in scavenger receptor expression in human monocyte-derived macrophages treated with granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 1996;16(1):106–14. Epub 1996/01/01. 10.1161/01.atv.16.1.106 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Tadmor T, Bari A, Marcheselli L, Sacchi S, Aviv A, Baldini L, et al. Absolute Monocyte Count and Lymphocyte-Monocyte Ratio Predict Outcome in Nodular Sclerosis Hodgkin Lymphoma: Evaluation Based on Data From 1450 Patients. Mayo Clin Proc. 2015;90(6):756–64. Epub 2015/06/06. 10.1016/j.mayocp.2015.03.025 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Crane GM, Samols MA, Morsberger LA, Yonescu R, Thiess ML, Batista DA, et al. Tumor-Infiltrating Macrophages in Post-Transplant, Relapsed Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma Are Donor-Derived. PloS one. 2016;11(9):e0163559 10.1371/journal.pone.0163559 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Vari F, Arpon D, Keane C, Hertzberg MS, Talaulikar D, Jain S, et al. Immune evasion via PD-1/PD-L1 on NK cells and monocyte/macrophages is more prominent in Hodgkin lymphoma than DLBCL. Blood. 2018;131(16):1809–19. Epub 2018/02/17. 10.1182/blood-2017-07-796342 [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

S1 File. Supporting data.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file. (16.9KB, xlsx)

Data Availability Statement

All relevant data are within the manuscript and Supporting Information files.

Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

RESOURCES