↓ Skip to main content

Convenience versus Biological Significance: Are PMA-Differentiated THP-1 Cells a Reliable Substitute for Blood-Derived Macrophages When Studying in Vitro Polarization?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pharmacology, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
200 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
600 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Convenience versus Biological Significance: Are PMA-Differentiated THP-1 Cells a Reliable Substitute for Blood-Derived Macrophages When Studying in Vitro Polarization?
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, February 2018
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2018.00071
Pubmed ID
Authors

Serena Tedesco, Federica De Majo, Jieun Kim, Annalisa Trenti, Lucia Trevisi, Gian Paolo Fadini, Chiara Bolego, Peter W. Zandstra, Andrea Cignarella, Libero Vitiello

Abstract

Human peripheral-blood monocytes are used as an established in vitro system for generating macrophages. For several reasons, monocytic cell lines such as THP-1 have been considered as a possible alternative. In view of their distinct developmental origins and phenotypic attributes, we set out to assess the extent to which human monocyte-derived macrophages (MDMs) and phorbol-12-myristate-13-acetate (PMA)-differentiated THP-1 cells were overlapping across a variety of responses to activating stimuli. Resting (M0) macrophages were polarized toward M1 or M2 phenotypes by 48-h incubation with LPS (1 μg/ml) and IFN-γ (10 ng/ml) or with IL-4 (20 ng/ml) and IL-13 (5 ng/ml), respectively. At the end of stimulation, MDMs displayed more pronounced changes in marker gene expression than THP-1. Upon assaying an array of 41 cytokines, chemokines and growth factors in conditioned media (CM) using the Luminex technology, secretion of 29 out of the 41 proteins was affected by polarized activation. While in 12 of them THP-1 and MDM showed comparable trends, for the remaining 17 proteins their responses to activating stimuli did markedly differ. Quantitative comparison for selected analytes confirmed this pattern. In terms of phenotypic activation markers, measured by flow cytometry, M1 response was similar but the established MDM M2 marker CD163 was undetectable in THP-1 cells. In a beads-based assay, MDM activation did not induce significant changes, whereas M2 activation of THP-1 decreased phagocytic activity compared to M0 and M1. In further biological activity tests, both MDM and THP-1 CM failed to affect proliferation of mouse myogenic progenitors, whereas they both reduced adipogenic differentiation of mouse fibro-adipogenic progenitor cells (M2 to a lesser extent than M1 and M0). Finally, migration of human umbilical vein endothelial cells was enhanced by CM irrespective of cell type and activation state except for M0 CM from MDMs. In summary, PMA-differentiated THP-1 macrophages did not entirely reproduce the response spectrum of primary MDMs to activating stimuli. We suggest that THP-1 be regarded as a simplified model of human macrophages when investigating relatively straightforward biological processes, such as polarization and its functional implications, but not as an alternative source in more comprehensive immunopharmacology and drug screening programs.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 600 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 600 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 110 18%
Student > Master 72 12%
Student > Bachelor 68 11%
Researcher 64 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 27 5%
Other 61 10%
Unknown 198 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 119 20%
Immunology and Microbiology 68 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 48 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 40 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 21 4%
Other 74 12%
Unknown 230 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 November 2020.
All research outputs
#14,968,843
of 23,025,074 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#5,299
of 16,334 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,225
of 330,913 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#117
of 341 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,025,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,334 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,913 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 341 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.