Skip to main content

Advertisement

Figure 8 | Cell Communication and Signaling

Figure 8

From: Cell plasticity in wound healing: paracrine factors of M1/ M2 polarized macrophages influence the phenotypical state of dermal fibroblasts

Figure 8

Fibroblasts stimulated with CM of M1 macrophages followed by stimulation with CM of M2 macrophage or non-CM (switch). When stimulation of HDFs with CM of M1 macrophages is followed by CM of M2 macrophages or non-CM (switch), the pro-inflammatory genes CCL2 and IL6 were completely downregulated and showed the same gene expression as fibroblasts stimulated with only CM of M2 macrophages after 72 h and 144 h (A). MMP1 gene expression after the CM switch was downregulated at 144 h, whereas TIMP1 expression remained similar (B). COL1A1 gene expression was upregulated after the CM switch compared to fibroblasts stimulated with CM of M1 macrophages at 144 h. This gene expression level was similar to fibroblasts stimulated with CM of M2 macrophages (C). After the switch no differences were seen in COL3A1 gene expression compared fibroblasts stimulated with CM of M1 or CM of M2 macrophages (C). * p < 0.05, Difference between HDFs stimulated with CM of M1 polarized and CM of M2 polarized macrophages, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. §§ p < 0.01, Difference between HDFs stimulated with CM of M1 polarized and the switch to non-CM, §§§ p < 0.001. # p < 0.05, Difference between HDFs stimulated with CM of M1 polarized and the CM switch, ### p < 0.001. p < 0.01, Difference between HDFs stimulated with CM of M2 polarized and the switch to non-CM, p < 0.001. ^ p < 0.05, Difference between HDFs stimulated with CM of M2 polarized and the CM switch. Gene expression analysis data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s post-test, n = 4.

Back to article page