Editorial: Macrophage functional phenotypes: no alternatives in dermal wound healing? Robert D. Stout 1 Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, Kentucky, USA 1. Correspondence: Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, KY 40292, USA. E-mail: bobstout@louisville.edu inflammation fibrosis The role of cytokines in selectively amplifying the effector response of macrophages to activating ligands first became apparent circa 1980, with the publication of studies demonstrating that a “lymphokine,” later identified as IFN-γ, enhanced the cytotoxic activity of LPS-stimulated macrophages [ 1 ] . In the early 1990s, Stein et al. [ 2 ] reported that IL-4 enhanced expression of the mannose receptor, an effect clearly distinct from the effects of IFN-γ. Subsequent studies demonstrated that treatment of macrophages with IFN-γ or IL-4, without an activating agent, selectively modified gene expression, resulting in a small number of nonoverlapping “signature” characteristics that distinguished the two cytokines [ 3 ] . The term “alternative phenotype” was coined to distinguish the IL-4-driven phenotype from the “classical,” IFN-γ-driven phenotype. Over the past 15 years, the scientific literature has swelled with publications focused on defining the multitude of diverse macrophage phenotypes resulting from treatment
/lp/fed-of-american-socs-for-experimental-biology/editorial-macrophage-functional-phenotypes-no-alternatives-in-dermal-BsaBWNt2W9