Transcriptome Analysis Reveals Nonfoamy Rather Than Foamy Plaque Macrophages Are Proinflammatory in Atherosclerotic Murine Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rationale: Monocyte infiltration into the subintimal space and its intracellular lipid accumulation are the most prominent features of atherosclerosis. To understand the pathophysiology of atherosclerotic disease, we need to understand the characteristics of lipid-laden foamy macrophages in the subintimal space during atherosclerosis. Objective: We sought to examine the transcriptomic profiles of foamy and nonfoamy macrophages isolated from atherosclerotic intima. Methods and Results: Single-cell RNA sequencing analysis of CD45 + leukocytes from murine atherosclerotic aorta revealed that there are macrophage subpopulations with distinct differentially expressed genes involved in various functional pathways. To specifically characterize the intimal foamy macrophages of plaque, we developed a lipid staining–based flow cytometric method for analyzing the lipid-laden foam cells of atherosclerotic aortas. We used the fluorescent lipid probe BODIPY493/503 and assessed side-scattered light as an indication of cellular granularity. BODIPY hi SSC hi foamy macrophages were found residing in intima and expressing CD11c. Foamy macrophage accumulation determined by flow cytometry was positively correlated with the severity of atherosclerosis. Bulk RNA sequencing analysis showed that compared with nonfoamy macrophages, foamy macrophages expressed few inflammatory genes but many lipid-processing genes. Intimal nonfoamy macrophages formed the major population expressing IL (interleukin)-1β and many other inflammatory transcripts in atherosclerotic aorta. Conclusions: RNA sequencing analysis of intimal macrophages from atherosclerotic aorta revealed that lipid-loaded plaque macrophages are not likely the plaque macrophages that drive lesional inflammation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".