Neutrophils promote the development of reparative macrophages mediated by ROS to orchestrate liver repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Phagocytes, including neutrophils and macrophages, have been suggested to function in a cooperative way in the initial phase of inflammatory responses, but their interaction and integration in the resolution of inflammation and tissue repair remain unclear. Here we show that neutrophils have crucial functions in liver repair by promoting the phenotypic conversion of pro-inflammatory Ly6C hi CX 3 CR1 lo monocytes/macrophages to pro-resolving Ly6C lo CX 3 CR1 hi macrophages. Intriguingly, reactive oxygen species (ROS), expressed predominantly by neutrophils, are important mediators that trigger this phenotypic conversion to promote liver repair. Moreover, this conversion is prevented by the depletion of neutrophils via anti-Ly6G antibody, genetic deficiency of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, or genetic deficiency of NADPH oxidase 2 (Nox2). By contrast, adoptive transfer of WT rather than Nox2 −/− neutrophils rescues the impaired phenotypic conversion of macrophages in neutrophil-depleted mice. Our findings thus identify an intricate cooperation between neutrophils and macrophages that orchestrate resolution of inflammation and tissue repair.
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".