Skip to main content

Table 3 Representative studies illustrating how nanofibers affect macrophage polarization

From: Nanotopographical cues for regulation of macrophages and osteoclasts: emerging opportunities for osseointegration

Fabrication methods and material features

Cells/Animals

M1 markers

M2 markers

Overall polarization

References

Electrospinning

(PU-nanofibers: 270 nm diameter and 480 nm pore size.

PU-microfibers: 1.15 μm diameter and 3.32 μm pore size)

RAW 264.7

Sprague Dawley rats and C57BL/6 mice

↑TNF-α, IL-1β and iNOS (microfibers)

↑CD206 and IL-10 (microfibers)

Nanofibers caused minimal macrophage responses and only mild foreign body reactions compared to microfibers

[91]

Electrospinning

(3D PLGA nanofibrous meshes)

Human monocyte-derived macrophages

↑27E10, MACRO

↓IL-1β

↓TNF-α

↓CD163

M1 but with decreased expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines

[137]

Electrospinning

(Aligned/random PLLA scaffolds, 550 nm and 1.6 μm)

RAW264.7

↓G-CSF

↓IFN-Ύ

↓TNF-α

↓RANTES, MIP-1α

N/A

M2-like

[139]

Electrospinning

PDO scaffolds with different diameters and porosity)

C57BL/6 mice bone marrow derived macrophages and mouse endothelial cells

↓iNOS

↑TGF-β1

↑Arg1

M2 (on larger fiber/pore sizes)

[140]