Macrophages are ubiquitous innate immune cells found in almost every organ of the body. This family of phagocytes, represented by a variety of different subtypes, performs tissue-specific functions as diverse as maintaining surfactant homeostasis performed by alveolar macrophages in the lung (1) or synaptic pruning carried out by the brain’s microglial cells (2). However, these cells are united by a common role in host defense, providing a rapid response to microbial invaders and/or tissue damage. As part of this function, macrophages adopt activation states, also referred to as polarization, during different phases of an infection, cycling between a resting state (M0) in the absence of infection to a highly proinflammatory and antimicrobial state upon exposure to microbial ligands or inflammatory cytokines, referred to as M1. In contrast to this classical inflammatory activation, alternative macrophage activation states are referred to as M2, which can promote the resolution of inflammation and tissue repair, among other functions (3).
This M1/M2 paradigm is not without its detractors. Several alternative models and naming systems have been proposed over the years, and with good reason (4–8). At least 3 distinct types of M2 activation have been proposed using idealized in vitro condition systems (9), and these systems cannot fully capture the complexity of these phenotypic shifts, which are a composite of multiple stimuli in specific tissue microenvironments overlaid with their temporal fluctuations. Furthermore, the M1/M2 system may be inappropriate for describing the behavior of certain macrophage subtypes. For example, alveolar macrophages do not express or only minimally express many of the canonical M1 markers (10, 11) and, due to their plasticity, often display intermediate M1/M2 phenotypes (12). For all its flaws, the M1/M2 system persists as a utilitarian shorthand that remains helpful when describing the pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory extremes of the polarization continuum and the shifts of macrophage populations toward these extremes as part of specific disease processes (13–15).
Given the broad transcriptional reprogramming necessary for macrophages to transition from one polarization state to another, which is generally accepted to involve the altered expression of over 1,000 genes (16), significant attention has been focused on the core transcriptional regulators responsible for its control. The M1 state, as induced by interferon-gamma (IFNγ) and microbial ligands signaling via toll-like receptors, is largely controlled by STAT1 (17, 18), IRF1 (19, 20), and NF-κB (21), whereas the M2 state, as induced by interleukin (IL)-4, IL-10, and IL-13, is mainly controlled by STAT3, 6 (22), and PPARγ (23). These circuits are not separate but linked by a range of feedback loops and cross-inhibitory mechanisms that generally provide coherent shifts from one state to the other. Superimposed on these mechanisms are the activities of other transcription factors, including c-Myc (24), KLF4 (25), p53 (26), and HIF1 (27), which are better known for regulating other cellular processes, such as cell proliferation, apoptosis, and the response to hypoxia, but make significant contributions to the regulation of either or both the M1 and M2 states.
In this Research Topic, which includes 6 (Mini) Reviews and Original Research Articles, we explore some of the lesser-known and often surprising contributors to macrophage polarization. These include extrinsic factors of the macrophage microenvironment, such as the biomechanical properties of the extracellular matrix and non-cytokine signaling agents, as well as intrinsic factors ranging from transcriptional co-regulators that modulate the activity of core M1 and M2 transcription factors to long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) and microRNAs (miRNAs) that influence the process at a post-transcriptional level.
In the first set of articles exploring the role of the tissue microenvironment on macrophage polarization, Joshi et al. provided an Original Research article on how changes in tissue compliance or stiffness and integrin signaling contribute to this process. This work was motivated by the observation that mechanical properties differ markedly between tissues, with stiffness generally increasing in the disease states (e.g., infection, cancer, and fibrosis), which has the potential to impact macrophage phenotype through mechanotransduction. This was explored using an in vitro model system employing bone marrow-derived macrophages incubated on collagen-coated gels of varying stiffness and in parallel experiments with leukadherin-1 (LA1), a CD11b agonist, used to activate integrin-mediated mechanical signaling independent of the substrate. Here, the authors showed that softer substrates favor a macrophage host-defense phenotype. They also found that LA1 attenuates pro-inflammatory signaling by inhibiting NLRP3 activation. Given that a recent clinical trial using LA1 was halted as the drug was found to have no benefit to cancer patients, this work raises the prospect that LA1 could be repurposed as an immunomodulatory drug to treat select inflammatory diseases.
The next Original Research article featured in our topic highlights a novel interaction of macrophages with a specific microbial component. In this rigorous study with mouse bone marrow-derived, peritoneal, and tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs), Zhang et al. demonstrated the effect of the Escherichia coli adhesion portion of type I fimbriae (FimH), which drives macrophage polarization status. The FimH, via a TLR4-mediated mechanism, not only M1-polarized resting macrophages but also M1-reprogrammed M2-macrophages induced by IL-4 and IL-13 cytokines or a tumor microenvironment. These properties of FimH were then validated in human macrophages and were shown to have therapeutic relevance. FimH could enhance anti-cancer immunity in C57BL/6 mice implanted with B16F10 melanoma treated with an anti-PD-L1 antibody. These therapeutic effects were linked to the induction of M1 polarization in TAMs, a property that could be clinically explored as a future adjunct therapy to the PD-L1 antibody treatment of tumors.
Two review articles published in our Research Topic focused on the lesser-known effects of growth factors and their receptors on macrophage polarization status. The first article by Shen et al. reviewed fibroblast growth factor (FGF) signaling in macrophage polarization. The authors discussed the importance of the FGF/FGF receptor (FGFR) axis during homeostasis and disease processes. FGFs have diverse regulatory functions in physiological processes, promoting the growth and development of bones and organs. However, they also contribute to the development of diseases such as cancer and metastasis, inflammatory processes, and metabolic disorders. The relationship between macrophages and different FGFs is complex. For example, FGF1 and 2 promote M1-type activation, while FGF20 has been reported to inhibit these pathways. In contrast, low molecular weight variants of FGF2 and FGF7 are either directly or indirectly linked to the promotion of M2 pathways. Similarly, the M1/M2 macrophage polarization cues induce different subsets of FGFR expression by macrophages and the production of specific FGFs such as FGF23. Since both FGFs and macrophages are involved in the progression of tumors, autoimmune, and degenerative diseases, these interactions need to be further examined in their specific biological contexts.
In the second review, Kannan and Rutkowski discussed the effects of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-3 (VEGFR-3), which is highly expressed in lymphatic endothelial cells. However, monocyte-derived cells also express VEGFR-3 in specific organs such as the lung and the gut, but also in tumors and other chronic diseases. For instance, VEGFR-3-expressing macrophages are protected from the undesirable activation of pyroptosis pathways in the context of microbial infection, which results in better clearance and less inflammatory collateral damage of the infected tissues. However, the effects of VGFR-3 signaling on macrophage polarization appear to be contextual, especially in chronic diseases.
Finally, a set of articles in our Research Topic focused on intrinsic modulators of the polarization transcriptional program. Here, we featured a mini-review by Wiggins et al., in which the authors covered the recent literature on the CBP/p300-interacting transactivator with the glutamic acid/aspartic acid-rich carboxy-terminal domain (CITED) family of transcriptional co-regulators. Here, they summarized recent literature to argue that CITED1 and 2 function as general controllers of the M1 transcriptional program by regulating access to CBP/p300. This histone acetyltransferase can be considered a convergence point for signaling pathways regulating M1-associated gene expression as STAT, IRF, NF-κB, and HIF1 proteins utilize it as a coactivator. Here, CITED2 operates as a co-repressor, directly competing with these transcription factors for binding to a common interaction surface in CBP/p300, thereby attenuating pro-inflammatory gene expression. Conversely, CITED1 appears to enhance the expression of select pro-inflammatory genes, although the precise mechanisms for this remain enigmatic.
The intrinsic regulation of macrophage status is exemplified by the unique function of a nucleic acid regulator, a lncRNA identified in metastatic cancer macrophages, which has been described in an Original Research article from Ahmad et al.. Here, the authors explored the role of the metastasis-associated lung adenocarcinoma 1 (MALAT1) lncRNA, which is upregulated when monocytes are differentiated into M2 macrophages (28). This study found that MALAT1 functions as an antagonist of microRNAs from the miR-30 family, including miR-30b, which is known to support M2-associated gene expression. In this way, MALAT1 was found to bias macrophage polarization toward the M1 state by suppressing M2 gene expression.
In conclusion, this collection of research and review articles describes recently discovered and lesser-known regulators of macrophage behavior and polarization. These are diverse in nature and operate in a variety of different mechanisms, including mechanotransduction, and transcriptional and post-transcriptional control, with some playing important roles in tumor macrophage behavior, leading to cancer suppression or promotion, while others are involved in the response to infection and acute tissue injury or play roles in autoimmune or chronic inflammatory diseases. The number of genes and pathways found to be involved in the macrophage polarization process continues to grow, further increasing the number of defined or hypothetical interactions in these regulatory networks. This apparent complexity speaks to the incredible sophistication of macrophage polarization and the need for its tight regulation. Our Research Topic highlights only a small number of these regulatory mechanisms, and future studies will build on these, helping us better understand their contributions to health and disease.
Statements
Author contributions
DN: Writing – original draft, Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing. MO: Funding acquisition, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This work was supported by funds from the National Institutes of Health (NIAID 1R15AI178461-01) and the Molecular Biosciences (MOBI) doctoral program at Middle Tennessee State University (MTSU) to DN, and VA BLR&D RCS (IK6BX005966) and Merit Review (I01BX000656) awards to MO.
Acknowledgments
DN would like to acknowledge the members of the DEN lab and Drs. Rebecca Seipelt-Thiemann (Middle Tennessee State University) and Erin E. McClelland (Marian University) for useful discussions, while MO would like to acknowledge Drs. Jintao Xu and John Osterholzer for their contributions.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
TrapnellBCWhitsettJA. Gm-CSF regulates pulmonary surfactant homeostasis and alveolar macrophage-mediated innate host defense. Annu Rev Physiol. (2002) 64:775–802. doi: 10.1146/annurev.physiol.64.090601.113847
2
HongSBeja-GlasserVFNfonoyimBMFrouinALiSRamakrishnanSet al. Complement and microglia mediate early synapse loss in Alzheimer mouse models. Science. (2016) 352:712–6. doi: 10.1126/science.aad8373
3
MurrayPJ. Macrophage polarization. Annu Rev Physiol. (2017) 79:541–66. doi: 10.1146/annurev-physiol-022516-034339
4
MurrayPJAllenJEBiswasSKFisherEAGilroyDWGoerdtSet al. Macrophage activation and polarization: nomenclature and experimental guidelines. Immunity. (2014) 41:14–20. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2014.06.008
5
NahrendorfMSwirskiFK. Abandoning M1/M2 for a network model of macrophage function. Circ Res. (2016) 119:414–7. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.116.309194
6
MartinezFOGordonS. The M1 and M2 paradigm of macrophage activation: time for reassessment. F1000Prime Rep. (2014) 6:13. doi: 10.12703/P6-13
7
MosserDMEdwardsJP. Exploring the full spectrum of macrophage activation. Nat Rev Immunol. (2008) 8:958–69. doi: 10.1038/nri2448
8
HussellTBellTJ. Alveolar macrophages: plasticity in a tissue-specific context. Nat Rev Immunol. (2014) 14:81–93. doi: 10.1038/nri3600
9
MantovaniASicaASozzaniSAllavenaPVecchiALocatiM. The chemokine system in diverse forms of macrophage activation and polarization. Trends Immunol. (2004) 25:677–86. doi: 10.1016/j.it.2004.09.015
10
BainCCMacDonaldAS. The impact of the lung environment on macrophage development, activation and function: diversity in the face of adversity. Mucosal Immunol. (2022) 15:223–34. doi: 10.1038/s41385-021-00480-w
11
OsterholzerJJChenGHOlszewskiMAZhangYMCurtisJLHuffnagleGBet al. Chemokine receptor 2-mediated accumulation of fungicidal exudate macrophages in mice that clear cryptococcal lung infection. Am J Pathol. (2011) 178:198–211. doi: 10.1016/j.ajpath.2010.11.006
12
VogelDYVereykenEJGlimJEHeijnenPDMoetonMvan der ValkPet al. Macrophages in inflammatory multiple sclerosis lesions have an intermediate activation status. J Neuroinflammation. (2013) 10:35. doi: 10.1186/1742-2094-10-35
13
AroraSOlszewskiMATsangTMMcDonaldRAToewsGBHuffnagleGB. Effect of cytokine interplay on macrophage polarization during chronic pulmonary infection with Cryptococcus neoformans. Infection Immun. (2011) 79:1915–26. doi: 10.1128/IAI.01270-10
14
GilesDAWashnock-SchmidJMDunckerPCDahlawiSPonathGPittDet al. Myeloid cell plasticity in the evolution of central nervous system autoimmunity. Ann Neurol. (2018) 83:131–41. doi: 10.1002/ana.25128
15
XuJGangulyAZhaoJIveyMLopezROsterholzerJJet al. CCR2 signaling promotes brain infiltration of inflammatory monocytes and contributes to neuropathology during cryptococcal meningoencephalitis. mBio. (2021) 12:e0107621. doi: 10.1128/mBio.01076-21
16
JablonskiKAAmiciSAWebbLMRuiz-Rosado JdeDPopovichPGPartida-SanchezSet al. Novel markers to delineate murine M1 and M2 macrophages. PloS One. (2015) 10:e0145342. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0145342
17
DurbinJEHackenmillerRSimonMCLevyDE. Targeted disruption of the mouse Stat1 gene results in compromised innate immunity to viral disease. Cell. (1996) 84:443–50. doi: 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)81289-1
18
Leopold WagerCMHoleCRWozniakKLOlszewskiMAMuellerMWormleyFLJr. STAT1 signaling within macrophages is required for antifungal activity against Cryptococcus neoformans. Infection Immun. (2015) 83:4513–27. doi: 10.1128/IAI.00935-15
19
MartinENathanCXieQW. Role of interferon regulatory factor 1 in induction of nitric oxide synthase. J Exp Med. (1994) 180:977–84. doi: 10.1084/jem.180.3.977
20
IkushimaHNegishiHTaniguchiT. The IRF family transcription factors at the interface of innate and adaptive immune responses. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol. (2013) 78:105–16. doi: 10.1101/sqb.2013.78.020321
21
MussbacherMDerlerMBasilioJSchmidJA. NF-kappaB in monocytes and macrophages - an inflammatory master regulator in multitalented immune cells. Front Immunol. (2023) 14:1134661. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1134661
22
SicaAMantovaniA. Macrophage plasticity and polarization: in vivo veritas. J Clin Invest. (2012) 122:787–95. doi: 10.1172/JCI59643
23
RicoteMLiACWillsonTMKellyCJGlassCK. The peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma is a negative regulator of macrophage activation. Nature. (1998) 391:79–82. doi: 10.1038/34178
24
PelloOMDe PizzolMMiroloMSoucekLZammataroLAmabileAet al. Role of c-MYC in alternative activation of human macrophages and tumor-associated macrophage biology. Blood. (2012) 119:411–21. doi: 10.1182/blood-2011-02-339911
25
LiaoXSharmaNKapadiaFZhouGLuYHongHet al. Kruppel-like factor 4 regulates macrophage polarization. J Clin Invest. (2011) 121:2736–49. doi: 10.1172/JCI45444
26
LiLNgDSMahWCAlmeidaFFRahmatSARaoVKet al. A unique role for p53 in the regulation of M2 macrophage polarization. Cell Death Differ. (2015) 22:1081–93. doi: 10.1038/cdd.2014.212
27
TakedaNO’DeaELDoedensAKimJWWeidemannAStockmannCet al. Differential activation and antagonistic function of HIF-alpha isoforms in macrophages are essential for NO homeostasis. Genes Dev. (2010) 24:491–501. doi: 10.1101/gad.1881410
28
AhmadIValverdeANaqviRANaqviAR. Long non-coding RNAs RN7SK and GAS5 regulate macrophage polarization and innate immune responses. Front Immunol. (2020) 11:604981. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.604981
Summary
Keywords
macrophage, macrophage polarization, innate immunity, inflammation, macrophage activation
Citation
Nelson DE and Olszewski MA (2025) Editorial: Exploring the molecular mechanisms that regulate macrophage polarization. Front. Immunol. 16:1599215. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2025.1599215
Received
24 March 2025
Accepted
07 April 2025
Published
16 April 2025
Volume
16 - 2025
Edited and reviewed by
Francesca Granucci, University of Milano-Bicocca, Italy
Updates
Copyright
© 2025 Nelson and Olszewski.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: David E. Nelson, david.e.nelson@mtsu.edu; Michal A. Olszewski, olszewsm@med.umich.edu
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.