Go to The Journal of Clinical Investigation
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Transfers
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
  • Physician-Scientist Development
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • By specialty
    • COVID-19
    • Cardiology
    • Immunology
    • Metabolism
    • Nephrology
    • Oncology
    • Pulmonology
    • All ...
  • Videos
  • Collections
    • In-Press Preview
    • Resource and Technical Advances
    • Clinical Research and Public Health
    • Research Letters
    • Editorials
    • Perspectives
    • Physician-Scientist Development
    • Reviews
    • Top read articles

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Specialties
  • In-Press Preview
  • Resource and Technical Advances
  • Clinical Research and Public Health
  • Research Letters
  • Editorials
  • Perspectives
  • Physician-Scientist Development
  • Reviews
  • Top read articles
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Transfers
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
Gpnmb and Spp1 mark a conserved macrophage injury response masking fibrosis-specific programming in the lung
Emily M. King, … , Alexandra L. McCubbrey, William J. Janssen
Emily M. King, … , Alexandra L. McCubbrey, William J. Janssen
Published November 7, 2024
Citation Information: JCI Insight. 2024;9(24):e182700. https://doi.org/10.1172/jci.insight.182700.
View: Text | PDF
Research Article Immunology Inflammation

Gpnmb and Spp1 mark a conserved macrophage injury response masking fibrosis-specific programming in the lung

  • Text
  • PDF
Abstract

Macrophages are required for healthy repair of the lungs following injury, but they are also implicated in driving dysregulated repair with fibrosis. How these 2 distinct outcomes of lung injury are mediated by different macrophage subsets is unknown. To assess this, single-cell RNA-Seq was performed on lung macrophages isolated from mice treated with LPS or bleomycin. Macrophages were categorized based on anatomic location (airspace versus interstitium), developmental origin (embryonic versus recruited monocyte derived), time after inflammatory challenge, and injury model. Analysis of the integrated dataset revealed that macrophage subset clustering was driven by macrophage origin and tissue compartment rather than injury model. Gpnmb-expressing recruited macrophages that were enriched for genes typically associated with fibrosis were present in both injury models. Analogous GPNMB-expressing macrophages were identified in datasets from both fibrotic and nonfibrotic lung disease in humans. We conclude that this subset represents a conserved response to tissue injury and is not sufficient to drive fibrosis. Beyond this conserved response, we identified that recruited macrophages failed to gain resident-like programming during fibrotic repair. Overall, fibrotic versus nonfibrotic tissue repair is dictated by dynamic shifts in macrophage subset programming and persistence of recruited macrophages.

Authors

Emily M. King, Yifan Zhao, Camille M. Moore, Benjamin Steinhart, Kelsey C. Anderson, Brian Vestal, Peter K. Moore, Shannon A. McManus, Christopher M. Evans, Kara J. Mould, Elizabeth F. Redente, Alexandra L. McCubbrey, William J. Janssen

×

Figure 1

Macrophage isolation and scRNA-Seq following bleomycin and LPS-induced lung injury.

Options: View larger image (or click on image) Download as PowerPoint
Macrophage isolation and scRNA-Seq following bleomycin and LPS-induced l...
(A) Timeline of interventions in experimental models. Tamoxifen was given to label resident interstitial macrophages followed by a 4-week wait period to allow clearance of labeled monocytes from the circulation. Mice were treated with i.t. LPS (20 μg) or bleomycin (1.5 U/kg) and were euthanized at the times indicated. Anti-CD45 antibody was instilled into the lungs immediately after euthanasia. (B) Four groups of cells were isolated from digested lung tissues using FACS. These included airspace macrophages (AMs), resident IMs (RIM), recruited IMs (RecIM), and general leukocytes (CD45+). AMs versus IMs were distinguished based on i.t. administered anti-CD45 labeling. Resident versus recruited IMs were distinguished by tdTomato expression. (C) Fully integrated UMAP including all sorted cells from day 0; LPS days 3, 6, and 15; and bleomycin days 3, 7, and 14. Clusters were manually annotated based on cluster-defining genes. Macrophage clusters are outlined in the dashed black line. (D) UMAP split to show homeostasis, LPS, and bleomycin samples. (E) Feature plot of the log2 minimum expression of mouse panmacrophage markers Fcgr1, C5ar1, CD68, Mrc1, and Mertk. (F) Average expression and percent of cells expressing panmacrophage marker genes in each cluster. Macrophage clusters in the dashed black box were used in subsequent analyses.

Copyright © 2025 American Society for Clinical Investigation
ISSN 2379-3708

Sign up for email alerts