Phenotypic Polymorphism of Normal Rat Liver Kupffer Cells

The aim of study was to evaluate the immunophenotype of resident macrophages of the liver, Kupffer cells, in rats in the norm.

Material and methods. The study included male Wistar rats’ samples (n=6) that presented fragments of the middle lobe of the liver taken under ether anesthesia. The obtained samples were fixed in liquid nitrogen, after that cryosections 5–7 μm thick were prepared. Histological slides were used to detect the expression of a number of macrophage markers with an antibody kit: CD68, CD206, CD 163, CD86. After the first antibodies, sections were stained with antibodies conjugated to FITC, cell nuclei were detected using DAPI, the obtained preparations were studied using a fluorescence microscope.

Results. When analyzing the expression of CD68 in the rat liver, it was found that normally about 20% of the cells in the field of vision appeared to be CD68+ cells, which was consistent with the earlier study results of the authors. The number of CD163+ and CD206+ cells coincided with the number of CD68+ macrophages, while CD86+ macrophages were significantly less.

Conclusions. Under normal conditions, the population of resident macrophages of the rat liver is represented by cells with pronounced expression of CD68, CD163 and CD206. A large number of CD163+ and CD206+ macrophages allows concluding that Kupffer cells are close to the M2 pro-regenerative phenotype. However, the detection of CD86+ resident macrophages indicates the presence of M1 macrophages, or the presence of normal macrophages with an intermediate M1 and M2 phenotype, in the rat liver. The revealed high content of macrophages expressing CD163 and CD206 in the liver evidences not only pro-regenerative properties of Kupffer cells, but also the close connection of macrophages with liver functions, since these receptors are involved in the utilization of hemoglobin and a number of hormones.

1. Lokhonina A.V., Pokusaev A.S., Arutyunyan I.V., Elchaninov A.V., Makarov A.V., Eremina I.Z., Surovtsev V.V., Bolshakova G.B., Goldshtein D.V., Fatkhudinov T.Kh. Characteristics of the immunophenotype of the resident macrophages of the liver and profile of expressed genes. Clinical and Experimental Morphology. 2018; 1(25): 49–60 (in Russian).

2. Lokhonina A.V., Elchaninov A.V., Arutyunyan I.V., Pokusaev A.S., Makarov A.V., Eremina I.Z., Surovtsev V.V., Bolshakova G.B., Goldshtein D.V., Fatkhudinov T.Kh. Morphofunctional characteristic of macrophages of embryonic and monocytic origin. Genes & Cells. 2018; 13(2): 56– 62 (in Russian). doi: 10.23868/201808020

3. Chen L, Flies DB. Molecular mechanisms of T cell co-stimulation and co-inhibition. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2013; 13: 227–42. doi: 10.1038/nri3405

4. Elchaninov AV, Fatkhudinov TK, Usman NY, et al. Dynamics of macrophage populations of the liver after subtotal hepatectomy in rats. BMC Immunol. 2018; 19: 23. doi: 10.1186/s12865-0180260-1.

5. Fabriek BO, van Bruggen R, Deng DM, et al. The macrophage scavenger receptor CD163 functions as an innate immune sensor for bacteria. Blood. 2009; 113: 887–92. doi: 10.1182/blood-2008-07167064

6. Ginhoux F, Greter M, Leboeuf M, et al. Fate map analysis reveals that adult mice derive from primitive macrophages. Science. 2010; 330: 841–5. doi: 10.1126/science.1194637

7. Gottfried E, Kunz-Schughart LA, Weber A, et al. Expression of CD68 in Non-Myeloid Cell Types. Scand. J. Immunol. 2008; 67: 453–63. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3083.2008.02091.x

8. Guilliams M, Scott CL. Does niche competition determine the origin of tissue-resident macrophages? Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2017; 17: 451–60. doi: 10.1038/nri.2017.42

9. Holness CL, Simmons DL. Molecular cloning of CD68, a human macrophage marker related to lysosomal glycoproteins. Blood. 1993; 81: 1607–13.

10. Lokhonina A, Elchaninov A, Fatkhudinov T, et al. Activated Macrophages of Monocytic Origin Predominantly Express Proinflammatory Cytokine Genes, Whereas Kupffer Cells Predominantly Express Anti-Inflammatory Cytokine Genes. Biomed Res. Int. 2019; 2019: 1–13. doi: 10.1155/2019/3912142

11. Malyshev I, Malyshev Y. Current Concept and Update of the Macrophage Plasticity Concept: Intracellular Mechanisms of Reprogramming and M3 Macrophage “Switch” Phenotype. Biomed Res. Int. 2015; 2015: 1–22. doi: 10.1155/2015/341308

12. Martinez FO, Gordon S. The M1 and M2 paradigm of macrophage activation: time for reassessment. F1000Prime Rep. 2014; 6: 13. doi: 10.12703/P6-13

13. Martinez-Pomares L. The mannose receptor. J. Leukoc. Biol. 2012; 92: 1177–86. doi: 10.1189/jlb.0512231

14. Murray PJ, Allen JE, Biswas SK, et al. Macrophage Activation and Polarization: Nomenclature and Experimental Guidelines. Immunity. 2014; 41: 14–20. doi: 10.1016/j

15. Orecchioni M, Ghosheh Y, Pramod AB, Ley K. Macrophage Polarization: Different Gene Signatures in M1(LPS+) vs. Classically and M2(LPS–) vs. Alternatively Activated Macrophages. Front. Immunol. 2019; 10: 1084. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2019.01084

16. Perdiguero EG. Development and maintainance of resident macrophages Elisa. Nat Immunol. 2016; 17: 2–8.

17. Perdiguero GE, Klapproth K, Schulz C, et al. Tissueresident macrophages originate from yolksacderived erythro-myeloid progenitors. Nature. 2015; 518: 547–51. doi: 10.1038/nature13989

18. Theret M, Mounier R, Rossi F. The origins and non-canonical functions of macrophages in development and regeneration. Development. 2019; 146: dev156000. doi: 10.1242/dev.156000