Journal of Immunology Research

Journal of Immunology Research / 2018 / Article

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2018 |Article ID 8173983 |

A. Kovtun, D. A. C. Messerer, K. Scharffetter-Kochanek, M. Huber-Lang, A. Ignatius, "Neutrophils in Tissue Trauma of the Skin, Bone, and Lung: Two Sides of the Same Coin", Journal of Immunology Research, vol. 2018, Article ID 8173983, 12 pages, 2018.

Neutrophils in Tissue Trauma of the Skin, Bone, and Lung: Two Sides of the Same Coin

Academic Editor: Benoit Stijlemans
Received17 Oct 2017
Accepted21 Mar 2018
Published23 Apr 2018


Following severe tissue injury, patients are exposed to various danger- and microbe-associated molecular patterns, which provoke a strong activation of the neutrophil defense system. Neutrophils trigger and modulate the initial posttraumatic inflammatory response and contribute critically to subsequent repair processes. However, severe trauma can affect central neutrophil functions, including circulation half-life, chemokinesis, phagocytosis, cytokine release, and respiratory burst. Alterations in neutrophil biology may contribute to trauma-associated complications, including immune suppression, sepsis, multiorgan dysfunction, and disturbed tissue regeneration. Furthermore, there is evidence that neutrophil actions depend on the quality of the initial stimulus, including trauma localization and severity, the micromilieu in the affected tissue, and the patient’s overall inflammatory status. In the present review, we describe the effects of severe trauma on the neutrophil phenotype and dysfunction and the consequences for tissue repair. We particularly concentrate on the role of neutrophils in wound healing, lung injury, and bone fractures, because these are the most frequently affected tissues in severely injured patients.

1. Introduction

The severe inflammatory response after major injury is known to contribute critically to primary healing complications or to induce secondary problems in remote organs, which were not affected initially, including in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), sepsis, and multiorgan failure (MOF). Neutrophils are part of the “first line of cellular defense” and crucially modulate subsequent repair processes after tissue damage. After injury, neutrophils are rapidly recruited to the inflammation site after injury by microbe- and danger-associated molecular patterns (MAMPs and DAMPs, respectively, with MAMPs also known as PAMPs or pathogen-associated molecular patterns). Multiple inflammatory mediators are potent chemoattractants for neutrophils, including C-X-C motif ligand (CXCL) 1–3, macrophage inflammatory protein-1α, the anaphylatoxin C5a and leukotriene B4 (LTB4), and interleukin-8 (IL-8) [1, 2]. Chemoattractants as IL-8 not only promote chemotaxis but also contribute to a mobilization of immature leukocytes by the bone marrow. This release of immature and, therefore, less deformable neutrophils contributes to a subsequent sequestration in distal organs, laying the foundation to harmful side effects of neutrophils [3]. Following severe trauma or during sepsis, antiapoptotic genes are transiently upregulated, increasing the neutrophil circulation half-time [4]. At the injury site, neutrophils themselves produce a significant amount of LTB4 [5], phagocytize cellular debris and bacteria, and subsequently may undergo NETosis, forming neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs). Furthermore, they generate reactive oxygen species (ROS), antimicrobial peptides, serine proteases, and various cytokines and chemotaxins, including interleukin- (IL-) 1β, IL-6, IL-10, and monocyte chemotactic protein-1 (MCP-1), which, in turn, modulate the inflammatory response and further attract monocytes and macrophages [6] (for a comprehensive review of neutrophil-derived cytokines, see [7]). It is noteworthy that the quantitative contribution of neutrophils to the overall cytokine concentrations may be relatively low in comparison to macrophages. Nevertheless, the neutrophil response contributes to reduced inflammation and ensures adequate tissue repair [8, 9]. The mechanisms of neutrophil-mediated resolution of inflammation include the clearance of DAMPs and the production of anti-inflammatory cytokines, including IL-10 and IL-1Ra [10], and of lipid mediators [11]. In addition, neutrophils degrade inflammatory cytokines by aggregated NETs, secrete soluble factors, including azurocidin, cathepsin G, lipoxins, and lysophosphatidylserine, and are able to reprogramme macrophages to the regulatory M2 phenotype [6, 1215].

However, in the case of excessive posttraumatic inflammation, neutrophils may become overactivated or dysfunctional. Consequently, they secrete an altered cytokine profile, increase ROS production, and undergo massive NETosis, thereby aggravating tissue damage and even harming surrounding healthy tissues [1518]. The majority of studies evaluating neutrophil dysfunctions after trauma address their impaired antimicrobial defense and role in sepsis development [19, 20]. This review focuses on the roles of neutrophils in those organs that are frequently initially affected in traumatized patients: skin, lungs, and bones.

2. Trauma-Induced Phenotype Changes and Functional Consequences

Trauma and subsequent complications affect the phenotype and function of circulating neutrophils, and, particularly, in case of severe trauma, the development of dysfunctional neutrophils might play a detrimental role [21, 22]. Indeed, severe posttraumatic inflammation induces a boost in the release of banded and immature neutrophils into the circulation, leading to bone marrow exhaustion and a compromised immune response, both associated with a poor outcome [21, 23, 24]. Additionally, morphological changes were observed after trauma, including increased cell size and membrane plasticity and a modified shape, wherein neutrophils become more elongated [25, 26]. Within the population of neutrophils, there is a degree of heterogeneity that has received growing attention since the 1980s (see [27] for a summary of currently described neutrophil subsets). Until today, there is no certainty to what extent neutrophil heterogeneity is biologically relevant [27, 28]. However, as trauma induces not only an activation of neutrophils, partly accompanied by an extended life span of certain subsets, but also a rapid recruitment of naïve cells as well as an emergency granulopoiesis, trauma itself might contribute to neutrophil heterogeneity [29]. For example, in trauma, there are immunosuppressive low-density neutrophils (LDNs), a subtype of neutrophils named after their discovery in the fraction of the peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PMBC) [29, 30]. These granulocytes are not only activated but express a high level of arginase activity, which in turn might be linked to T-cell function providing an interesting modulation and possible impairment of the adaptive immunity mediated by neutrophils during trauma [30]. In sepsis, it has been demonstrated that this granulocyte subset inhibits T-cells, possibly via arginase release and/or ROS production [29, 31, 32]. In contrast, there might be subsets of neutrophils, which are beneficial to repair the initial trauma impact. For example, a population of CD11b+/Gr-1+/CXCR4hi neutrophils likely recruited by VEGF-A induce revascularization via MMP-9 [33]. While neutrophil heterogeneity is often described in the context of chronic inflammation, for example, caused by cancer [27, 29], research in the trauma context to elucidate the diametral effects of the neutrophil collectively represents a promising field, which, however, is beyond the scope of this review.

The egress of neutrophils from the bone marrow and their recruitment to the injured tissue is crucial for mounting an adequate inflammatory response. The impairment of targeted chemotaxis has been described in many inflammatory disorders, including diabetes mellitus and viral infections (e.g., HIV and influenza) [3436]. Adequate chemokinesis is ensured by sufficient expression of surface receptors, including the IL-8 receptors CXCR1 and CXCR2, FcγRIII (CD16), IL-6 receptor (IL-6R), and complement receptor C5aR1 [37]. Indeed, trauma is associated with reduced expression of CXCR1, CXCR2, and C5aR1, all of which may be partially internalized by or released from neutrophils in microvesicles [3840]. IL-6R is actively shed from the neutrophil surface to induce IL-6 transsignaling, which amplifies the inflammatory effects of IL-6 [41], and to regulate T-cell responses [42, 43]. Overall, these trauma-induced functional changes may desensitize neutrophils towards persisting danger.

Killing of phagocyted pathogens in neutrophils is ensured via two distinct mechanisms. One is oxygen based and executed via the formation of ROS, whereas the other is oxygen independent [37]. In trauma, neutrophils produce increased amounts of ROS and increase the expression of gp91PHOX, a membrane-residing subunit of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADPH) oxidase, a key enzyme in ROS production [44, 45]. The enhanced ROS response might contribute to the damage of the endothelial barrier and induce vascular leakage, resulting in further complications, including edema and organ dysfunction, for example, ARDS [44, 46]. Oxygen-independent mechanisms include the release of neutrophil granules containing digestive serine proteases, for example, neutrophil elastase, cathepsin G, proteinase 3, and azurocidin [47, 48]. The release of proteases is regulated by the intraphagosomal pH, which, upon improper activation after injury, may lead to impaired protease activation and disturbed microbial killing [49]. Proteases released by neutrophils likely act predominantly locally, as the clearance capacity of antiproteases such as α2-macroglobulin is sufficient to degrade the listed enzymes in a systemic dimension and is increased in scenarios of severe inflammation [50, 51].

Apoptosis and NETosis represent mechanisms of programmed death of neutrophils. Inflammatory stimuli may prolong the circulation half-life of neutrophils from 6 h up to several days based on the upregulation of antiapoptotic proteins, including induced myeloid leukemia cell differentiation protein Mcl-1, and a reduced level of proapoptotic proteins, including apoptosis regulator Bax [11, 52]. However, the functional capacity of such neutrophils remains questionable. NETosis is a mechanism of extracellular neutrophil-mediated killing after cell death. NETs consist of fibrils containing ROS, DNA, chromatin, and granular proteins and are released by active expulsion via an NADPH oxidase-dependent mechanism. Although NETosis is believed to induce programmed cell death, recent data imply that neutrophils may remain viable afterwards [53]. Because NET-mediated destruction is unspecific, excessive NETosis is thought to contribute to tissue damage after trauma [54, 55]. Trauma-induced changes in neutrophil phenotype and functions are summarized in Figure 1.

3. Neutrophil Actions in Specific Trauma Settings

Neutrophil functions may depend on the micromilieu of the damaged tissue. Confirming this, different trauma models frequently produced contradictory results regarding neutrophil functions in different organs. For example, in a model of severe injury, neutrophil depletion did not improve bone regeneration [56], but did mitigate pulmonary damage [17, 57]. Interestingly, a recent study showed that fracture-associated mitochondrial DAMPs may “prime” pulmonary neutrophils, thereby desensitizing them towards pathogens and impairing the pulmonary response to lung infection [58]. These findings could be explained by the compartmentalization of the immune response and by different expression patterns of inflammatory mediators and adhesion molecules in various tissues. Indeed, as already reviewed elsewhere [59], distinct tissues and cell types contribute differently to the production of inflammatory mediators in trauma and sepsis. For example, in sepsis, tumor necrosis factor α (TNFα) is predominantly expressed in the liver, spleen, and lungs by Kupffer cells, leukocytes, and lung epithelial and immune cells, respectively. Additionally, in downstream signaling, for example, in nuclear factor kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B cell (NF-κB) activation, the highest activities were observed in the skin, lungs, and spleen, with minor involvement of the liver, kidney, and heart [60]. Because many inflammatory mediators are important chemotaxins for neutrophil recruitment, it is unsurprising that different organ injuries result in different local and systemic inflammatory patterns. Another possible explanation might be the organ-specific expression of different adhesion molecules, including intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1), vascular cell adhesion protein 1 (VCAM-1), selectins, and CD11b, which are important for the neutrophil influx from the blood vessels into the tissue by mediating their adhesion, rolling, and subsequent migration [59].

In this review, we concentrate on the most frequently injured organs: the skin, as a first target for surface damage; the lungs, which represent a frequent target and major effector organ in trauma, because they are also actively involved in hematopoiesis and coagulation [61]; and the bone, which has a unique micromilieu due to the enclosed bone marrow.

3.1. Role of Neutrophils in Wound Healing

The skin is the first body barrier and is the most frequently injured in trauma. Because skin wounds allow pathogen access to the body, they require an efficient clearing of pathogens and a rapid healing process. Wound healing consists of the interconnected phases of hemostasis and inflammation, tissue regeneration, and remodeling. Hemostasis is initiated within minutes after injury and is accompanied by inflammation and platelet activation, resulting in a stable fibrin clot with an active neutrophil influx [8, 9, 62, 63]. In wounds, neutrophils are recruited by proinflammatory cytokines, including TNFα, growth factors, including platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF) and transforming growth factor β (TGF-β), and arachidonic-acid derivates, including leukotrienes and prostaglandins. Furthermore, neutrophils are attracted by the complement anaphylatoxins C3a and C5a [8, 48, 64, 65]. The physiological role of neutrophils in wound healing does comprise the clearance of not only pathogens but also the abundant erythrocytes [66]. The role of neutrophils in the downstream repair processes remains unclear. On the one hand, neutrophils do not enhance collagen synthesis or granulation tissue formation [67]. Wound healing in germ-free mice, fetuses, and oral mucosa is associated with lower neutrophil-driven inflammation and scarless regeneration, which demonstrates the benefits of a limited neutrophil involvement [64, 6870]. Additionally, the reduced presence of neutrophils in germ-free lesions correlated with increased levels of the anti-inflammatory cytokine IL-10 and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and was associated with an accelerated wound epithelialization [68]. On the other hand, in wounds, neutrophils express cytokines, among others TNFα, which can contribute to reepithelialization and wound closure [71, 72]. Furthermore, stimulated neutrophils secrete VEGF, which may contribute to wound healing by encouraging angiogenesis [73]. The process of efficient wound healing also requires neutrophil clearance [48, 74], and it was shown that macrophage stimulation promoted neutrophil removal and wound healing [75]. Indeed, after clearance of MAMPs and DAMPs, neutrophils—via β2 integrins [76]—are phagocyted by macrophages and this is a very strong signal for the macrophage to release TGF-β1. TGF-β1 stimulates differentiation of myofibroblasts, which contribute not only to wound contraction but also to a collagen synthesis [77].

While the presence of neutrophils is generally restricted to the inflammatory phase, it can be prolonged by physical trauma and/or ongoing contamination, thus exerting deleterious effects and inhibiting efficient wound healing [62, 74, 78]. DAMPs and MAMPs combined with cytokine release after trauma further extend the inflammatory response of neutrophil in wounds, among others via NF-κB signaling [79, 80]. The toxic arsenal of neutrophils primarily directed against pathogens leads to collateral damage via distinct mechanisms—particularly, when released as a consequence of necrosis rather than apoptosis. These unwanted side effects damage the extracellular matrix and affect clotting and further mechanisms that are involved in wound healing [48, 62, 81]. The harmful potential of neutrophils is further reflected in the setting of second hits, including in reperfusion injury, which has been demonstrated to increase the invasion of neutrophils, thereby leading to sustained inflammation [82]. Another example of unsolicited effects of neutrophils is excessive NETosis, which has been described as an inhibitor of wound healing in diabetes patients [18]. There are several mechanisms to control neutrophil effects and induce repair. For example, radicals generated by hyperactivated neutrophils are cleared via superoxide dismutase 3 (SOD3) from mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) [83]. In addition, mesenchymal stem cells can decelerate neutrophil migration via IL-10 and TNF-stimulated gene/protein-6 [84]. Furthermore, epidermal growth factor as part of the saliva lessens neutrophil recruitment and activity, explaining a beneficial effect of wound licking in animals [85].

By contrast, neutrophils also have many positive effects in wound healing. For example, neutrophils counterbalance hyperproliferation, thereby preventing malignancy [64]. From an evolutionary point, the wound-healing mechanism developed when wounds were more likely to be contaminated. Therefore, a pronounced inflammatory response with neutrophils at the wound site neutralizing bacterial intruders might have been crucial to allow for subsequent keratinocyte proliferation [64]. Moreover, neutrophils are required to keep the commensal microbiota in check [68]. Furthermore, delayed healing of infected wounds supplies proliferating skin cells with sufficient oxygen. The oxygen also acts as bactericide and is a prerequisite for neutrophil ROS generation [86]. Additionally, neutrophils support an additional recruitment of macrophages and T-cells by upregulation of MCP-1 and chemokine ligand 3 (CCL3) [4]. The release of carbonic anhydrases by neutrophils alters the wound microenvironment, which supports healing processes under compromised conditions [87].

In summary, neutrophils contribute to the clearing of DAMPs and MAMPs in nonsterile skin lesions, thereby promoting wound healing. However, the presence and activity of neutrophils require tight regulation, which is a challenge, particularly in the setting of severe trauma.

3.2. Role of Neutrophils in Lung Injury

The lung is a unique organ with respect to neutrophil migration, resulting in high neutrophil numbers even in healthy humans. There is growing evidence that under physiological conditions, peripheral-activated neutrophils are cleared and deprimed in a healthy lung [88, 89]. In contrast to other tissues, neutrophils do migrate not only in high endothelial venules via β2-integrin but also in the alveolar capillary bed via a L-selectin- and β2-integrin-independent pathway [9094]. The capillaries’ interwoven network results in a high concentration of neutrophils in the pulmonary vessels compared to blood in the large vessels, which might explain partially the vulnerability of the lung against neutrophil-mediated tissue injury [88, 90, 91, 95]. Another hypothesis emphasizes the role of the lung as a control site for primed neutrophils. If overloaded, the lung might lose its property as site of surveillance and depriming but might even contribute to it [89]. The small diameter of capillary segments (approximately 5 μm) compared with the size of a neutrophil (approximately 7-8 μm), on the one hand, improves neutrophil contact with the vascular wall, thereby facilitating extravasation, but, on the other hand, requires a high degree of cellular deformability [90, 96]. Neutrophil deformability is modulated by chemotactic factors, including anaphylatoxin C5a [25, 97] and chemotactic tripeptide fMLF (N-formylmethionyl-leucyl-phenylalanine, previously known as fMLP) [98100], and by various bacterial compounds, including lipopolysaccharides (LPS) [25, 101]. Transient pulmonary overfishing of neutrophils results in sequestration within the lungs and might contribute to a succeeding reduced cell count in the blood, particularly during the early stage of pulmonary inflammation [97, 101]. Another characteristic of the capillary bed of the lungs are tricellular corners. There, three endothelial cells intersect, building discontinuous tight junctions. Therefore, they provide a possibility to migrate around instead of through endothelial tight junctions, thus contributing to >75% of neutrophil extravasation when stimulated, for example, with IL-1 [102]. In healthy humans, the stimulation of neutrophil pulmonary extravasation by LTB4 without further significant inflammatory impact does not cause deterioration in pulmonary barrier permeability, which indicates that physiologically, neutrophils can extravasate without harming the barrier [103]. Accordingly, neutrophils do not require matrix metalloproteinase or serine protease for pulmonary extravasation [104]. In conclusion, in the lungs, neutrophils display unique migration mechanisms, resulting in a large neutrophil number, which is highly relevant in trauma.

ARDS (with mild ARDS being a term for acute lung injury (ALI)) is defined as an “acute diffuse, inflammatory lung injury” caused by primary pulmonary factors (e.g., pneumonia and pulmonary contusion) or secondary harmful events (e.g., polytrauma, shock, burns, and aspiration) [105, 106]. Among trauma patients, mild and severe ARDS occur in 4% and 12%, respectively, and are associated with a longer intensive care unit stay and increased hospital costs [107]. A characteristic of ARDS is severe hypoxemia, which is caused by the leakage of pulmonary vessels with the recruitment of neutrophils, a marked right-to-left shunt and an increased dead space as well as a decrease of pulmonary compliance and a dysfunctional pulmonary epithelium [106]. Although there is numerous data on ARDS and neutrophils [90, 93, 94], the exact role of these cells in ARDS remains poorly understood. In ARDS, inflammatory mediators, including IL-1β, IL-6, and IL-8, which are abundantly secreted by type-2 alveolar cells, macrophages, and endothelial cells after blunt chest trauma, induce a hyperactivation of neutrophils [17, 93, 94, 108, 109]. High levels of IL-6 and IL-8 are risk factors for ARDS development after trauma [110, 111]. In traumatic injury, neutrophil activity in general is associated with elevated levels of IL-6, IL-8, and TNFα, but also of IL-10, and, simultaneously, a reduced antimicrobial defense [112115]. The pulmonary inflammatory mediators further enhance neutrophil activity and their deleterious effect on the endothelium and epithelium. Thereby, they increase transcellular permeability, contributing to lung edema and poor ARDS prognosis [17, 92]. Whereas endothelial cell damage is ROS dependent, epithelial cells might be more resistant towards radicals, but like endothelial cells, they are also affected by activated, adhering neutrophils [116].

Several studies used a neutrophil depletion approach to define the role of neutrophils in trauma. Neutrophil depletion in trauma-induced ARDS was associated with higher chemokine levels in the bronchoalveolar lavage fluid, including granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), and led to an improved outcome [17, 117]. In addition, neutrophil deficiency resulted in reduced IL-1β, MIP-2, and TNFα levels in a mouse hemorrhagic shock model, which underlines the role of neutrophils contributing to pulmonary inflammation [118]. In the absence of neutrophils, some protective effects of the lung-blood barrier were described [17, 119]. Further harmful effects of neutrophils include proteolysis of endo- and epithelial cadherins and attacking the endothelial barrier [120, 121]. In a murine influenza aspiration-induced ARDS model, blockade of neutrophil recruitment via inhibition of the CXCL10-CXCR3 axis resulted in an improved outcome and survival [122]. Furthermore, patients recovering from neutropenia are at risk for ARDS because “reappearing” neutrophils provoke inflammation [123].

However, there are several studies, mainly on infectious- and less in trauma-induced shock, demonstrating that neutrophils are not the only “scapegoat”, as pulmonary trauma activates other components of the innate immunity, for example, alveolar macrophages, as well as the coagulation system [124]. For example, neutrophil elastase inhibition did not reduce mortality after ARDS [125]. Another study comparing endotoxin- and bacteria-induced ARDS rat models found that bacteria-triggered ARDS was associated with a poorer outcome, although alveolar neutrophil influx and activity (as determined by elastase or ROS production) were similar. This indicates that there are further factors in addition to neutrophil actions in ARDS development [126]. Furthermore, there is evidence that blunt chest trauma without a second hit induces a transient short-term neutrophil activation with a significant reduction of CXCR2 and C5aR and a mobilization of young (FcγRIII-low) neutrophils [127, 128]. Lacking a strong second inflammatory stimulus, for example, subsequent sepsis or pneumonia, inflammation regresses without causing ARDS or MOF, implying a vulnerable phase after trauma-induced immune activation [127, 129, 130].

3.3. Role of Neutrophils in Bone Fracture Healing

Approximately 30% of severely injured patients (injury severity score (ISS) > 16) have concomitant fractures of the extremities [131]. These patients are at a high risk of delayed bone healing or nonunion formation, because of systemic hyperinflammation associated with severe trauma [132134]. Fractures heal by three partially overlapping phases: the initial inflammatory phase, the repair phase comprising soft callus formation and intramembranous and endochondral ossification, and the remodeling phase, where the initially woven bone is converted to a lamellar bone until the original bone shape is restored [135]. The initial local inflammation starts with rapid hematoma formation, which serves as a scaffold for immune and progenitor cells, initiating regeneration [135]. Neutrophils are the most abundant cells in the early fracture hematoma [136]. Initially, they originate from the blood, leaking from the ruptured vessels. Then they actively migrate from the bloodstream into the damaged bone within minutes after fracture. Moreover, neutrophils or their progenitors can invade the hematoma directly from the damaged bone marrow. Indeed, Hoff et al. reported that, immediately after injury, the fracture hematoma mainly contains bone marrow cells, the majority being CD16+-immature granulocytes [136]. Within 72 h, either maturation of these granulocytes or invasion of CD16+-mature granulocytes from the circulation occurs [136]. Notably, the bone marrow at the fracture site becomes actively involved, because CD16+ cells are increasingly found there, indicating general bone-marrow activation in response to injury. The neutrophil numbers rapidly increase at the fracture site during the early inflammatory phase and then slowly subside until day 7–10, when only a few cells are observed in the soft periosteal callus [56, 137, 138].

In uneventful bone healing after isolated fracture, there is a continuing debate over the role of neutrophils [56, 132]. Some authors postulated a negative influence of neutrophils on bone regeneration, because their depletion from the bloodstream improved fracture healing, as confirmed by radiological examination and improved mechanical properties of the healed femur [139]. It was proposed that neutrophils would induce tissue damage by secreting collagenase, elastase, free radicals, and arachidonic acid and that the neutrophil-induced inflammatory response would aggravate the already existing ischemia, leading to edema and a local circulatory shutdown [139]. Others found that neutrophil depletion promoted osteogenic but suppressed chondrogenic differentiation of progenitor cells in a model of growth plate injury; however, the mechanisms were not elucidated [138]. This might be beneficial for intramembranous bone formation, but implies that diaphyseal fracture healing might be delayed, because in this case, cartilaginous callus formation is essential. Interestingly, the authors did not observe any significant influence of neutrophil depletion on the early immune response after fracture, because monocyte and lymphocyte infiltration and IL-1β and TNFα expression at the injury site were unaffected [138]. Fracture healing was also impaired after zymosan-stimulated ROS production in a rat fracture model [140].

By contrast, stimulation of neutrophil recruitment by G-CSF supported fracture healing. The biomechanical properties of the healed bones were improved [141, 142], bone formation was increased [143], and the expression of angiogenic (angiopoietin, VEGF) and osteogenic (bone morphogenetic proteins- (BMP-) 2 and BMP-4) factors in the fracture callus was enhanced by G-CSF treatment [142]. However, G-CSF does not only promote neutrophil egress into the bloodstream but also facilitate bone marrow stem cell and preosteoblast recruitment to the injury site. Furthermore, it enhances VEGF release and the recruitment of CD34+ cells, which contribute to angio- and vasculogenesis [143]. This may improve neovascularization and bone formation independently of enhanced neutrophil recruitment [142, 143].

More recent studies demonstrated that a balanced neutrophil activation may be important for undisturbed fracture healing. After neutrophil depletion with Ly-6G antibody, the recruitment of monocytes and macrophages to the fracture site was disturbed and the concentration of inflammatory mediators, including IL-6, IL-10, CXCL1, and MCP-1, in the fracture hematoma was altered [56, 144]. Subsequent bone regeneration was considerably disturbed in neutrophil-depleted mice. These findings imply that neutrophils crucially regulate the immune response at the fracture site, resolve inflammation, and induce downstream responses, which are essential for successful bone repair. Supporting this, Bastian et al. proposed that neutrophils may form “emergency extracellular matrix” consisting of fibronectin in the initial fracture hematoma, which could serve as a scaffold for stromal cell recruitment, thereby promoting healing [137]. The authors reported that early neutrophil recruitment to the fracture hematoma was associated with fibronectin synthesis. Moreover, neutrophils could be positively costained for fibronectin. Interestingly, the overall cell number in the fracture hematoma was unchanged from days 3 to 10, whereas subpopulation analysis showed that neutrophil numbers diminished, implying that other cell populations, presumably macrophages and stromal cells, invade the fibronectin matrix. At the same time, the fibronectin content was unchanged, whereas the collagen type-1 content increased, indicating that collagen is produced by these newly recruited cells [137]. Therefore, these recent findings support the hypothesis that neutrophils are essential for undisturbed bone regeneration, at least in uneventful bone fracture.

Whether neutrophils play a role in compromised fracture healing associated with severe trauma remains unclear. Several studies found enhanced neutrophil and diminished macrophage recruitment to the fracture hematoma in a rodent model of severe injury, implying that neutrophils might be involved in the pathogenesis of impaired bone healing after trauma [56, 145, 146]. By contrast, bone healing was not improved in a mouse model of combined fracture and thoracic trauma when neutrophils were depleted, suggesting that they may play only a minor role or were dysfunctional in this scenario [56]. The latter suggestion could be confirmed by a recent clinical study of Bastian et al., who reported altered leukocyte kinetics in severely injured patients with subsequent fracture-healing complications [22]. These patients exhibited impaired systemic neutrophil and monocyte mobilization, indicating immune exhaustion.

Even if the current literature is very limited and in part greatly debated, it is clear that neutrophils play a major role in the initial immune response after fracture and initiate downstream responses leading to bone repair. However, further research is necessary to elucidate their role in bone regeneration and the pathogenesis of fracture-healing complications associated with severe trauma.

4. Neutrophils as a Therapeutic Target in Trauma

To utilize the potent defensive mechanisms and clearance capacity for MAMPs and DAMPs by neutrophils in the initial posttraumatic response, enhanced recruitment of neutrophils via G-CSF-based therapeutics, including filgrastim, has been postulated as a rational therapy [147]. Indeed, in the clinical setting of tissue damage after major surgery, G-CSF-treatment provoked reinforcement of the systemic innate immune response and reduced septic complications [148]. After acute traumatic brain injury, G-CSF application reduced bacteremia, although overall survival was not improved [149]. However, contradictory effects were reported concerning local healing: In a rodent model of full-thickness supraspinatus tendon defects, G-CSF treatment locally increased cellularity after rotator cuff repair, but failed to improve structural healing [150]. By contrast, accelerated wound healing was found after topical G-CSF application [151]. In a mouse model, the transcriptional coregulator B cell leukemia/lymphoma 3 (Bcl3) was identified to downregulate emergency granulopoiesis as consequence of a transplant-mediated ischemia/reperfusion lung injury, limiting pulmonary damage [152]. In another approach to mitigate neutrophil recruitment, a porcine burn wound model proposed reduced neutrophil activity by the application of atorvastatin [153]. Likewise, attenuation of neutrophil recruitment by neutralization of IL-8 alleviated neutrophil invasion and damage to the lung [154]. Certainly, more research is necessary to define the exact indications after tissue trauma and the dosing, timing, and application route of such approaches.

By contrast, inhibition of extensive neutrophil activation has also been proposed to prevent the collateral damage by neutrophils. For example, in a murine blunt chest injury model with lung contusion, neutrophils and their oxidative response have been identified as a major contributor to acute lung injury and neutrophil depletion was protective [155]. Another experimental study demonstrated the beneficial effect of valproic acid, which reduced neutrophil influx and reduced tissue damage via decreased MPO activity, however with partial immunosuppression [156]. In a mouse model of LPS-induced ARDS, systemic application of mesenchymal stem cells reduced neutrophil recruitment and activity (e.g., NETosis), improving overall survival [157]. Whether the MSCs as cells or parts of their secretome induced these effects remains to be investigated. Leukocyte filtration strategies were also examined in numerous clinical studies, particularly in the context of major cardiac surgery. There is evidence that pulmonary, cerebral, and renal function may improve by neutralization of activated neutrophils using filtration [158, 159]. However, global neutrophil inhibition after severe tissue trauma is certainly irrational and unsafe, because these cells are major contributors of the “first line of defense” to clear the MAMP and DAMP load. Further research needs to determine which specific markers may indicate host-damaging-activated neutrophils. It is also of interest as to which removal strategies should be followed to beneficially modulate the neutrophil immune response after trauma and to induce an effective regenerative process. Future strategies should also account for the different microenvironmental changes after trauma and the compartmentalization of the neutrophil immune response [59]. Therefore, it might be of importance to either enhance or suppress the local neutrophil response, for example, in the fracture hematoma during fracture healing or in the alveolar space after lung contusion. Therefore, organ compartment-targeted neutrophil therapy may represent a promising future scientific and clinical field.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this article.

Authors’ Contributions

A. Kovtun and D. A. C. Messerer contributed equally to this work.


The authors would like to thank the German Research Foundation for supporting this work in the context of the Collaborative Research Center CRC1149 “Danger Response, Disturbance Factors and Regenerative Potential after Acute Trauma” (to M. Huber-Lang INST 40/479-1, A. Ignatius INST 40/491-1, and K. Scharffetter-Kochanek INST 40/495-1) and the German Federal Ministry of Defence (E/U2AD/CF521/DF555).


  1. R. C. Furze and S. M. Rankin, “Neutrophil mobilization and clearance in the bone marrow,” Immunology, vol. 125, no. 3, pp. 281–288, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. C. D. Sadik, N. D. Kim, and A. D. Luster, “Neutrophils cascading their way to inflammation,” Trends in Immunology, vol. 32, no. 10, pp. 452–460, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. T. Terashima, D. English, J. C. Hogg, and S. F. van Eeden, “Release of polymorphonuclear leukocytes from the bone marrow by interleukin-8,” Blood, vol. 92, no. 3, pp. 1062–1069, 1998. View at: Google Scholar
  4. K. Theilgaard-Monch, S. Knudsen, P. Follin, and N. Borregaard, “The transcriptional activation program of human neutrophils in skin lesions supports their important role in wound healing,” The Journal of Immunology, vol. 172, no. 12, pp. 7684–7693, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. T. D. Penning, “Inhibitors of leukotriene A4 (LTA4) hydrolase as potential anti-inflammatory agents,” Current Pharmaceutical Design, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 163–179, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. O. Soehnlein, L. Lindbom, and C. Weber, “Mechanisms underlying neutrophil-mediated monocyte recruitment,” Blood, vol. 114, no. 21, pp. 4613–4623, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. C. Tecchio, A. Micheletti, and M. A. Cassatella, “Neutrophil-derived cytokines: facts beyond expression,” Frontiers in Immunology, vol. 5, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. J. Li, J. Chen, and R. Kirsner, “Pathophysiology of acute wound healing,” Clinics in Dermatology, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 9–18, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. J. E. Park and A. Barbul, “Understanding the role of immune regulation in wound healing,” The American Journal of Surgery, vol. 187, Supplement 1, no. 5, pp. S11–S16, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. J. D. Langereis, E.-J. D. Oudijk, R. C. Schweizer, J.-W. J. Lammers, L. Koenderman, and L. H. Ulfman, “Steroids induce a disequilibrium of secreted interleukin-1 receptor antagonist and interleukin-1β synthesis by human neutrophils,” European Respiratory Journal, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 406–415, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. J. Wang and H. Arase, “Regulation of immune responses by neutrophils,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 1319, no. 1, pp. 66–81, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. T. A. Butterfield, T. M. Best, and M. A. Merrick, “The dual roles of neutrophils and macrophages in inflammation: a critical balance between tissue damage and repair,” Journal of Athletic Training, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 457–465, 2006. View at: Google Scholar
  13. Y. Kobayashi, “Neutrophil biology: an update,” EXCLI Journal, vol. 14, pp. 220–227, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. S. E. Headland and L. V. Norling, “The resolution of inflammation: principles and challenges,” Seminars in Immunology, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 149–160, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. E. Kolaczkowska and P. Kubes, “Neutrophil recruitment and function in health and inflammation,” Nature Reviews Immunology, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 159–175, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. J. Hazeldine, P. Hampson, and J. M. Lord, “The impact of trauma on neutrophil function,” Injury, vol. 45, no. 12, pp. 1824–1833, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. M. Perl, C. Hohmann, S. Denk et al., “Role of activated neutrophils in chest trauma-induced septic acute lung injury,” Shock, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 98–106, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. S. L. Wong, M. Demers, K. Martinod et al., “Diabetes primes neutrophils to undergo NETosis, which impairs wound healing,” Nature Medicine, vol. 21, no. 7, pp. 815–819, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. H. Fang, W. Jiang, J. Cheng et al., “Balancing innate immunity and inflammatory state via modulation of neutrophil function: a novel strategy to fight Sepsis,” Journal of Immunology Research, vol. 2015, Article ID 187048, 8 pages, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. J. C. Alves-Filho, F. Spiller, and F. Q. Cunha, “Neutrophil paralysis in sepsis,” Shock, vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 15–21, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. J. Pillay, B. P. Ramakers, V. M. Kamp et al., “Functional heterogeneity and differential priming of circulating neutrophils in human experimental endotoxemia,” Journal of Leukocyte Biology, vol. 88, no. 1, pp. 211–220, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. O. W. Bastian, A. Kuijer, L. Koenderman et al., “Impaired bone healing in multitrauma patients is associated with altered leukocyte kinetics after major trauma,” Journal of Inflammation Research, vol. 9, pp. 69–78, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. D. D. Danikas, M. Karakantza, G. L. Theodorou, G. C. Sakellaropoulos, and C. A. Gogos, “Prognostic value of phagocytic activity of neutrophils and monocytes in sepsis. Correlation to CD64 and CD14 antigen expression,” Clinical & Experimental Immunology, vol. 154, no. 1, pp. 87–97, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. A. A. Navarini, K. S. Lang, A. Verschoor et al., “Innate immune-induced depletion of bone marrow neutrophils aggravates systemic bacterial infections,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 106, no. 17, pp. 7107–7112, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. S. Denk, R. P. Taylor, R. Wiegner et al., “Complement C5a-induced changes in neutrophil morphology during inflammation,” Scandinavian Journal of Immunology, vol. 86, no. 3, pp. 143–155, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. S. W. Lam, L. P. H. Leenen, W. W. van Solinge, F. Hietbrink, and A. Huisman, “Comparison between the prognostic value of the white blood cell differential count and morphological parameters of neutrophils and lymphocytes in severely injured patients for 7-day in-hospital mortality,” Biomarkers, vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 642–647, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. M. Garley and E. Jabłońska, “Heterogeneity among neutrophils,” Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 21–30, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. J. I. Gallin, “Human neutrophil heterogeneity exists, but is it meaningful?” Blood, vol. 63, no. 5, pp. 977–983, 1984. View at: Google Scholar
  29. P. Scapini, O. Marini, C. Tecchio, and M. A. Cassatella, “Human neutrophils in the saga of cellular heterogeneity: insights and open questions,” Immunological Reviews, vol. 273, no. 1, pp. 48–60, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  30. J. A. Bryk, P. J. Popovic, M. S. Zenati, V. Munera, J. P. Pribis, and J. B. Ochoa, “Nature of myeloid cells expressing arginase 1 in peripheral blood after trauma,” The Journal of Trauma, vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 843–852, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  31. C. J. Darcy, G. Minigo, K. A. Piera et al., “Neutrophils with myeloid derived suppressor function deplete arginine and constrain T cell function in septic shock patients,” Critical Care, vol. 18, no. 4, article R163, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  32. H. Janols, C. Bergenfelz, R. Allaoui et al., “High frequency of myeloid-derived suppressor cells in sepsis patients, with the granulocytic subtype dominating in Gram-positive cases,” Critical Care, vol. 18, Supplement 2, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  33. G. Christoffersson, E. Vagesjo, J. Vandooren et al., “VEGF-A recruits a proangiogenic MMP-9-delivering neutrophil subset that induces angiogenesis in transplanted hypoxic tissue,” Blood, vol. 120, no. 23, pp. 4653–4662, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  34. H. E. Larson, R. P. Parry, and D. A. J. Tyrrell, “Impaired polymorphonuclear leucocyte chemotaxis after influenza virus infection,” British Journal of Diseases of the Chest, vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 56–62, 1980. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  35. L. S. Martin, T. J. Spira, S. L. Orloff, and R. C. Holman, “Comparison of methods for assessing chemotaxis of monocytes and polymorphonuclear leukocytes isolated from patients with AIDS or AIDS-related conditions,” Journal of Leukocyte Biology, vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 361–366, 1988. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  36. B. Wierusz-Wysocka, H. Wysocki, H. Sieklerka, A. Wykretowicz, A. Szczepanik, and R. Klimas, “Evidence of polymorphonuclear neutrophils (PMN) activation in patients with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus,” Journal of Leukocyte Biology, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 519–523, 1987. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  37. P. H. C. Leliefeld, C. M. Wessels, L. P. H. Leenen, L. Koenderman, and J. Pillay, “The role of neutrophils in immune dysfunction during severe inflammation,” Critical Care, vol. 20, no. 1, p. 73, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  38. H. Unnewehr, D. Rittirsch, J. V. Sarma et al., “Changes and regulation of the C5a receptor on neutrophils during septic shock in humans,” The Journal of Immunology, vol. 190, no. 8, pp. 4215–4225, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  39. D. E. Van Epps, J. G. Bender, S. J. Simpson, and D. E. Chenoweth, “Relationship of chemotactic receptors for formyl peptide and C5a to CR1, CR3, and Fc receptors on human neutrophils,” Journal of Leukocyte Biology, vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 519–527, 1990. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  40. S. K. Raghuwanshi, Y. Su, V. Singh, K. Haynes, A. Richmond, and R. M. Richardson, “The chemokine receptors CXCR1 and CXCR2 couple to distinct G protein-coupled receptor kinases to mediate and regulate leukocyte functions,” The Journal of Immunology, vol. 189, no. 6, pp. 2824–2832, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  41. A. Chalaris, C. Garbers, B. Rabe, S. Rose-John, and J. Scheller, “The soluble interleukin 6 receptor: generation and role in inflammation and cancer,” European Journal of Cell Biology, vol. 90, no. 6-7, pp. 484–494, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  42. J. Pillay, V. M. Kamp, E. van Hoffen et al., “A subset of neutrophils in human systemic inflammation inhibits T cell responses through Mac-1,” The Journal of Clinical Investigation, vol. 122, no. 1, pp. 327–336, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  43. S. Heink, N. Yogev, C. Garbers et al., “Trans-presentation of IL-6 by dendritic cells is required for the priming of pathogenic TH17 cells,” Nature Immunology, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 74–85, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  44. F. Bao, C. S. Bailey, K. R. Gurr et al., “Increased oxidative activity in human blood neutrophils and monocytes after spinal cord injury,” Experimental Neurology, vol. 215, no. 2, pp. 308–316, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  45. Y. Liao, P. Liu, F. Guo, Z. Y. Zhang, and Z. Zhang, “Oxidative burst of circulating neutrophils following traumatic brain injury in human,” PLoS One, vol. 8, no. 7, article e68963, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  46. E. D. Fox, D. S. Heffernan, W. G. Cioffi, and J. S. Reichner, “Neutrophils from critically ill septic patients mediate profound loss of endothelial barrier integrity,” Critical Care, vol. 17, no. 5, article R226, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  47. N. Borregaard and J. B. Cowland, “Granules of the human neutrophilic polymorphonuclear leukocyte,” Blood, vol. 89, no. 10, pp. 3503–3521, 1997. View at: Google Scholar
  48. T. A. Wilgus, S. Roy, and J. C. McDaniel, “Neutrophils and wound repair: positive actions and negative reactions,” Advances in Wound Care, vol. 2, no. 7, pp. 379–388, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  49. R. Bjerknes, H. Vindenes, J. Pitkanen, J. Ninnemann, O. D. Laerum, and F. Abyholm, “Altered polymorphonuclear neutrophilic granulocyte functions in patients with large burns,” The Journal of Trauma, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 847–855, 1989. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  50. A. Banbula, T. P. Zimmerman, and V. V. Novokhatny, “Blood inhibitory capacity toward exogenous plasmin,” Blood Coagulation & Fibrinolysis, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 241–246, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  51. U. Schaefer, B. Brücker, A. Elbers, and E. Neugebauer, “The capacity of α2-macroglobulin to inhibit an exogenous protease is significantly increased in critically ill and septic patients,” Shock, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 16–22, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  52. A. Paunel-Görgülü, T. Kirichevska, T. Lögters, J. Windolf, and S. Flohé, “Molecular mechanisms underlying delayed apoptosis in neutrophils from multiple trauma patients with and without sepsis,” Molecular Medicine, vol. 18, pp. 325–335, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  53. B. G. Yipp, B. Petri, D. Salina et al., “Infection-induced NETosis is a dynamic process involving neutrophil multitasking in vivo,” Nature Medicine, vol. 18, no. 9, pp. 1386–1393, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  54. M. Bosmann and P. A. Ward, “Protein-based therapies for acute lung injury: targeting neutrophil extracellular traps,” Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Targets, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 703–714, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  55. B. G. Yipp and P. Kubes, “NETosis: how vital is it?” Blood, vol. 122, no. 16, pp. 2784–2794, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  56. A. Kovtun, S. Bergdolt, R. Wiegner, P. Radermacher, M. Huber-Lang, and A. Ignatius, “The crucial role of neutrophil granulocytes in bone fracture healing,” European Cells & Materials, vol. 32, pp. 152–162, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  57. M. Perl, M. Kieninger, M. S. Huber-Lang et al., “Divergent effects of activated neutrophils on inflammation, Kupffer cell/splenocyte activation, and lung injury following blunt chest trauma,” Shock, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 210–218, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  58. H. Li, K. Itagaki, N. Sandler et al., “Mitochondrial damage-associated molecular patterns from fractures suppress pulmonary immune responses via formyl peptide receptors 1 and 2,” Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, vol. 78, no. 2, pp. 272–281, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  59. J. M. Cavaillon and D. Annane, “Compartmentalization of the inflammatory response in sepsis and SIRS,” Journal of Endotoxin Research, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 151–170, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  60. H. Carlsen, J. Ø. Moskaug, S. H. Fromm, and R. Blomhoff, “In vivo imaging of NF-κB activity,” The Journal of Immunology, vol. 168, no. 3, pp. 1441–1446, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  61. E. Lefrançais, G. Ortiz-Muñoz, A. Caudrillier et al., “The lung is a site of platelet biogenesis and a reservoir for haematopoietic progenitors,” Nature, vol. 544, no. 7648, pp. 105–109, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  62. N. X. Landén, D. Li, and M. Ståhle, “Transition from inflammation to proliferation: a critical step during wound healing,” Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, vol. 73, no. 20, pp. 3861–3885, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  63. P. Martin, “Wound healing--aiming for perfect skin regeneration,” Science, vol. 276, no. 5309, pp. 75–81, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  64. J. V. Dovi, A. M. Szpaderska, and L. A. DiPietro, “Neutrophil function in the healing wound: adding insult to injury?” Thrombosis and Haemostasis, vol. 92, no. 2, pp. 275–280, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  65. H. Sinno and S. Prakash, “Complements and the wound healing cascade: an updated review,” Plastic Surgery International, vol. 2013, Article ID 146764, 7 pages, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  66. D. M. Simpson and R. Ross, “The neutrophilic leukocyte in wound repair a study with antineutrophil serum,” The Journal of Clinical Investigation, vol. 51, no. 8, pp. 2009–2023, 1972. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  67. N. Z. Cantürk, N. Esen, B. Vural et al., “The relationship between neutrophils and incisional wound healing,” Skin Pharmacology and Applied Skin Physiology, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 108–116, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  68. M. C. C. Canesso, A. T. Vieira, T. B. R. Castro et al., “Skin wound healing is accelerated and scarless in the absence of commensal microbiota,” The Journal of Immunology, vol. 193, no. 10, pp. 5171–5180, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  69. J. Hopkinson-Woolley, D. Hughes, S. Gordon, and P. Martin, “Macrophage recruitment during limb development and wound healing in the embryonic and foetal mouse,” Journal of Cell Science, vol. 107, Part 5, pp. 1159–1167, 1994. View at: Google Scholar
  70. K. W. Liechty, H. B. Kim, N. S. Adzick, and T. M. Crombleholme, “Fetal wound repair results in scar formation in interleukin-10–deficient mice in a syngeneic murine model of scarless fetal wound repair,” Journal of Pediatric Surgery, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 866–873, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  71. E. Feiken, J. Rømer, J. Eriksen, and L. R. Lund, “Neutrophils express tumor necrosis factor-α during mouse skin wound healing,” The Journal of Investigative Dermatology, vol. 105, no. 1, pp. 120–123, 1995. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  72. E. Kanno, K. Kawakami, M. Ritsu et al., “Wound healing in skin promoted by inoculation with Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1: the critical role of tumor necrosis factor-α secreted from infiltrating neutrophils,” Wound Repair and Regeneration, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 608–621, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  73. M. McCourt, J. H. Wang, S. Sookhai, and H. P. Redmond, “Proinflammatory mediators stimulate neutrophil-directed angiogenesis,” Archives of Surgery, vol. 134, no. 12, pp. 1325–1331, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  74. S. de Oliveira, E. E. Rosowski, and A. Huttenlocher, “Neutrophil migration in infection and wound repair: going forward in reverse,” Nature Reviews Immunology, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 378–391, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  75. Z.-C. Chen, S.-Y. S. Wu, W.-Y. Su et al., “Anti-inflammatory and burn injury wound healing properties of the shell of Haliotis diversicolor,” BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, vol. 16, no. 1, p. 487, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  76. T. Peters, A. Sindrilaru, B. Hinz et al., “Wound-healing defect of CD18−/− mice due to a decrease in TGF-β1 and myofibroblast differentiation,” The EMBO Journal, vol. 24, no. 19, pp. 3400–3410, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  77. A. Desmouliere, A. Geinoz, F. Gabbiani, and G. Gabbiani, “Transforming growth factor-β1 induces α-smooth muscle actin expression in granulation tissue myofibroblasts and in quiescent and growing cultured fibroblasts,” The Journal of Cell Biology, vol. 122, no. 1, pp. 103–111, 1993. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  78. J.-I. Jun, K.-H. Kim, and L. F. Lau, “The matricellular protein CCN1 mediates neutrophil efferocytosis in cutaneous wound healing,” Nature Communications, vol. 6, no. 1, article 7386, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  79. A. O. Aliprantis, R. B. Yang, D. S. Weiss, P. Godowski, and A. Zychlinsky, “The apoptotic signaling pathway activated by Toll-like receptor-2,” The EMBO Journal, vol. 19, no. 13, pp. 3325–3336, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  80. J. G. Kupfner, J. J. Arcaroli, H. K. Yum, S. G. Nadler, K. Y. Yang, and E. Abraham, “Role of NF-κB in endotoxemia-induced alterations of lung neutrophil apoptosis,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 167, no. 12, pp. 7044–7051, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  81. S. A. Adams, S. L. Kelly, R. E. Kirsch, S. C. Robson, and E. G. Shephard, “Role of neutrophil membrane proteases in fibrin degradation,” Blood Coagulation & Fibrinolysis, vol. 6, no. 8, pp. 693–702, 1995. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  82. R. R. Thiagarajan, R. K. Winn, and J. M. Harlan, “The role of leukocyte and endothelial adhesion molecules in ischemia-reperfusion injury,” Thrombosis and Haemostasis, vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 310–314, 1997. View at: Google Scholar
  83. D. Jiang, J. Muschhammer, Y. Qi et al., “Suppression of neutrophil-mediated tissue damage—a novel skill of mesenchymal stem cells,” Stem Cells, vol. 34, no. 9, pp. 2393–2406, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  84. M. Frieri, K. Kumar, and A. Boutin, “Wounds, burns, trauma, and injury,” Wound Medicine, vol. 13, pp. 12–17, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  85. N. Jahovic, E. Güzel, S. Arbak, and B. Ç. Yeğen, “The healing-promoting effect of saliva on skin burn is mediated by epidermal growth factor (EGF): role of the neutrophils,” Burns, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 531–538, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  86. D. B. Allen, J. J. Maguire, M. Mahdavian et al., “Wound hypoxia and acidosis limit neutrophil bacterial killing mechanisms,” Archives of Surgery, vol. 132, no. 9, pp. 991–996, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  87. H. Barker, M. Aaltonen, P. Pan et al., “Role of carbonic anhydrases in skin wound healing,” Experimental & Molecular Medicine, vol. 49, no. 5, article e334, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  88. N. R. P. Singh, A. Johnson, A. M. Peters, J. Babar, E. R. Chilvers, and C. Summers, “Acute lung injury results from failure of neutrophil de-priming: a new hypothesis,” European Journal of Clinical Investigation, vol. 42, no. 12, pp. 1342–1349, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  89. C. Summers, N. R. Singh, J. F. White et al., “Pulmonary retention of primed neutrophils: a novel protective host response, which is impaired in the acute respiratory distress syndrome,” Thorax, vol. 69, no. 7, pp. 623–629, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  90. A. R. Burns, C. W. Smith, and D. C. Walker, “Unique structural features that influence neutrophil emigration into the lung,” Physiological Reviews, vol. 83, no. 2, pp. 309–336, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  91. C. M. Doerschuk, G. P. Downey, D. E. Doherty et al., “Leukocyte and platelet margination within microvasculature of rabbit lungs,” Journal of Applied Physiology, vol. 68, no. 5, pp. 1956–1961, 1990. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  92. J. Grommes and O. Soehnlein, “Contribution of neutrophils to acute lung injury,” Molecular Medicine, vol. 17, no. 3-4, pp. 293–307, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  93. J. Reutershan and K. Ley, “Bench-to-bedside review: acute respiratory distress syndrome – how neutrophils migrate into the lung,” Critical Care, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 453–461, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  94. A. E. Williams and R. C. Chambers, “The mercurial nature of neutrophils: still an enigma in ARDS?” American Journal of Physiology Lung Cellular and Molecular Physiology, vol. 306, no. 3, pp. L217–L230, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  95. J. C. Hogg, H. O. Coxson, M. L. Brumwell et al., “Erythrocyte and polymorphonuclear cell transit time and concentration in human pulmonary capillaries,” Journal of Applied Physiology, vol. 77, no. 4, pp. 1795–1800, 1994. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  96. G. P. Downey and G. S. Worthen, “Neutrophil retention in model capillaries: deformability, geometry, and hydrodynamic forces,” Journal of Applied Physiology, vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 1861–1871, 1988. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  97. H. Inano, D. English, and C. M. Doerschuk, “Effect of zymosan-activated plasma on the deformability of rabbit polymorphonuclear leukocytes,” Journal of Applied Physiology, vol. 73, no. 4, pp. 1370–1376, 1992. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  98. S. M. Buttrum, E. M. Drost, W. MacNee et al., “Rheological response of neutrophils to different types of stimulation,” Journal of Applied Physiology, vol. 77, no. 4, pp. 1801–1810, 1994. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  99. E. M. Drost and W. MacNee, “Potential role of IL-8, platelet-activating factor and TNF-α in the sequestration of neutrophils in the lung: effects on neutrophil deformability, adhesion receptor expression, and chemotaxis,” European Journal of Immunology, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 393–403, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  100. G. Worthen, B. Schwab, E. Elson, and G. Downey, “Mechanics of stimulated neutrophils: cell stiffening induces retention in capillaries,” Science, vol. 245, no. 4914, pp. 183–186, 1989. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  101. S. C. Erzurum, G. P. Downey, D. E. Doherty, B. Schwab 3rd, E. L. Elson, and G. S. Worthen, “Mechanisms of lipopolysaccharide-induced neutrophil retention. Relative contributions of adhesive and cellular mechanical properties,” The Journal of Immunology, vol. 149, no. 1, pp. 154–162, 1992. View at: Google Scholar
  102. D. C. Walker, A. MacKenzie, and S. Hosford, “The structure of the tricellular region of endothelial tight junctions of pulmonary capillaries analyzed by freeze-fracture,” Microvascular Research, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 259–281, 1994. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  103. T. R. Martin, B. P. Pistorese, E. Y. Chi, R. B. Goodman, and M. A. Matthay, “Effects of leukotriene B4 in the human lung. Recruitment of neutrophils into the alveolar spaces without a change in protein permeability,” The Journal of Clinical Investigation, vol. 84, no. 5, pp. 1609–1619, 1989. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  104. A. Jill Mackarel, D. C. Cottell, K. J. Russell, M. X. FitzGerald, and C. M. O'Connor, “Migration of neutrophils across human pulmonary endothelial cells is not blocked by matrix metalloproteinase or serine protease inhibitors,” American Journal of Respiratory Cell and Molecular Biology, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 1209–1219, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  105. C. S. Calfee, M. D. Eisner, L. B. Ware et al., “Trauma-associated lung injury differs clinically and biologically from acute lung injury due to other clinical disorders,” Critical Care Medicine, vol. 35, no. 10, pp. 2243–2250, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  106. N. D. Ferguson, E. Fan, L. Camporota et al., “The Berlin definition of ARDS: an expanded rationale, justification, and supplementary material,” Intensive Care Medicine, vol. 38, no. 10, pp. 1573–1582, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  107. M. M. Treggiari, L. D. Hudson, D. P. Martin, N. S. Weiss, E. Caldwell, and G. Rubenfeld, “Effect of acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome on outcome in critically ill trauma patients*,” Critical Care Medicine, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 327–331, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  108. S. Chollet-Martin, B. Jourdain, C. Gibert, C. Elbim, J. Chastre, and M. A. Gougerot-Pocidalo, “Interactions between neutrophils and cytokines in blood and alveolar spaces during ARDS,” American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, vol. 154, no. 3, pp. 594–601, 1996. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  109. M. A. Flierl, M. Perl, D. Rittirsch et al., “The role of C5a in the innate immune response after experimental blunt chest trauma,” Shock, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 25–31, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  110. R. Pfeifer, J. H. K. Andruszkow, D. Busch et al., “Development of a standardized trauma-related lung injury model,” The Journal of Surgical Research, vol. 196, no. 2, pp. 388–394, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  111. K. Raymondos, M. U. Martin, T. Schmudlach et al., “Early alveolar and systemic mediator release in patients at different risks for ARDS after multiple trauma,” Injury, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 189–195, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  112. R. K. Bhatia, I. Pallister, C. Dent, S. A. Jones, and N. Topley, “Enhanced neutrophil migratory activity following major blunt trauma,” Injury, vol. 36, no. 8, pp. 956–962, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  113. J. Hazeldine, D. N. Naumann, E. Toman et al., “Prehospital immune responses and development of multiple organ dysfunction syndrome following traumatic injury: a prospective cohort study,” PLoS Medicine, vol. 14, no. 7, article e1002338, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  114. S. A. Jones, “Directing transition from innate to acquired immunity: defining a role for IL-6,” The Journal of Immunology, vol. 175, no. 6, pp. 3463–3468, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  115. G. Zallen, E. E. Moore, J. L. Johnson et al., “Circulating postinjury neutrophils are primed for the release of proinflammatory cytokines,” The Journal of Trauma, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 42–48, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  116. R. H. Simon, P. D. DeHart, and R. F. Todd 3rd, “Neutrophil-induced injury of rat pulmonary alveolar epithelial cells,” The Journal of Clinical Investigation, vol. 78, no. 5, pp. 1375–1386, 1986. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  117. G. Matute-Bello, W. C. Liles, F. Radella II et al., “Modulation of neutrophil apoptosis by granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and granulocyte/macrophage colony-stimulating factor during the course of acute respiratory distress syndrome,” Critical Care Medicine, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  118. E. Abraham, A. Carmody, R. Shenkar, and J. Arcaroli, “Neutrophils as early immunologic effectors in hemorrhage- or endotoxemia-induced acute lung injury,” American Journal of Physiology Lung Cellular and Molecular Physiology, vol. 279, no. 6, pp. L1137–L1145, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  119. T. Narasaraju, E. Yang, R. P. Samy et al., “Excessive neutrophils and neutrophil extracellular traps contribute to acute lung injury of influenza pneumonitis,” The American Journal of Pathology, vol. 179, no. 1, pp. 199–210, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  120. D. Carden, F. Xiao, C. Moak, B. H. Willis, S. Robinson-Jackson, and S. Alexander, “Neutrophil elastase promotes lung microvascular injury and proteolysis of endothelial cadherins,” The American Journal of Physiology, vol. 275, 2, Part 2, pp. H385–H392, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  121. H. H. Ginzberg, V. Cherapanov, Q. Dong et al., “Neutrophil-mediated epithelial injury during transmigration: role of elastase,” American Journal of Physiology Gastrointestinal and Liver Physiology, vol. 281, no. 3, pp. G705–G717, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  122. A. Ichikawa, K. Kuba, M. Morita et al., “CXCL10-CXCR3 enhances the development of neutrophil-mediated fulminant lung injury of viral and nonviral origin,” American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, vol. 187, no. 1, pp. 65–77, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  123. E. Azoulay, M. Darmon, C. Delclaux et al., “Deterioration of previous acute lung injury during neutropenia recovery,” Critical Care Medicine, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 781–786, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  124. M. Huber-Lang, J. D. Lambris, and P. A. Ward, “Innate immune responses to trauma,” Nature Immunology, vol. 19, pp. 327–341, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  125. K. Iwata, A. Doi, G. Ohji et al., “Effect of neutrophil elastase inhibitor (sivelestat sodium) in the treatment of acute lung injury (ALI) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS): a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Internal Medicine, vol. 49, no. 22, pp. 2423–2432, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  126. C. Delclaux, S. Rezaiguia-Delclaux, C. Delacourt, C. Brun-Buisson, C. Lafuma, and A. Harf, “Alveolar neutrophils in endotoxin-induced and bacteria-induced acute lung injury in rats,” The American Journal of Physiology, vol. 273, 1, Part 1, pp. L104–L112, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  127. T. Visser, F. Hietbrink, K. M. Groeneveld, L. Koenderman, and L. P. H. Leenen, “Isolated blunt chest injury leads to transient activation of circulating neutrophils,” European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 177–184, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  128. T. Visser, J. Pillay, P. Pickkers, L. P. H. Leenen, and L. Koenderman, “Homology in systemic neutrophil response induced by human experimental endotoxemia and by trauma,” Shock, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 145–151, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  129. A. Botha, F. Moore, E. Moore, F. Kim, A. Banerjee, and V. Peterson, “Postinjury neutrophil priming and activation: an early vulnerable window,” Surgery, vol. 118, no. 2, pp. 358–365, 1995. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  130. D. J. McIlroy, A. G. Jarnicki, G. G. Au et al., “Mitochondrial DNA neutrophil extracellular traps are formed after trauma and subsequent surgery,” Journal of Critical Care, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 1133.e1–1133.e5, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  131. R. Lefering, T. Paffrath, and U. Neunaber, “Trauma register DGU annual report,” in German trauma society (DGU), committee on emergency medicine, intensive care and trauma management (Section NIS), and AUC - academy of trauma surgery, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  132. O. Bastian, J. Pillay, J. Alblas, L. Leenen, L. Koenderman, and T. Blokhuis, “Systemic inflammation and fracture healing,” Journal of Leukocyte Biology, vol. 89, no. 5, pp. 669–673, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  133. A. H. Karladani, H. Granhed, J. Kärrholm, and J. Styf, “The influence of fracture etiology and type on fracture healing: a review of 104 consecutive tibial shaft fractures,” Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, vol. 121, no. 6, pp. 325–328, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  134. H. C. Pape, R. Marcucio, C. Humphrey, C. Colnot, M. Knobe, and E. J. Harvey, “Trauma-induced inflammation and fracture healing,” Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma, vol. 24, no. 9, pp. 522–525, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  135. L. Claes, S. Recknagel, and A. Ignatius, “Fracture healing under healthy and inflammatory conditions,” Nature Reviews Rheumatology, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 133–143, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  136. P. Hoff, T. Gaber, C. Strehl et al., “Immunological characterization of the early human fracture hematoma,” Immunologic Research, vol. 64, no. 5-6, pp. 1195–1206, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  137. O. W. Bastian, L. Koenderman, J. Alblas, L. P. H. Leenen, and T. J. Blokhuis, “Neutrophils contribute to fracture healing by synthesizing fibronectin+ extracellular matrix rapidly after injury,” Clinical Immunology, vol. 164, pp. 78–84, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  138. R. Chung, J. C. Cool, M. A. Scherer, B. K. Foster, and C. J. Xian, “Roles of neutrophil-mediated inflammatory response in the bony repair of injured growth plate cartilage in young rats,” Journal of Leukocyte Biology, vol. 80, no. 6, pp. 1272–1280, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  139. B. Grøgaard, B. Gerdin, and O. Reikerås, “The polymorphonuclear leukocyte: has it a role in fracture healing?” Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, vol. 109, no. 5, pp. 268–271, 1990. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  140. E. Göktürk, A. Turgut, C. Baygu, I. Gunal, S. Seber, and Z. Gulbas, “Oxygen-free radicals impair fracture healing in rats,” Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica, vol. 66, no. 5, pp. 473–475, 1995. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  141. M. Bozlar, B. Aslan, A. Kalaci, L. Baktiroglu, A. N. Yanat, and A. Tasci, “Effects of human granulocyte-colony stimulating factor on fracture healing in rats,” Saudi Medical Journal, vol. 26, no. 8, pp. 1250–1254, 2005. View at: Google Scholar
  142. T. Fukui, T. Matsumoto, Y. Mifune et al., “Local transplantation of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor-mobilized human peripheral blood mononuclear cells for unhealing bone fractures,” Cell Transplantation, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 707–721, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  143. K. Ishida, T. Matsumoto, K. Sasaki et al., “Bone regeneration properties of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor via neovascularization and osteogenesis,” Tissue Engineering Part A, vol. 16, no. 10, pp. 3271–3284, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  144. J. K. Chan, G. E. Glass, A. Ersek et al., “Low-dose TNF augments fracture healing in normal and osteoporotic bone by up-regulating the innate immune response,” EMBO Molecular Medicine, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 547–561, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  145. J. Kemmler, R. Bindl, O. McCook et al., “Exposure to 100% oxygen abolishes the impairment of fracture healing after thoracic trauma,” PLoS One, vol. 10, no. 7, article e0131194, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  146. S. Recknagel, R. Bindl, C. Brochhausen et al., “Systemic inflammation induced by a thoracic trauma alters the cellular composition of the early fracture callus,” The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, vol. 74, no. 2, pp. 531–537, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  147. M. Weiss, L. L. Moldawer, and E. M. Schneider, “Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor to prevent the progression of systemic nonresponsiveness in systemic inflammatory response syndrome and sepsis,” Blood, vol. 93, no. 2, pp. 425–439, 1999. View at: Google Scholar
  148. C. Schneider, S. von Aulock, S. Zedler, C. Schinkel, T. Hartung, and E. Faist, “Perioperative recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (Filgrastim) treatment prevents immunoinflammatory dysfunction associated with major surgery,” Annals of Surgery, vol. 239, no. 1, pp. 75–81, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  149. S. O. Heard, M. P. Fink, R. L. Gamelli et al., “Effect of prophylactic administration of recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (filgrastim) on the frequency of nosocomial infections in patients with acute traumatic brain injury or cerebral hemorrhage,” Critical Care Medicine, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 748–754, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  150. D. Ross, T. Maerz, M. Kurdziel et al., “The effect of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor on rotator cuff healing after injury and repair,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, vol. 473, no. 5, pp. 1655–1664, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  151. J. Grzybowski, E. Oldak, and M. K. Janiak, “Local application of G-CSF, GM-CSF and EGF in treatment of wounds,” Postȩpy Higieny i Medycyny Doświadczalnej, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 75–86, 1999. View at: Google Scholar
  152. D. Kreisel, S. Sugimoto, J. Tietjens et al., “Bcl3 prevents acute inflammatory lung injury in mice by restraining emergency granulopoiesis,” The Journal of Clinical Investigation, vol. 121, no. 1, pp. 265–276, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  153. J. J. Akershoek, K. M. Brouwer, M. Vlig et al., “Differential effects of losartan and atorvastatin in partial and full thickness burn wounds,” PLoS One, vol. 12, no. 6, article e0179350, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  154. Z. Y. Bao, Q. W. Ye, W. H. Gong, Y. Xiang, and H. Y. Wan, “Humanized monoclonal antibody against the chemokine CXCL-8 (IL-8) effectively prevents acute lung injury,” International Immunopharmacology, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 259–263, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  155. J. J. Hoth, J. D. Wells, E. M. Hiltbold, C. E. McCall, and B. K. Yoza, “Mechanism of neutrophil recruitment to the lung after pulmonary contusion,” Shock, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 604–609, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  156. G. Kasotakis, M. Galvan, E. King et al., “Valproic acid mitigates the inflammatory response and prevents acute respiratory distress syndrome in a murine model of Escherichia coli pneumonia at the expense of bacterial clearance,” Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, vol. 82, no. 4, pp. 758–765, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  157. L. Pedrazza, A. A. Cunha, C. Luft et al., “Mesenchymal stem cells improves survival in LPS-induced acute lung injury acting through inhibition of NETs formation,” Journal of Cellular Physiology, vol. 232, no. 12, pp. 3552–3564, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  158. S. Boodram and E. Evans, “Use of leukocyte-depleting filters during cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass: a review,” The Journal of Extra-Corporeal Technology, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 27–42, 2008. View at: Google Scholar
  159. G. Matheis, M. Scholz, A. Simon, O. Dzemali, and A. Moritz, “Leukocyte filtration in cardiac surgery: a review,” Perfusion, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 361–370, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2018 A. Kovtun et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

More related articles

 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder

Related articles