BBC Russian
Svoboda | Graniru | BBC Russia | Golosameriki | Facebook

This website requires cookies, and the limited processing of your personal data in order to function. By using the site you are agreeing to this as outlined in our privacy notice and cookie policy.

Decidual macrophages in recurrent spontaneous abortion.

Author information

Affiliations

  • 1. Center of Reproductive Medicine, Affiliated Hospital of Weifang Medical University, Weifang, Shandong, China.
      Authors
    • Zhao QY 1
    • Li QH 1
    • Fu YY 1
    • Ren CE 1
    • Jiang AF 1
    • Meng YH 1
    (6 authors)

Frontiers in Immunology, 08 Dec 2022, 13:994888
https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2022.994888 PMID: 36569856 PMCID: PMC9781943

Review

Articles in the Open Access Subset are available under a Creative Commons license. This means they are free to read, and that reuse is permitted under certain circumstances. There are six different Creative Commons licenses available, see the copyright license for this article to understand what type of reuse is permitted.
Free full text in Europe PMC

Abstract 

Recurrent spontaneous abortion (RSA) is defined as two or more pregnancy loss, affecting the happiness index of fertility couples. The mechanisms involved in the occurrence of RSA are not clear to date. The primary problem for the maternal immune system is how to establish and maintain the immune tolerance to the semi-allogeneic fetuses. During the pregnancy, decidual macrophages mainly play an important role in the immunologic dialogue. The purpose of this study is to explore decidual macrophages, and to understand whether there is a connection between these cells and RSA by analyzing their phenotypes and functions. Pubmed, Web of Science and Embase were searched. The eligibility criterion for this review was evaluating the literature about the pregnancy and macrophages. Any disagreement between the authors was resolved upon discussion and if required by the judgment of the corresponding author. We summarized the latest views on the phenotype, function and dysfunction of decidual macrophages to illuminate its relationship with RSA.

Free full text 

Logo of frontimmuLink to Publisher's site
Front Immunol. 2022; 13: 994888.
Published online 2022 Dec 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2022.994888
PMCID: PMC9781943
PMID: 36569856

Decidual macrophages in recurrent spontaneous abortion

Qiu-Yan Zhao, Qing-Hui Li, Yao-Yao Fu, Chun-E Ren, Ai-Fang Jiang, and Yu-Han Mengcorresponding author *
Author information Article notes Copyright and License information Disclaimer

Associated Data

Data Availability Statement

Abstract

Recurrent spontaneous abortion (RSA) is defined as two or more pregnancy loss, affecting the happiness index of fertility couples. The mechanisms involved in the occurrence of RSA are not clear to date. The primary problem for the maternal immune system is how to establish and maintain the immune tolerance to the semi-allogeneic fetuses. During the pregnancy, decidual macrophages mainly play an important role in the immunologic dialogue. The purpose of this study is to explore decidual macrophages, and to understand whether there is a connection between these cells and RSA by analyzing their phenotypes and functions. Pubmed, Web of Science and Embase were searched. The eligibility criterion for this review was evaluating the literature about the pregnancy and macrophages. Any disagreement between the authors was resolved upon discussion and if required by the judgment of the corresponding author. We summarized the latest views on the phenotype, function and dysfunction of decidual macrophages to illuminate its relationship with RSA.

Keywords: decidual macrophages, recurrent spontaneous abortion (RSA), M1/M2 balance, CD11clow/CD11chigh, the maternal-fetal interface

Introduction

Recurrent spontaneous abortion (RSA) is an early pregnancy complication, which is defined as two or more spontaneous pregnancy loss with the same couple (1). The European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) considers it often occur continuously prior to 24 gestational weeks (2). In recent years, RSA becomes one of the formidable challenges for the doctors and infertile patients, as it may govern the fate of the whole family. However, miscarriage is a relatively common problem, occurring in 12 to 15 percent of clinically recognized pregnancies. Its risk increases with maternal age (3) and each previous prenancy losses stepwise. Patients suffered from recurrent abortion account for 1-3% (4). Large amount of data shows that RSA patients are a high-risk population for obstetrical and perinatal complications (5, 6). As the number of miscarriages has increased, the more damage to the maternal endometrium and the emergence of pelvic inflammatory disease, lead to secondary infertility. Equally, the risk of fetal growth restriction, placental abruption, premature delivery and stillbirth in future pregnancies are also raised. What can not be ignored are the following issues, such as venous thromboembolism, mental health and economic costs. Thus, closer surveillance of the RSA patients in late pregnancy must be introduced in clinical practice.

The causes of RSA are connected with anatomic defects, chromosomal abnormalities, immune dysregulation, thrombophilia, endocrine disease, infection, environmental and psychological factors (7, 8). Until now, approximately 50% of RSA cases remain elusive, leaving us away from an accurate examination and treatment. Actually, the follow-up studies of the exact etiology and pathogenesis are frequently difficult. Because of practical feasibility and ethical limitations, mouse models with higher conception rate and shorter gestation are always used in the studies of RSA (9). However, the relationship between unexplained RSA and immune system has increasingly drawn more attention in clinical practice. The latest research about a single-cell RNA sequencing showed macrophages have been observed in human yolk sac both morphologically and transcriptionally, which is essential for fetal development in early pregnancy (10). And numerous immunomodulatory therapies for RSA have been suggested.

Given the relationship with RSA, researches mostly support that the immunological factor is a prerequisite for a successful pregnancy (11). Compared to the more explicit role of NK cells in pregnancy (12), the roles of decidual macrophages in pregnancy have not been fully investigated. Macrophages are the second largest group of immune cells and account for 20 percent of the total leukocytes at the maternal-fetal interface (13). They participate in all physiological events in the female reproductive system, such as menstruation, implantation and deliver (14). On account of the polarization and plasticity of macrophages, they differentiate into specific phenotypes as a response to the microenvironmental stimuli (15, 16). The number and function of macrophages in the non-pregnant uterus are regulated by the estrogen and progesterone during the menstrual cycle (17). When the endometrium falls off at menstruation, macrophages with numbers peaking promote “wound healing” through phagocytosis and tissue remodel (18). Before implanting, macrophages are recruited to exhibit M1 phenotype to reply the inflammatory response resulting from seminal fluid. As extravillous trophoblasts (EVTs) begin to invade the decidua, decidual macrophages convert to a mixed profile of M1/M2 macrophages (19). Then, for the establishment of fetal immune tolerance, macrophages transform into an overwhelming M2 phenotype (20). By releasing proangiogenic growth factors such as interleukin 8 (IL-8), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-A and VEGF-C, M2 macrophages act as ‘bridge cells’. They jointly facilitate unique vascularization and immunosuppression in the placental microenvironment (21, 22). In the process of tissue remodeling, decidual macrophages protect embryos from phagocytosis and infection (23, 24). Therefore, decidual macrophages are indispensable in pregnancy and its dysfunction will lead to pregnancy loss.

Phenotypes of decidual macrophages

Plasticity and polarization are landmarks of macrophages (16, 25). At the maternal-fetal interface, notable changes have occurred in the decidual macrophages. Next, we will brief the classification and possible mechanisms of macrophage in terms of its phenotype.

M1/M2

Based on their cytokines secretion, chemokines expression and functional characteristics, decidual macrophages can be classified into two subsets: classically activated macrophages (M1 macrophages), and alternatively activated macrophages (M2 macrophages) (26–28).

Bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS) recognition or induction of Th1 cytokines, such as tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α), interferon-γ (INF-γ), can drive M1 polarization of macrophages. These macrophages secrete pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines IL-1α, IL-1β, IL-6, IL-12, TNF-α, CXCL9, CXCL10 and express surface markers CD80, CD86, TLR-2, TLR-4, and major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class II. With the capacity of presenting antigen, M1 macrophages produce T helper type 1 (Th1) responses. It is characterized by maximizing the ability of immune cells to make cytotoxic or inflammatory reaction to viral infections, tumors or grafts. In early pregnancy, M1 macrophages promote embryo implantation and protect the fetus from infection (29–33).

Moreover, IL-4 and IL-13 directly induce M2 macrophage activation, IL-10 and transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β) make macrophages polarized toward the M2 phenotype. As the part of a polarized Th2 response, M2 macrophages are involved in apoptotic cells clearance and tissue remodeling. The release of a distinct set of chemokines, such as CCL17, CCL22 and CCL24 and their corresponding chemokine receptors CCR4 and CCR3, can also cause the recruitment of Th2 cells and amplification of polarized Th2 responses. They have immunosuppressive properties with higher levels of CD206, CD209 and CD163 expression. M2 macrophages provide an immune-tolerant environment for the fetus throughout pregnancy (29, 34–36).

Macrophages are typical plastic cells which can switch phenotypes and be subject to environmental disturbances (37, 38). Therefore, it is necessary to ensure the balance of M1 and M2 macrophages, so that the embryo can implant and develop smoothly at the maternal-fetal interface (39–42).

CD11chigh/CD11clow

Distinct from the traditional M1 and M2 macrophages, Houser classified decidual macrophages into CD11c high and CD11c low subpopulations on the basis of CD11c expression (43, 44). Moreover, Jiang et al. subdivided macrophages into three decidual subsets, CCR2-CD11cLO, CCR2-CD11cHI, and CCR2+CD11cHI by flow cytometry analysis (45, 46). CD11c low decidual macrophages and CCR2-CD11cLO subset expressed highly phagocytic receptors, such as CD209 and CD206 (43, 47). CCR2-CD11cLO macrophages also specifically exhibits heme oxygenase-1 (HMOX1) (48, 49), which may be in favor of protecting the fetus from being affected by possible infections during the early pregnancy (42). While CCR2+CD11cHI and CCR2-CD11cHI subsets posses pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory characteristics respectively (46, 50). They maintain an immnue balance to facilitate the clearance of pathogen infection and keep the homeostasis of the maternal-fetal interface ( Table 1 ).

Table 1

Different phenotypes of macrophages during pregnancy.

Macrophage typeCharacteristicsFunctionReferences
M1 macrophagesCD80,CD86,TNF-α,INF-γ,
IL-1α,IL-1β,IL-6,IL-12,NO,
CXCL9,CXCL10,CCR7		Pro-inflammatory;
Th1 responses;
Present antigen;
Promote embryo implantation;
Protect the fetus from infection		(20, 29–33, 39, 40, 51, 52)
M2 macrophagesCD206,CD209,CD163,IL-10
TGF-β,VEGF,CCL17,
CCL22,CCL24,CCR3,CCR4		Anti-inflammatory;Th2 responses;
Immunosuppressive properties;
Tissue remodeling		(20, 29, 34–36, 39, 51–54)
CD11clow(67%)CD206hi,CD209hi,
expressed genes involved in
regulating growth and
development, as well as
Extracellular matrix formation		Homeostatic function during
placental growth		(43, 44)
CD11chigh(33%)CD206low,CD209low,
Upregulates CD1a,CD1c,CD1d;
Expressed genes associated with lipid metabolism and inflammation		Antigen processing and presentation(43, 44)
CCR2-CD11cLO (CD11clow,
~80%)		Exhibit the fewest inflammatory properties;
highly express CD209 and MHCII.		Antigen presentation(45, 46, 55)
CCR2+CD11cHI (CD11chigh,
10-15%)		Facilitate the clearance of pathogen infection;
maintain the homeostasis of the maternal-fatal interface.		Pro-inflammatory(45, 46, 55)
CCR2-CD11cHI (CD11chigh,
~5%)		Anti- inflammatory(45, 46, 55)

Functions of decidual macrophages in normal pregnancy

Decidual macrophages have drawn remarkable attention for their functional characteristics of plasticity and polarization (16). Throughout the maternal adaptations to pregnancy, decidual macrophages also play critical roles (56). Decidual macrophages coordinate tissue remodeling and angiogenesis, induce apoptosis of damaged cells, facilitate trophoblasts invasion and suppress inflammation (57–62). Consequently, they are indispensable in contributing to the maternal-fetal immune tolerance.

As we all know, endometrial macrophages act as determinants of uterine receptivity. Owing to the characteristics of immune tolerance, they became the research focus in the medical community (63). Gorczynski pointed out that CD200 and MD-1 have immune regulatory activity toward macrophages, which is beneficial to successful pregnancy (64). If the expression of CD200R in macrophages increases, it can stimulate the activity of indoleamine2,3-dioxygenase (IDO) (65). Thus, establishing an immunosuppressive environment is necessary for successful implantation (66). Furthermore, there are many kinds of Toll receptors on decidual macrophages, such as TLR2, TLR3 and TLR4. In response to TLRs activation, decidual macrophages facilitated the secretion of pro-inflammatory cytokines IL-1β, TNF-α, IL-6, IL-8 and the production of the anti-inflammatory cytokines IL-1RA and IL-10. Among these cytokines, IL-10 was the most easily induced. Along with the higher secretion of IL-10 increased by TLRs activation, it might help sustain immune tolerance by curbing the action of pro-inflammatory cytokines (67). In addition, the inhibitory receptors expressed on invading extravillous trophoblasts, such as immunoglobulin-like transcript 2 (ILT2) and ILT4 for human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-G (68, 69), can be combined with the decidual macrophages. As a negative signal that be delivered to the decidual macrophages, they are in favor of the production of anti-inflammatory cytokines and tolerance to the trophoblast (70).

Human decidual MMP-9+ macrophages can degrade the extracellular matrix (ECM) and promote endovascular trophoblast invasion, and they are enriched in the vicinity of the trophoblast invasion during early pregnancy (71). IL-33, as a cytokine of the IL-1 family, is found to be associated with Th2 and M2 polarization (72, 73). It can accelerate the development of primary trophoblasts, villous cytotrophoblast (74). Granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) and macrophages colony-stimulating factor (M-CSF) are secreted from first trimester decidual cells. These activated cells can promote macrophages activation, and induce extravillous trophoblasts (EVTs) apoptosis through the caspase 3/7 dependent pathway (75). Conversely, trophoblasts-derived IL-6 (76), CXCL16 (77), and hyaluronan (HA) (78) could induce M2 macrophages polarization. In addition, macrophages could also secrete exosomes or extracellular vesicles and deliver miRNAs to affect the invasion and migration capabilities of trophoblasts, thereby participating in the occurrence of RSA (51, 79).

Placental macrophages are a special M2-like polarized phenotype, which don’t possess all properties of M2 cells. However, the expression intensity of CD163, CD80, CD11c, CCR5, CXCR4 on M2-like macrophages are lower than M2 macrophages. They were shown to regulate gap junction communication and promote decidualization (80).

Decidual macrophages may be the major APCs in the decidua (81). It is thought to be the sentinels of the immune system that initiate and regulate the immune response (82). M2 macrophages can wipe out infection by switching gene expression toward anti-inflammatory cytokines including IL-10, TGF-β and IL-1Ra (83). It also express high levels of scavenger receptors CD163, Stabilin-1 and c-type lectins receptors CD206 and CD209 (84). Phagocytosis of damaged and apoptotic cells are fundamental M2 macrophage functions, which also apply to decidual macrophages at the maternal-fetal interface.

The relationship between decidual macrophages and RSA

It has been fully elaborated that RSA have an immune background. What’s the relationship between decidual macrophages and the aetiology of RSA? How do dysfunction of decidual macrophages lead to RSA (Figure 1)?

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name is fimmu-13-994888-g001.jpg

The polarization of macrophages and their characteristics. The figure displays a general principle of polarized M1 and M2 macrophage. M1 and M2 phenotypes represent two extremes of macrophage polarization and display distinct functions, thereby result in different pregnancy outcomes. In response to different stimuli, decidual macrophages undergo M1-like, or M2-like activation. M1 macrophages are stimulated by LPS, TGF-α, or IFN-γ. They express CD80, CD86, and TLR-4, secrete IL-1, IL-6, IL-12, NO, CCL2 and CXCL10, and produce Th1 responses, exert pro-inflammatory effects. In contrast, M2 macrophages are activated by IL-4 or IL-10. They express CD163, CD206, and CD209, secrete IL-10, VEGF, TGF-β and CCL17, and promote Th2 responses, provide an immune-tolerant environment for the fetus. Thus, if M2 macrophages play the major role at the maternal-fetal interface, pregnancy would continue. When M1 macrophages are absolutely dominant, it will ultimately lead to miscarriage. (Created by Figdraw).

M1/M2 macrophages balance

As it was mentioned above, the disturbed M1/M2 macrophages balance came to light at the maternal-fetal interface of RSA (40). It seems that the M1 subtype predominates over the M2 subtype in those cases, accompanied by pregnancy complications (85, 86). M1 macrophages can suppress epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT), migration, and invasion of trophoblasts by transporting miR-146b-5p to directly inhibit TRAF6 expression, thereby participating in the pathogenesis of RSA (87). ChunYan Wei have tested that JAK2 inhibitor adjusted the proportion of M1/M2 macrophages, further affecting the pregnancy outcome through the CCL2/CCR2/JAK2 pathway (88). Decreased programmed death-1 (PD-1) protein expression on decidual macrophages, accompanied with reduced programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression on placental villi, was observed in RSA. Meanwhile, the disturbed PD-1/PD-L1 axis induced M1 differentiation (89). Knockdown of CYP26A1 in mice uterine can decrease the number of embryo implantation. It can be also discovered that the protein levels of M1 markers TNF-α, IL-6 and CD86 were significantly decreased, thus leading to the insufficient M1 polarization (90). Additionally, in the immune atlas of RSA without chromosomal aberrations, pro-inflammatory subsets of CD11chigh macrophages increased remarkably (91). The present research illustrated that the abnormally increased MNSFβ expression can promote the secretion of TNF-α, inducing the polarization of decidual macrophages toward a pro-inflammatory phenotype (92). More intuitive studies on mouse experiments confirmed that Cathepsin E-deficient mice displayed compromised immune reactions with higher susceptibility to bacterial infection (93).

Cytokines

Several studies have demonstrated that the expression of CD80, CD86 and HLA-DR, but not CD163 on decidual macrophages were higher in RSA patients compared to normal pregnancies, accompanied with higher production of TNF-α and lower secretion of IL-10 and IL-33 (40, 73, 94). In LPS-induced mice abortion model, the expression IL-1, IL-6, TNF-α, IFN-γ, IL-17a was significantly raised (95). Macrophage depletion was also proved to prevent CpG-induced embryonic resorption in an abortion mice model and in IL-10-/- mice (96, 97). The experiment as early as the 18th century has confirmed that the depletion of macrophags results in the loss of pregnancy and recurrent abortion (57). CSF-1-deficient mice displayed few decidual macrophages, with lower implantation at day 7 and 8, and always had aberrant fertility with smaller size (98). On day 0.5 or day 3.5 post-coitum, injection of diphtheria toxin (DT) to Cd11b-Dtr mouse model caused implantation failure and infertility. But implantation failure can be alleviated by administration of bone marrow-derived CD11b+F4/80+ monocytes/macrophages (99). And injection on day 14 and 16 led to fetal mortality without cervix ripening (100). However, it could be alleviated by administration of RANK+ macrophages (101). RANKL derived from trophoblasts could make macrophage polarization to M2 by activating AKT/STAT6-Jmjd3/IRF4 signaling pathway. The knockout model of RANK−/− mice can lead to the decreased expression of TGF-β and the increased pregnancy loss (102). Mice with uterine deficiency of high-mobility group box-1 (HMGB1) protein, showed impaired implantation and severe subfertility (103). But highly expressed HMGB1 was actively secreted by macrophages and then activated pyroptosis, leading to the occurrence and development of RSA (104).Therefore, restricting macrophages accumulation is also needed.

T-cell immunoglobulin and mucin domain containing protein 3 (Tim-3) blockade down-regulated the phagocytosis of decidual macrophages, leading to accumulation of inflammatory granulocytes and macrophages at the maternal-fetal interface (105). Therefore, high level of pro-inflammatory cytokines establishes a pro-inflammatory microenvironment and impairs normal pregnancy. It also has been indicated that dysregulation of decidual macrophages activation by regulatory T cells (Treg cells) may lead to RSA. When Treg cells regulate aberrant cell-cell contact, there will be a problem with decidual macrophages. The abnormity of decidual macrophages was indicated to be regulated by Treg cells through aberrant cell-cell contact and TGF-β secretion (106). Moreover, Jiayu Wang’s studies showed that abnormally expressed USP2a may be found in the placental villous samples of RSA patients. Further studies have confirmed that TGF-β could collaborate with USP2a to promote trophoblasts migration and invasion via its interaction with TGFBR1 (107). Thrombospondin1 (TSP1) needs to interact with CD36, CD47 and heparin sulphate proteoglycanto enhance the ability of macrophages (108). They are engaged in regulating IL-10 secretion and boost the tolerance of the immune system at the maternal-fetal interface (109). Thus, low expression of TSP1 along with decreased IL-10 could appear in RSA.

Therapies

Owing to the uncertainty of the pathogenesis, the likelihood of recurrence, recent studies suggest that various treatment of RSA may work (110, 111). Clinicians often use progesterone to support or supplement the pregnancy, by oral, vaginal, intramuscular, or other ways. It is considered to be essential for successful embryo implantation. But now, it is increasingly becoming the psychological support to patients (112). Besides, all treatments for RSA are almost based on immunomodulation for their effects (2, 113). A meta-analysis of the treament of APS-related RSA showed that aspirin plus low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) can significantly reduce the rate of repeated pregnancy loss (114). Another study proved the combination of anticoagulant and anti-inflammatory could contribute to a better pregnancy outcome (115). Prednisone, hydroxychloroquine (116) and cyclosporine A (117) are also part of the clinical therapy regimen of RSA.

When a semi-allogeneic fetus appears at maternal-fetal interface, maternal tolerance is required to avoid the miscarriage. Patients with RSA may lack this capacity. Therefore, alloimmunization was born in response to the condition. It has been suggested that the effect of lymphocyte immunotherapy (LIT) was probably positive. And a higher success rate was likely observed in those immunized with paternal lymphocytes (118). Some experts recommend immunotherapy before and during pregnancy with low dose of lymphocytes. It can break the balance between Th1 and Th2 cytokines, reducing the level of Th1 cytokines (IL-2, INF-γ, TNF-α, and IL-6), while increasing the level of Th2 cytokines (IL-4, IL-10) (119). As opposed to “active immunization” with allogenic lymphocytes which was introduced previously, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) was termed as “passive immunization”. The effect of IVIg on Treg/Th17 cells ratio enhances Treg cells function, and thereby improve the live birth rate in pregnancy to some extent (120). The RSA mice models with intraperitoneally administration of G-CSF certified that the absence of G-CSF weakened the inhibitory effects on macrophages, leading to more M1-type differentiation and overexpressing NLRP3 inflammasomes at the maternal-fetal interface. It implies that G-CSF may improve pregnancy success rate by modulating the inflammatory state (121).

It is worth noting that immunotherapy is not a panacea for treating all patients with RSA. The choice of therapeutic plans should have certain indications (122). For unexplained RSA, we should make efforts to seek the pathogenesis. Testing for inherited thrombophilia and hyperhomocysteinemia should be performed. If necessary, screening for immunological factors such as Human Leukocyte Antigen (HLA), cytokines, antinuclear antibodies (ANA), Natural Killer (NK) cells, anti-HLA antibodies and antisperm antibodies, Lupus anticoagulant (LAC), Anticardiolipin antibodies (ACL) and anti-β2 glycoprotein-I antibodies (β2-GPI). So, further research in personalised treatment options is warranted.

Conclusion

Take together, polarized macrophages can influence the reception of maternal to embryo through the secretion of various cytokines and chemokines. The specific etiology and pathogenesis among them is very complicated, which is an emerging field that needs to be explored urgently. How to maintain M1/M2 macrophages balance? Even we know the correlation of decidual macrophages with RSA, what can we do to help them? Collectively, there are a large number of challenges to be overcome, and further efforts are needed.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81501275), Shandong Province College Science and Technology Plan Project (J18KA252), National Natural Science Foundation of Shangdong Province (ZR2019BH037).

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.

Author contributions

Q-YZ and Q-HL wrote and discussed the manuscript. Y-YF discussed the manuscript. Q-YZ and A-FJ designed and created tables. C-ER and Y-HM reviewed the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

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. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Fertil Steril (2020) 113:533–5. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.11.025 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
2. Bender AR, Christiansen OB, Elson J, Kolte AM, Lewis S, Middeldorp S, et al. . ESHRE guideline: recurrent pregnancy loss. Hum Reprod Open (2018) 2018:y4. 10.1093/hropen/hoy004 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
3. de Ziegler D, Frydman RF. Recurrent pregnancy losses, a lasting cause of infertility. FERTIL STERIL (2021) 115:531–2. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.12.004 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
4. Quenby S, Gallos ID, Dhillon-Smith RK, Podesek M, Stephenson MD, Fisher J, et al. . Miscarriage matters: the epidemiological, physical, psychological, and economic costs of early pregnancy loss. Lancet (2021) 397:1658–67. 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00682-6 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
5. Ticconi C, Pietropolli A, Specchia M, Nicastri E, Chiaramonte C, Piccione E, et al. . Pregnancy-related complications in women with recurrent pregnancy loss: A prospective cohort study. J Clin Med (2020) 9:2833. 10.3390/jcm9092833 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
6. Rasmark RE, Christiansen OB, Kallen K, Hansson SR. Women with a history of recurrent pregnancy loss are a high-risk population for adverse obstetrical outcome: A retrospective cohort study. J Clin Med (2021) 10:179. 10.3390/jcm10020179 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
7. Hong LY, Marren A. Recurrent pregnancy loss: A summary of international evidence-based guidelines and practice. Aust J Gen Pract (2018) 47:432–6. 10.31128/AJGP-01-18-4459 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
8. van Dijk MM, Kolte AM, Limpens J, Kirk E, Quenby S, van Wely M, et al. . Recurrent pregnancy loss: diagnostic workup after two or three pregnancy losses? a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update (2020) 26:356-67. 10.1093/humupd/dmz048 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
9. Yi X, Zhang J, Liu H, Yi T, Ou Y, Liu M, et al. . Suppressed immune-related profile rescues abortion-prone fetuses: A novel insight into the CBA/J x DBA/2J mouse model. Reprod Sci (2019) 26:1485–92. 10.1177/1933719119828042 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
10. Jardine L, Haniffa M. Reconstructing human DC, monocyte and macrophage development in utero using single cell technologies. Mol Immunol (2020) 123:1–6. 10.1016/j.molimm.2020.04.023 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
11. Vomstein K, Feil K, Strobel L, Aulitzky A, Hofer-Tollinger S, Kuon RJ, et al. . Immunological risk factors in recurrent pregnancy loss: Guidelines versus current state of the art. J Clin Med (2021) 10:869. 10.3390/jcm10040869 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
12. Fu YY, Ren CE, Qiao PY, Meng YH. Uterine natural killer cells and recurrent spontaneous abortion. Am J Reprod Immunol (2021) 86:e13433. 10.1111/aji.13433 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
13. Stephanie EA, Michael SD, Carolyn BC. Immune responses at the maternal-fetal interface. Sci Immunol (2019) 4:eaat6114. 10.1126/sciimmunol.aat6114 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
14. Chambers M, Rees A, Cronin JG, Nair M, Jones N, Thornton CA. Macrophage plasticity in reproduction and environmental influences on their function. Front Immunol (2020) 11:607328. 10.3389/fimmu.2020.607328 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
15. Sica A, Mantovani A. Macrophage plasticity and polarization: in vivo veritas. J Clin Invest (2012) 122:787–95. 10.1172/JCI59643 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
16. Shapouri-Moghaddam A, Mohammadian S, Vazini H, Taghadosi M, Esmaeili SA, Mardani F, et al. . Macrophage plasticity, polarization, and function in health and disease. J Cell Physiol (2018) 233:6425–40. 10.1002/jcp.26429 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
17. Wira CR, Rodriguez-Garcia M, Patel MV. The role of sex hormones in immune protection of the female reproductive tract. Nat Rev Immunol (2015) 15:217–30. 10.1038/nri3819 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
18. Cousins FL, Kirkwood PM, Saunders PT, Gibson DA. Evidence for a dynamic role for mononuclear phagocytes during endometrial repairand remodelling. Sci Rep (2016) 6:36748. 10.1038/srep36748 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
19. Jaiswal MK, Mallers TM, Larsen B, Kwak-Kim J, Chaouat G, Gilman-Sachs A, et al. . V-ATPase upregulation during early pregnancy: a possible link to establishment of an inflammatory response during preimplantation period of pregnancy. Reproduction (2012) 143:713–25. 10.1530/REP-12-0036 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
20. Ning F, Liu H, Lash GE. The role of decidual macrophages during normal and pathological pregnancy. Am J Reprod Immunol (2016) 75:298–309. 10.1111/aji.12477 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
21. Schmidt T, Carmeliet P. Blood-vessel formation: Bridges that guide and unite. Nature (2010) 465:697–9. 10.1038/465697a [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
22. Fantin A, Vieira JM, Gestri G, Denti L, Schwarz Q, Prykhozhij S, et al. . Tissue macrophages act as cellular chaperones for vascular anastomosis downstream of VEGF-mediated endothelial tip cell induction. Blood (2010) 116:829–40. 10.1182/blood-2009-12-257832 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
23. Mege JL, Mehraj V, Capo C. Macrophage polarization and bacterial infections. Curr Opin Infect Dis (2011) 24:230–4. 10.1097/QCO.0b013e328344b73e [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
24. Patel U, Rajasingh S, Samanta S, Cao T, Dawn B, Rajasingh J. Macrophage polarization in response to epigenetic modifiers during infection andinflammation. Drug Discovery Today (2017) 22:186–93. 10.1016/j.drudis.2016.08.006 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
25. Biswas SK, Chittezhath M, Shalova IN, Lim JY. Macrophage polarization and plasticity in health and disease. Immunol Res (2012) 53:11–24. 10.1007/s12026-012-8291-9 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
26. Wynn TA, Chawla A, Pollard JW. Macrophage biology in development, homeostasis and disease. Nature (2013) 496:445–55. 10.1038/nature12034 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
27. Colin S, Chinetti-Gbaguidi G, Staels B. Macrophage phenotypes in atherosclerosis. Immunol Rev (2014) 262:153–66. 10.1111/imr.12218 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
28. Italiani P, Boraschi D. From monocytes to M1/M2 macrophages: Phenotypical vs. functional differentiation. Front Immunol (2014) 5:514. 10.3389/fimmu.2014.00514 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
29. Mantovani A, Sica A, Sozzani S, Allavena P, Vecchi A, Locati M. The chemokine system in diverse forms of macrophage activation and polarization. Trends Immunol (2004) 25:677–86. 10.1016/j.it.2004.09.015 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
30. Martinez FO, Gordon S, Locati M, Mantovani A. Transcriptional profiling of the human monocyte-to-macrophage differentiation and polarization: new molecules and patterns of gene expression. J Immunol (2006) 177:7303–11. 10.4049/jimmunol.177.10.7303 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
31. Martinez FO, Gordon S. The M1 and M2 paradigm of macrophage activation: time for reassessment. F1000Prime Rep (2014) 6:13. 10.12703/P6-13 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
32. Wang N, Liang H, Zen K. Molecular mechanisms that influence the macrophage m1-m2 polarization balance. Front Immunol (2014) 5:614. 10.3389/fimmu.2014.00614 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
33. Chiara P, Elena R, Alessandro I, Antonio S. Molecular and epigenetic basis of macrophage polarized activation. Semin Immunol (2015) 27:237-48. 10.1016/j.smim.2015.10.003 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
34. Martinez FO, Helming L, Gordon S. Alternative activation of macrophages: an immunologic functional perspective. Annu Rev Immunol (2009) 27:451–83. 10.1146/annurev.immunol.021908.132532 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
35. Stein M, Keshav S, Harris N, Gordon S. Interleukin 4 potently enhances murine macrophage mannose receptor activity: a marker of alternative immunologic macrophage activation. J Exp Med (1992) 176:287–92. 10.1084/jem.176.1.287 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
36. Gordon S, Martinez FO. Alternative activation of macrophages: mechanism and functions. Immunity (2010) 32:593–604. 10.1016/j.immuni.2010.05.007 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
37. Mosser DM, Edwards JP. Exploring the full spectrum of macrophage activation. Nat Rev Immunol (2008) 8:958–69. 10.1038/nri2448 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
38. Mantovani A, Sica A, Locati M. Macrophage polarization comes of age. Immunity (2005) 23:344–6. 10.1016/j.immuni.2005.10.001 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
39. Mills CD, Kincaid K, Alt JM, Heilman MJ, Hill AM. M-1/M-2 macrophages and the Th1/Th2 paradigm. J Immunol (2000) 164:6166–73. 10.4049/jimmunol.164.12.6166 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
40. Tsao FY, Wu MY, Chang YL, Wu CT, Ho HN. M1 macrophages decrease in the deciduae from normal pregnancies but not from spontaneous abortions or unexplained recurrent spontaneous abortions. J Formos Med Assoc (2018) 117:204–11. 10.1016/j.jfma.2017.03.011 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
41. Mantovani A, Garlanda C, Locati M. Macrophage diversity and polarization in atherosclerosis: a question of balance. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol (2009) 29:1419–23. 10.1161/ATVBAHA.108.180497 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
42. Biswas SK, Mantovani A. Macrophage plasticity and interaction with lymphocyte subsets: cancer as a paradigm. Nat Immunol (2010) 11:889–96. 10.1038/ni.1937 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
43. Houser BL, Tilburgs T, Hill J, Nicotra ML, Strominger JL. Two unique human decidual macrophage populations. J Immunol (2011) 186:2633–42. 10.4049/jimmunol.1003153 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
44. Houser BL. Decidual macrophages and their roles at the maternal-fetal interface. Yale J Biol Med (2012) 85:105–18. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
45. Jiang X, Wang H. Macrophage subsets at the maternal-fetal interface. Cell Mol Immunol (2020) 17:889–91. 10.1038/s41423-020-0435-6 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
46. Jiang X, Du MR, Li M, Wang H. Three macrophage subsets are identified in the uterus during early human pregnancy. Cell Mol Immunol (2018) 15:1027–37. 10.1038/s41423-018-0008-0 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
47. Gibbings SL, Thomas SM, Atif SM, McCubbrey AL, Desch AN, Danhorn T, et al. . Three unique interstitial macrophages in the murine lung at steady state. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol (2017) 57:66–76. 10.1165/rcmb.2016-0361OC [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
48. Gozzelino R, Jeney V, Soares MP. Mechanisms of cell protection by heme oxygenase-1. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol (2010) 50:323–54. 10.1146/annurev.pharmtox.010909.105600 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
49. Ozen M, Zhao H, Lewis DB, Wong RJ, Stevenson DK. Heme oxygenase and the immune system in normal and pathological pregnancies. Front Pharmacol (2015) 6:84. 10.3389/fphar.2015.00084 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
50. Callewaert L, Michiels CW. Lysozymes in the animal kingdom. J Biosci (2010) 35:127–60. 10.1007/s12038-010-0015-5 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
51. Zhang YH, He M, Wang Y, Liao AH. Modulators of the balance between M1 and M2 macrophages during pregnancy. Front Immunol (2017) 8:120. 10.3389/fimmu.2017.00120 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
52. Ali S, Majid S, Ali MN, Taing S, Rehman MU, Arafah A. Cytokine imbalance at materno-embryonic interface as a potential immune mechanism for recurrent pregnancy loss. Int Immunopharmacol (2021) 90:107118. 10.1016/j.intimp.2020.107118 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
53. Wheeler KC, Jena MK, Pradhan BS, Nayak N, Das S, Hsu CD, et al. . VEGF may contribute to macrophage recruitment and M2 polarization in the decidua. PloS One (2018) 13:e191040. 10.1371/journal.pone.0191040 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
54. Kammerer U, Eggert AO, Kapp M, McLellan AD, Geijtenbeek TB, Dietl J, et al. . Unique appearance of proliferating antigen-presenting cells expressing DC-SIGN (CD209) in the decidua of early human pregnancy. Am J Pathol (2003) 162:887–96. 10.1016/S0002-9440(10)63884-9 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
55. Mills CD. Macrophage arginine metabolism to ornithine/urea or nitric oxide/citrulline: a life or death issue. Crit Rev Immunol (2001) 21:399–425. 10.1615/CritRevImmunol.v21.i5.10 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
56. Yang Z, Kong B, Mosser DM, Zhang X. TLRs, macrophages, and NK cells: our understandings of their functions in uterusand ovary. Int Immunopharmacol (2011) 11:1442–50. 10.1016/j.intimp.2011.04.024 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
57. Jena MK, Nayak N, Chen K, Nayak NR. Role of macrophages in pregnancy and related complications. Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz) (2019) 67:295–309. 10.1007/s00005-019-00552-7 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
58. Smith SD, Dunk CE, Aplin JD, Harris LK, Jones RL. Evidence for immune cell involvement in decidual spiral arteriole remodeling in early human pregnancy. Am J Pathol (2009) 174:1959–71. 10.2353/ajpath.2009.080995 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
59. Reister F, Frank HG, Kingdom JC, Heyl W, Kaufmann P, Rath W, et al. . Macrophage-induced apoptosis limits endovascular trophoblast invasion in the uterine wall of preeclamptic women. Lab Invest (2001) 81:1143–52. 10.1038/labinvest.3780326 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
60. Mor G, Abrahams VM. Potential role of macrophages as immunoregulators of pregnancy. Reprod Biol Endocrinol (2003) 1:119. 10.1186/1477-7827-1-119 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
61. Lidstrom C, Matthiesen L, Berg G, Sharma S, Ernerudh J, Ekerfelt C. Cytokine secretion patterns of NK cells and macrophages in early human pregnancydecidua and blood: implications for suppressor macrophages in decidua. Am J Reprod Immunol (2003) 50:444–52. 10.1046/j.8755-8920.2003.00112.x [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
62. Redline RW, Lu CY. Specific defects in the anti-listerial immune response in discrete regions of the murine uterus and placenta account for susceptibility to infection. J Immunol (1988) 140:3947–55. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
63. Gustafsson C, Mjosberg J, Matussek A, Geffers R, Matthiesen L, Berg G, et al. . Gene expression profiling of human decidual macrophages: evidence for immunosuppressive phenotype. PloS One (2008) 3:e2078. 10.1371/journal.pone.0002078 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
64. Gorczynski RM, Hadidi S, Yu G, Clark DA. The same immunoregulatory molecules contribute to successful pregnancy and transplantation. Am J Reprod Immunol (2002) 48:18–26. 10.1034/j.1600-0897.2002.01094.x [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
65. Huang HL, Yang HL, Lai ZZ, Yang SL, Li MQ, Li DJ. Decidual IDO(+) macrophage promotes the proliferation and restricts the apoptosis of trophoblasts. J Reprod Immunol (2021) 148:103364. 10.1016/j.jri.2021.103364 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
66. Suzuki Y, Suda T, Asada K, Miwa S, Suzuki M, Fujie M, et al. . Serum indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase activity predicts prognosis of pulmonary tuberculosis. Clin Vaccine Immunol (2012) 19:436–42. 10.1128/CVI.05402-11 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
67. Duriez M, Quillay H, Madec Y, El CH, Cannou C, Marlin R, et al. . Human decidual macrophages and NK cells differentially express toll-like receptors and display distinct cytokine profiles upon TLR stimulation. Front Microbiol (2014) 5:316. 10.3389/fmicb.2014.00316 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
68. Petroff MG, Sedlmayr P, Azzola D, Hunt JS. Decidual macrophages are potentially susceptible to inhibition by class ia and class ib HLA molecules. J Reprod Immunol (2002) 56:3–17. 10.1016/S0165-0378(02)00024-4 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
69. Rouas-Freiss N, Moreau P, LeMaoult J, Papp B, Tronik-Le RD, Carosella ED. Role of the HLA-G immune checkpoint molecule in pregnancy. Hum Immunol (2021) 82:353–61. 10.1016/j.humimm.2021.01.003 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
70. Liu S, Diao L, Huang C, Li Y, Zeng Y, Kwak-Kim J. The role of decidual immune cells on human pregnancy. J Reprod Immunol (2017) 124:44–53. 10.1016/j.jri.2017.10.045 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
71. Helige C, Ahammer H, Moser G, Hammer A, Dohr G, Huppertz B, et al. . Distribution of decidual natural killer cells and macrophages in the neighbourhood of the trophoblast invasion front: a quantitative evaluation. Hum Reprod (2014) 29:8–17. 10.1093/humrep/det353 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
72. Hazlett LD, McClellan SA, Barrett RP, Huang X, Zhang Y, Wu M, et al. . IL-33 shifts macrophage polarization, promoting resistance against pseudomonas aeruginosa keratitis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci (2010) 51:1524–32. 10.1167/iovs.09-3983 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
73. Sheng YR, Hu WT, Wei CY, Tang LL, Liu YK, Liu YY, et al. . IL-33/ST2 axis affects the polarization and efferocytosis of decidual macrophages in early pregnancy. Am J Reprod Immunol (2018) 79:e12836. 10.1111/aji.12836 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
74. Fock V, Mairhofer M, Otti GR, Hiden U, Spittler A, Zeisler H, et al. . Macrophage-derived IL-33 is a critical factor for placental growth. J Immunol (2013) 191:3734–43. 10.4049/jimmunol.1300490 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
75. Wu ZM, Yang H, Li M, Yeh CC, Schatz F, Lockwood CJ, et al. . Pro-inflammatory cytokine-stimulated first trimester decidual cells enhance macrophage-induced apoptosis of extravillous trophoblasts. Placenta (2012) 33:188–94. 10.1016/j.placenta.2011.12.007 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
76. Ding J, Yang C, Cheng Y, Wang J, Zhang S, Yan S, et al. . Trophoblast-derived IL-6 serves as an important factor for normal pregnancy by activating Stat3-mediated M2 macrophages polarization. Int Immunopharmacol (2021) 90:106788. 10.1016/j.intimp.2020.106788 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
77. Wang XQ, Zhou WJ, Hou XX, Fu Q, Li DJ. Correction: Trophoblast-derived CXCL16 induces M2 macrophage polarization that in turn inactivates NK cells at the maternal-fetal interface. Cell Mol Immunol (2019) 16:313. 10.1038/s41423-018-0194-9 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
78. Wang S, Sun F, Han M, Liu Y, Zou Q, Wang F, et al. . Trophoblast-derived hyaluronan promotes the regulatory phenotype of decidual macrophages. Reproduction (2019) 157:189–98. 10.1530/REP-18-0450 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
79. Ding J, Zhang Y, Cai X, Diao L, Yang C, Yang J. Crosstalk between trophoblast and macrophage at the maternal-fetal interface: Current status and future perspectives. Front Immunol (2021) 12:758281. 10.3389/fimmu.2021.758281 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
80. Rajakumar A, Kane MA, Yu J, Jones JW, Qu H, Badell M, et al. . Alternatively activated macrophages are the primary retinoic acid-producing cells in human decidua. Reprod Sci (2020) 27:334–41. 10.1007/s43032-019-00030-7 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
81. Gardner L, Moffett A. Dendritic cells in the human decidua. Biol Reprod (2003) 69:1438–46. 10.1095/biolreprod.103.017574 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
82. Fujiwara N, Kobayashi K. Macrophages in inflammation. Curr Drug Targets Inflammation Allergy (2005) 4:281–6. 10.2174/1568010054022024 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
83. Mantovani A, Biswas SK, Galdiero MR, Sica A, Locati M. Macrophage plasticity and polarization in tissue repair and remodelling. J Pathol (2013) 229:176–85. 10.1002/path.4133 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
84. Mendoza-Coronel E, Ortega E. Macrophage polarization modulates FcgammaR- and CD13-mediated phagocytosis and reactive oxygen species production, independently of receptor membrane expression. Front Immunol (2017) 8:303. 10.3389/fimmu.2017.00303 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
85. Brown MB, von Chamier M, Allam AB, Reyes L. M1/M2 macrophage polarity in normal and complicated pregnancy. Front Immunol (2014) 5:606. 10.3389/fimmu.2014.00606 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
86. Liu X, Jiang M, Ren L, Zhang A, Zhao M, Zhang H, et al. . Decidual macrophage M1 polarization contributes to adverse pregnancy induced by toxoplasma gondii PRU strain infection. Microb Pathog (2018) 124:183–90. 10.1016/j.micpath.2018.08.043 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
87. Ding J, Zhang Y, Cai X, Zhang Y, Yan S, Wang J, et al. . Extracellular vesicles derived from M1 macrophages deliver miR-146a-5p and miR-146b-5p to suppress trophoblast migration and invasion by targeting TRAF6 inrecurrent spontaneous abortion. Theranostics (2021) 11:5813–30. 10.7150/thno.58731 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
88. Wei CY, Li MQ, Zhu XY, Li DJ. Immune status of decidual macrophages is dependent on the CCL2/CCR2/JAK2 pathwayduring early pregnancy. Am J Reprod Immunol (2021) 86:e13480. 10.1111/aji.13480 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
89. Zhang Y, Ma L, Hu X, Ji J, Mor G, Liao A. The role of the PD-1/PD-L1 axis in macrophage differentiation and function during pregnancy. Hum Reprod (2019) 34:25–36. 10.1093/humrep/dey347 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
90. Ji WH, Li DD, Wei DP, Gu AQ, Yang Y, Peng JP. Cytochrome P450 26A1 modulates the polarization of uterine macrophages during the peri-implantation period. Front Immunol (2021) 12:763067. 10.3389/fimmu.2021.763067 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
91. Wu Z, Wang M, Liang G, Jin P, Wang P, Xu Y, et al. . Pro-inflammatory signature in decidua of recurrent pregnancy loss regardless of embryonic chromosomal abnormalities. Front Immunol (2021) 12:772729. 10.3389/fimmu.2021.772729 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
92. Zhen XX, Yang L, Gu Y, Yang Q, Gu WW, He YP, et al. . MNSFbeta regulates TNFalpha production by interacting with RC3H1 in human macrophages, and dysfunction of MNSFbeta in decidual macrophages is associated with recurrent pregnancy loss. Front Immunol (2021) 12:691908. 10.3389/fimmu.2021.691908 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
93. Goto S, Ozaki Y, Suzumori N, Yasukochi A, Kawakubo T, Furuno T, et al. . Role of cathepsin e in decidual macrophage of patients with recurrent miscarriage. Mol Hum Reprod (2014) 20:454–62. 10.1093/molehr/gau008 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
94. Shimada S, Ebina Y, Iijima N, Deguchi M, Yamada H. Decidual CD68(+) HLA-DR(+) CD163(-) M1 macrophages increase in miscarriages withnormal fetal chromosome. Am J Reprod Immunol (2018) 79:e12791. 10.1111/aji.12791 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
95. Cui L, Xu F, Wang S, Li X, Lin H, Ding Y, et al. . Pharmacological activation of rev-erbalpha suppresses LPS-induced macrophage M1 polarization and prevents pregnancy loss. BMC Immunol (2021) 22:57. 10.1186/s12865-021-00438-4 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
96. Kang X, Zhang X, Zhao A. Macrophage depletion and TNF-alpha inhibition prevent resorption in CBA/J x DBA/2 model of CpG-induced abortion. Biochem Bioph Res Co (2016) 469:704–10. 10.1016/j.bbrc.2015.12.024 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
97. Thaxton JE, Romero R, Sharma S. TLR9 activation coupled to IL-10 deficiency induces adverse pregnancy outcomes. J Immunol (2009) 183:1144–54. 10.4049/jimmunol.0900788 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
98. Pollard JW, Hunt JS, Wiktor-Jedrzejczak W, Stanley ER. A pregnancy defect in the osteopetrotic (op/op) mouse demonstrates the requirement for CSF-1 in female fertility. Dev Biol (1991) 148:273–83. 10.1016/0012-1606(91)90336-2 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
99. Care AS, Diener KR, Jasper MJ, Brown HM, Ingman WV, Robertson SA. Macrophages regulate corpus luteum development during embryo implantation in mice. J Clin Invest (2013) 123:3472–87. 10.1172/JCI60561 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
100. Yellon SM, Greaves E, Heuerman AC, Dobyns AE, Norman JE. Effects of macrophage depletion on characteristics of cervix remodeling and pregnancy in CD11b-dtr mice. Biol Reprod (2019) 100:1386–94. 10.1093/biolre/ioz002 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
101. Meng YH, Zhou WJ, Jin LP, Liu LB, Chang KK, Mei J, et al. . RANKL-mediated harmonious dialogue between fetus and mother guarantees smooth gestation by inducing decidual M2 macrophage polarization. Cell Death Dis (2017) 8:e3105. 10.1038/cddis.2017.505 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
102. Chang RQ, Shao J, Meng YH, Wang J, Li DJ, Li MQ. Decidual RANKL/RANK interaction promotes the residence and polarization of TGF-beta1-producing regulatory gammadelta T cells. Cell Death Dis (2019) 10:113. 10.1038/s41419-019-1380-0 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
103. Aikawa S, Deng W, Liang X, Yuan J, Bartos A, Sun X, et al. . Uterine deficiency of high-mobility group box-1 (HMGB1) protein causes implantation defects and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Cell Death Differ (2020) 27:1489–504. 10.1038/s41418-019-0429-z [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
104. Zhu D, Zou H, Liu J, Wang J, Ma C, Yin J, et al. . Inhibition of HMGB1 ameliorates the maternal-fetal interface destruction in unexplained recurrent spontaneous abortion by suppressing pyroptosis activation. Front Immunol (2021) 12:782792. 10.3389/fimmu.2021.782792 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
105. Chabtini L, Mfarrej B, Mounayar M, Zhu B, Batal I, Dakle PJ, et al. . TIM-3 regulates innate immune cells to induce fetomaternal tolerance. J Immunol (2013) 190:88–96. 10.4049/jimmunol.1202176 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
106. Wang WJ, Hao CF, Lin QD. Dysregulation of macrophage activation by decidual regulatory T cells in unexplained recurrent miscarriage patients. J Reprod Immunol (2011) 92:97–102. 10.1016/j.jri.2011.08.004 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
107. Wang J, Ding J, Zhang S, Chen X, Yan S, Zhang Y, et al. . Decreased USP2a expression inhibits trophoblast invasion and associates with recurrent miscarriage. Front Immunol (2021) 12:717370. 10.3389/fimmu.2021.717370 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
108. Yamauchi Y, Kuroki M, Imakiire T, Abe H, Uchida H, Beppu R, et al. . Thrombospondin-1 differentially regulates release of IL-6 and IL-10 by human monocytic cell line U937. Biochem Biophys Res Commun (2002) 290:1551–7. 10.1006/bbrc.2002.6386 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
109. Jin Y, Wang X, Xiao Y, Lv C, Ding C, Lin Q. The role of TSP-1 on decidual macrophages involved in the susceptibility to unexplained recurrent spontaneous abortion. Am J Reprod Immunol (2009) 61:253–60. 10.1111/j.1600-0897.2009.00689.x [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
110. Coomarasamy A, Dhillon-Smith RK, Papadopoulou A, Al-Memar M, Brewin J, Abrahams VM, et al. . Recurrent miscarriage: evidence to accelerate action. Lancet (2021) 397:1675–82. 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00681-4 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
111. Deng T, Liao X, Zhu S. Recent advances in treatment of recurrent spontaneous abortion. Obstet Gynecol Surv (2022) 77:355–66. 10.1097/OGX.0000000000001033 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
112. Haas DM, Hathaway TJ, Ramsey PS. Progestogen for preventing miscarriage in women with recurrent miscarriage of unclear etiology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2019) 11:CD003511. 10.1002/14651858.CD003511.pub5 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
113. Wong LF, Porter TF, Scott JR. Immunotherapy for recurrent miscarriage. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2014) 10:CD000112. 10.1002/14651858.CD000112.pub3 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
114. Lu C, Liu Y, Jiang HL. Aspirin or heparin or both in the treatment of recurrent spontaneous abortion inwomen with antiphospholipid antibody syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med (2019) 32:1299–311. 10.1080/14767058.2017.1404979 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
115. Ye SL, Gu XK, Tao LY, Cong JM, Wang YQ. Efficacy of different treatment regimens for antiphospholipid syndrome-related recurrent spontaneous abortion. Chin Med J (Engl) (2017) 130:1395–9. 10.4103/0366-6999.207471 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
116. Ghasemnejad-Berenji H, Ghaffari NM, Hajshafiha M, Nazarian H, Hashemi SM, Ilkhanizadeh B, et al. . Immunomodulatory effects of hydroxychloroquine on Th1/Th2 balance in women with repeated implantation failure. BioMed Pharmacother (2018) 107:1277–85. 10.1016/j.biopha.2018.08.027 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
117. Azizi R, Ahmadi M, Danaii S, Abdollahi-Fard S, Mosapour P, Eghbal-Fard S, et al. . Cyclosporine a improves pregnancy outcomes in women with recurrent pregnancy loss and elevated Th1/Th2 ratio. J Cell Physiol (2019) 234:19039–47. 10.1002/jcp.28543 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
118. Liu Z, Xu H, Kang X, Wang T, He L, Zhao A. Allogenic lymphocyte immunotherapy for unexplained recurrent spontaneous abortion: A meta-analysis. Am J Reprod Immunol (2016) 76:443–53. 10.1111/aji.12511 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
119. Yokoo T, Takakuwa K, Ooki I, Kikuchi A, Tamura M, Tanaka K. Alteration of TH1 and TH2 cells by intracellular cytokine detection in patients with unexplained recurrent abortion before and after immunotherapy with the husband's mononuclear cells. Fertil Steril (2006) 85:1452–8. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.10.058 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
120. Muyayalo KP, Li ZH, Mor G, Liao AH. Modulatory effect of intravenous immunoglobulin on Th17/Treg cell balance in women with unexplained recurrent spontaneous abortion. Am J Reprod Immunol (2018) 80:e13018. 10.1111/aji.13018 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
121. Gao P, Zha Y, Wei L, Zhou X, Zhu S, Zhang H, et al. . G-CSF: A vehicle for communication between trophoblasts and macrophages which may cause problems in recurrent spontaneous abortion. Placenta (2022) 121:164–72. 10.1016/j.placenta.2022.03.125 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
122. Carp H. Immunotherapy for recurrent pregnancy loss. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol (2019) 60:77–86. 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2019.07.005 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Articles from Frontiers in Immunology are provided here courtesy of Frontiers Media SA

Full text links 

Read article at publisher's site: https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2022.994888

Read article for free, from open access legal sources, via Unpaywall: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2022.994888/pdfUnpaywall

Citations & impact 

Impact metrics

4
Citations
Jump to Citations

Citations of article over time

Alternative metrics

Altmetric item for https://www.altmetric.com/details/140587246
Altmetric
Discover the attention surrounding your research
https://www.altmetric.com/details/140587246

Smart citations by scite.ai
Smart citations by scite.ai include citation statements extracted from the full text of the citing article. The number of the statements may be higher than the number of citations provided by EuropePMC if one paper cites another multiple times or lower if scite has not yet processed some of the citing articles.
Explore citation contexts and check if this article has been supported or disputed.
https://scite.ai/reports/10.3389/fimmu.2022.994888

Supporting
Mentioning
Contrasting
0
4
0

Article citations

Similar Articles 

To arrive at the top five similar articles we use a word-weighted algorithm to compare words from the Title and Abstract of each citation.

Funding 

Funders who supported this work.

National Natural Science Foundation of China