Novel biophysic methods to study macrophages


Abstract

The role of macrophages in the normal functioning of tissues and organs is difficult to overestimate. Despite the fact that macrophages were described more than a century ago, they continue to be cells that are intensively studied. Modern approaches allow us to assert that macrophage subpopulations and their phenotype are more complex than is commonly thought. Expanding the understanding of macrophage phenotypic diversity is a key priority in modern immunology, as it holds great promise for the advancement of cellular therapeutic strategies. Developing new methods for the comprehensive assessment of macrophage phenotypes is a critical step in this endeavor. In this review, we consider both classical approaches to studying macrophages (real-time PCR, Western blotting, flow cytometry, etc.) and translational methods (single-cell sequencing, single-cell mass spectrometry, droplet microfluidics, scanning probe microscopy, force spectroscopy, etc.). The review will be useful for both specialists who are beginning to study macrophages and for experienced scientists who wish to expand their knowledge of methods at the intersection of biological and physical sciences.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at peer.review@peerj.com.