L BMM behaviour. Interestingly, both populations were able to centrifugally spread

L BMM behaviour. Interestingly, both populations were able to centrifugally spread in response to CSF-1 (Figure 2), suggesting that CSF-1 responses are not completely dependent on Nox2 in BMMs.Nox22/2 BMM Showed Reduced Random Motion Following CSF-1 StimulationGiven that we had observed a change in growing cell spread area and a reduction in the spread area in response to CSF-1,we speculated that Nox2KO BMMs might have defects in CSF1 simulated migration. Initially we tested random migration and found that there was a small but reproducible reduction in cell migration speed observed in the Nox2KO population. 1531364 In the presence of CSF-1 WT cells exhibited a mean migration speed of 0.71 mm/min whilst Nox2KO BMMs 23115181 exhibited a mean migration speed of 0.67 mm/min (Figure 3E). Moreover we found a significant reduction (p = 0.02), in cell order Salmon calcitonin displacement (Figure 3C and D). Where a reduced number of the Nox2KO BMMs population were able to reach the set horizon compared to WT BMMs. We speculate that this may be due in part to the slightly reduced cell speed but could also be attributed to the observation that Nox2KO BMMs tended to oscillate in movement more than WT BMMs and therefore not achieve overall displacement, this is partly reflected in the increased persistence of migration (Figure 3F) we recorded for the Nox2KO BMMs. These results suggest that Nox2 does play a role in the migration of BMMs following CSF-1 stimulation.Figure 1. Nox2KO BMMs have increased cell area. a) WT and Nox2KO BMMs were fixed and stained for F-actin. b) Cell area and cell elongation analysis was conducted using ImageJ software. Representative of three independent experiments with .30 cells measured for each experiment.* = p,0.05. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0054869.gNox2 and ChemotaxisFigure 2. BMMs respond to CSF-1 stimulation. Cells were seeded on coverslips, CSF-1 deprived then re-stimulated with CSF-1 for 5 minutes. Cells were fixed and stained for F-actin and cell area and cell elongation analysis was conducted using ImageJ software. Representative of three independent experiments with .30 cells measured for each experiment. Where blue bars represent CSF-1 starved and red bars represent CSF-1 stimulated cells ** = p,0.005. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0054869.gNox22/2 Cells did not Exhibit a Chemotactic Response Towards CSF-BMM are known to have a chemotactic response to CSF-1 [17], and in a physiological context are likely to be responding to a gradient of chemoattractant rather than global stimulation. Thus we next challenged the WT and Nox2KO BMMs to chemotax towards a source of CSF-1 using the Dunn Chemotaxis 1948-33-0 cost Chamber. Whilst WT BMM were able to efficiently chemotax towards CSF1, Nox2KO BMMs completely lost their chemotactic response (Figure 4). Loss of chemotaxis can sometimes be attributed to a reduction in cell speed and we did indeed find that there was a significant reduction in mean cell migration speed in the Nox2KO population (p,0.001) (Figure 4C). However, we found that cell persistence was also significantly (p,0.001) reduced in Nox2KO BMM (Figure 4D) as compared to WT suggesting that Nox2KO cells were unable to respond to the CSF-1 gradient. This would suggest a more significant role for Nox2 in the directed migration of the BMMs compared to random migration.Nox22/2 Macrophages have an Attenuated Signalling Response to CSF-Given that we have detected changes in both cellular morphology, cell spreading and directed cell migration we reasoned that signalling dow.L BMM behaviour. Interestingly, both populations were able to centrifugally spread in response to CSF-1 (Figure 2), suggesting that CSF-1 responses are not completely dependent on Nox2 in BMMs.Nox22/2 BMM Showed Reduced Random Motion Following CSF-1 StimulationGiven that we had observed a change in growing cell spread area and a reduction in the spread area in response to CSF-1,we speculated that Nox2KO BMMs might have defects in CSF1 simulated migration. Initially we tested random migration and found that there was a small but reproducible reduction in cell migration speed observed in the Nox2KO population. 1531364 In the presence of CSF-1 WT cells exhibited a mean migration speed of 0.71 mm/min whilst Nox2KO BMMs 23115181 exhibited a mean migration speed of 0.67 mm/min (Figure 3E). Moreover we found a significant reduction (p = 0.02), in cell displacement (Figure 3C and D). Where a reduced number of the Nox2KO BMMs population were able to reach the set horizon compared to WT BMMs. We speculate that this may be due in part to the slightly reduced cell speed but could also be attributed to the observation that Nox2KO BMMs tended to oscillate in movement more than WT BMMs and therefore not achieve overall displacement, this is partly reflected in the increased persistence of migration (Figure 3F) we recorded for the Nox2KO BMMs. These results suggest that Nox2 does play a role in the migration of BMMs following CSF-1 stimulation.Figure 1. Nox2KO BMMs have increased cell area. a) WT and Nox2KO BMMs were fixed and stained for F-actin. b) Cell area and cell elongation analysis was conducted using ImageJ software. Representative of three independent experiments with .30 cells measured for each experiment.* = p,0.05. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0054869.gNox2 and ChemotaxisFigure 2. BMMs respond to CSF-1 stimulation. Cells were seeded on coverslips, CSF-1 deprived then re-stimulated with CSF-1 for 5 minutes. Cells were fixed and stained for F-actin and cell area and cell elongation analysis was conducted using ImageJ software. Representative of three independent experiments with .30 cells measured for each experiment. Where blue bars represent CSF-1 starved and red bars represent CSF-1 stimulated cells ** = p,0.005. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0054869.gNox22/2 Cells did not Exhibit a Chemotactic Response Towards CSF-BMM are known to have a chemotactic response to CSF-1 [17], and in a physiological context are likely to be responding to a gradient of chemoattractant rather than global stimulation. Thus we next challenged the WT and Nox2KO BMMs to chemotax towards a source of CSF-1 using the Dunn Chemotaxis Chamber. Whilst WT BMM were able to efficiently chemotax towards CSF1, Nox2KO BMMs completely lost their chemotactic response (Figure 4). Loss of chemotaxis can sometimes be attributed to a reduction in cell speed and we did indeed find that there was a significant reduction in mean cell migration speed in the Nox2KO population (p,0.001) (Figure 4C). However, we found that cell persistence was also significantly (p,0.001) reduced in Nox2KO BMM (Figure 4D) as compared to WT suggesting that Nox2KO cells were unable to respond to the CSF-1 gradient. This would suggest a more significant role for Nox2 in the directed migration of the BMMs compared to random migration.Nox22/2 Macrophages have an Attenuated Signalling Response to CSF-Given that we have detected changes in both cellular morphology, cell spreading and directed cell migration we reasoned that signalling dow.