Fig 2: Effect of curcumin on M1 and M2 macrophage marker protein expression in the myocardium at 7 days post-MI. (a) Representative immunohistochemistry detection of M1 macrophage marker (iNOS) expression; (b) representative immunohistochemistry detection of M2 macrophage marker (Arg1) expression; (c) quantification of iNOS-positive cells; (d) quantification of Arg1-positive cells. Seven mice in each group. Data were shown as the mean ± SEM; ∗ was P < 0.05 vs. the sham group, and # was P < 0.05 vs. the MI group. And P value was calculated by Student's t-test.

Fig 3: Curcumin decreases M1 macrophage marker expression (iNOS, CCL2, and CD86) and increases M2 marker mRNA expression (Arg1, CD163, and CD206) in homogenized hearts. Data were shown as the mean ± SEM. # was P < 0.05, and ns was P > 0.05 vs. the MI group. And P value was calculated by Student's t-test. Baseline was defined as the gene expression in a normal mouse myocardium.

Fig 4: Curcumin modulates M1/M2 macrophage polarization partly via AMPK. (a) The expression of p-AMPK and AMPK protein in homogenized hearts at 7 days after MI: representative protein bands (left) and quantification of protein gray values (right), 7 mice in each group. Data were shown as the mean ± SEM. ∗ was P < 0.05 vs. the sham group, and # was P < 0.05 vs. the MI group. And P value was calculated by Student's t-test. (b) After being stimulated with curcumin for different times, p-AMPK and AMPK proteins in BMMs were expressed: representative protein bands (left) and quantification of protein gray values (right). Representative protein bands (c) and quantification of the grayscale value of iNOS (d), CD86 (e), Arg1 (f), and CD163 (g) protein. Each experiment was repeated 3 times independently. Data were shown as the mean ± SEM. ∗ was P < 0.05 vs. the LPS+IFNγ stimulation group, and # was P < 0.05 vs. the LPS+IFNγ+Cur stimulation group. P value was calculated by post hoc comparisons.

Fig 5: Effect of curcumin on LPS/IFNγ-induced M1 and M2 macrophage marker expression in BMMs. mRNA expression of iNOS (a), CD86 (b), Arg1 (c), and CD163 (d) in BMMs using qPCR after being stimulated with different stimuli. Representative protein bands (e) and quantification of the grayscale value of iNOS (f), CD86 (g), Arg1 (h), and CD163 (i) protein. Each experiment was repeated 3 times independently. Data were shown as the mean ± SEM. ∗ was P < 0.05 vs. the LPS+IFNγ stimulation group, and # was P < 0.05 vs. the unstimulated group. P value was calculated by post hoc comparisons.