Evidence Hub

ML-Driven In Vitro Remodeling of Alveolar Macrophage Profiles from Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid: A Novel Approach for Personalized Therapy in Severe Respiratory Diseases

Igor Dmitrievich Zlotnikov, Alexander A. Vinogradov, Elena Vadimovna Kudryashova

Preprints.org, 2026

Abstract

The secondary immunomodulatory effects of conventional therapeutics, such as antibiotics and cytostatics, are frequently overlooked despite their significant clinical implications. Building on our previous findings that drugs like paclitaxel and doxorubicin heavily influence macrophage polarization—potentially driving metastasis or inflammation—this study systematically evaluates the secondary immune-modulating actions of standard drugs and natural adjuvants. Using patient-derived bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid (ex vivo alveolar macrophages), we developed an analytical platform using synthetic carbohydrate-functionalized fluorescent ligands targeting key receptors (CD206, CD209, CD280, CD301). Integrating ligand-binding profiles with Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) yielded quantitative immune-state vectors capable of differentiating between favorable prognostic signatures and imbalanced immune states. Profiling samples across heterogeneous respiratory conditions revealed highly context-dependent responses. While some treatments synergistically corrected imbalanced profiles, others provoked dysregulation. Notably, in pneumonia or bronchitis with an asthma-prone M2-dominant profile, specific antibiotic regimens are critical; doxycycline, for instance, may exacerbate patient deterioration by further driving M2a polarization. Crucially, we identified that natural adjuvants (e.g., curcumin, coumarins, polyphenols) exhibit potent properties capable of correcting these…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a preprint, done in cell cultures (in vitro), not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free