4.5 Article

Angiogenic properties of dental pulp stem cells conditioned medium on endothelial cells in vitro and in rodent orthotopic dental pulp regeneration

期刊

HELIYON
卷 5, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01560

关键词

Bioengineering; Cell biology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To evaluate the effect of SHED-CM on the proliferation, differentiation, migration ability, cell death, gene expression and production of VEGF of HUVEC in vitro and in a rodent orthotopic dental pulp regeneration. Methods: Three culture media [M199, DMEM/Ham's F12 and DMEM/Ham's F12 conditioned by SHEDs] were used as experimental groups. SHED-CM was prepared maintaining confluent cells in culture without serum for 3 days. The proliferation and cell death marker of HUVECs were assessed using flow cytometry. The capacity of formation of vascular-like structures was analyzed in cells grown over Matrigel (R) in hypoxic condition. HUVECs migration was followed using the scratch test. VEGF-A expression in HUVECs was assessed using real time RT-qPCR; and VEGF synthesis with ELISA test. SHED-CM was also applied in rodent ortotopic model of dental pulp regeneration in rats. The formed tissue was submitted to histological and immunohistochemical analyses. Results: SHED-CM promoted significantly lower expression of 7AAD in HUVECs; whereas the expression of the Ki67 was similar in all groups. The vascular-like structures were observed in all groups. Migration of SHED-CM group was faster than DMEM/Ham's F12. SHED-CM induced similar expression of VEGF-A than M199, and higher than DMEM/Ham's F12. SHED-CM induced significantly higher VEGF synthesis than other media. SHED-CM induced formation of a vascularized connective tissue inside the root canal. Conclusion: The study showed that SHEDs release angiogenic and cytoprotective factors, which are of great importance for tissue engineering. Clinical significance: SHED-CM could be an option to the use of stem cells in tissue engineering.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据