4.8 Article

Comparison of endothelialization and neointimal formation with stents coated with antibodies against CD34 and vascular endothelial-cadherin

期刊

BIOMATERIALS
卷 33, 期 35, 页码 8917-8927

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.08.066

关键词

VE-cadherin; Stent; Endothelial progenitor cell; Re-endothelialization; Restenosis

资金

  1. National Research Foundation
  2. Korea government (MEST) [2010-0020258]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Vascular endothelial-cadherin (VE-cadherin) is exclusively expressed on the late endothelial progenitor cells (EPC). Therefore, VE-cadherin could be an ideal target surface molecule to capture circulating late EPC. In the present study, we evaluated whether anti-VE-cadherin antibody-coated stents (VE-cad stents) might accelerate endothelial recovery and reduce neointimal formation more than anti-CD34 antibodycoated stents (CD34 stents) through the superior ability to capture the late EPC. The stainless steel stents were coated with anti-human VE-cadherin antibodies or anti-human CD34 antibodies under the same condition. In vitro, VE-cad stents showed higher number of adhering EPC (823.6 +/- 182.2 versus 379.2 +/- 137.2 cells per HPF, p < 0.001). VE-cad stents also demonstrated better specific capturing of cells with endothelial lineage markers than CD34 stents did in flow cytometric analysis. VE-cad stents showed more effective re-endothelialization after 1 h, 24 h, and 3 days in vivo. At 42 days, VE-cad stents demonstrated significantly smaller neointima area (0.92 +/- 0.38 versus 1.24 +/- 0.41 mm(2), p = 0.002) and significantly lower PCNA positive cells in neointima (1684.8 +/- 658.8/mm(2) versus 2681.7 +/- 375.1/mm(2), p = 0.008), compared with CD34 stents. In conclusion, VE-cad stents captured EPC and endothelial cells more selectively in vitro, accelerated re-endothelialization over stents, and reduced neointimal formation in vivo, compared with CD34 stents. (c) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.8
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