| Literature DB >> 30705637 |
Yanjun Li1, Ziwei Wang1, Min Mao2, Mingjing Zhao3, Xiang Xiao4, Weiliang Sun5, Jing Guo5, Chengxiang Liu6, Deshuang Yang1, Jiajun Qiao1, Li Huang4, Lin Li4.
Abstract
Objective: This investigation examined the effect of velvet antler (VA) on endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) and the associated effects to promote angiogenesis and repair vascular endothelial injury in rats with myocardial infarction (MI).Entities:
Keywords: Notch; angiogenesis; endothelial progenitor cells; myocardial infarction; vascular endothelial injury; velvet antler
Year: 2019 PMID: 30705637 PMCID: PMC6344410 DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2018.01940
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Physiol ISSN: 1664-042X Impact factor: 4.566
FIGURE 1The classification map of the LC-MS result (score greater than 0.1). There are 155 kinds of fatty acids and derivatives, of which 110 are unsaturated fatty acids and derivatives. Unsaturated fatty acids and amino acids are the main components. “Others” means the classification content is less than 1%.
FIGURE 2Changes of electrocardiogram and echocardiography in rats. (A) Q waves indicated that the surgery was successful. (B) Left ventricular long-axis views 7 days after MI. (C) Left ventricular ejection fraction (EF). (D) Left ventricular fractional shortening (FS). MI resulted in a visible drop in the ultrasonic changes in the model group, and the ultrasonic changes in VA groups were alleviated compared with the model group. ∗∗P < 0.01 compared with the sham group; #P < 0.05 and ##P < 0.01 compared with the model group; Δ P < 0.05 compared with the VA group. N = 8.
FIGURE 3CEPCs at different times after MI. (A) Flowcharts of each group on day 7 after MI. (B) CEPCs at different time after MI. ∗P < 0.01 compared with the sham group; #P < 0.05 and ##P < 0.01 compared with the model group; Δ P < 0.05 compared with the VA group. N = 8.
FIGURE 4Levels of VEGF in serum at 7 days after MI. ∗∗P < 0.01 compared with the sham group; #P < 0.05 and ##P < 0.01compared with the model group.
FIGURE 5CD133 and MVD in the border zone of MI. (A) Immunofluorescence on days 7 after MI. (B) Expression of CD133 stained by immunofluorescence (per/field). (C) MVD stained by CD31 (per/field). CD133 present star like and distribute on vessels marked by CD31, suggesting that angiogenesis might be promoted by EPCs marked by CD133. ∗∗P < 0.01 compared with the sham group; #P < 0.05 and ##P < 0.01 compared with the model group; Δ P < 0.05 compared with the VA group. N = 8.
FIGURE 6The morphology of microvascular endothelial cells in the marginal area of MI 12000×.
FIGURE 7Expressions of Notch pathway related proteins in the border zone of MI. (A) Bands of different proteins. (B–E) Protein expressions of Jagged-1, Notch1, NICD and HES1 relative to GAPDH, respectively. ∗P < 0.05 and ∗∗P < 0.01 compared with the sham group; #P < 0.05 and ##P < 0.01 compared with the model group; Δ P < 0.05 and ΔΔ P < 0.01 compared with the VA group. N = 5.
FIGURE 8mRNA expression levels of Hes1 and Hey2 in the border zone of MI. (A,B) mRNA expressions of Hes1 and Hey2 relative to GAPDH, respectively. ∗∗P < 0.01 compared with the sham group; ##P < 0.01 compared with the model group; ΔΔ P < 0.01 compared with the VA group. N = 8.