| Literature DB >> 31100863 |
Zachary I Stryker1, Mehdi Rajabi2, Paul J Davis3,4, Shaker A Mousa5.
Abstract
Angiogenesis assays allow for the evaluation of pro- or anti-angiogenic activity of endogenous or exogenous factors (stimulus or inhibitors) through investigation of their pro-or anti- proliferative, migratory, and tube formation effects on endothelial cells. To model the process of angiogenesis and the effects of biomolecules on that process, both in vitro and in vivo methods are currently used. In general, in vitro methods monitor specific stages in the angiogenesis process and are used for early evaluations, while in vivo methods more accurately simulate the living microenvironment to provide more pertinent information. We review here the current state of angiogenesis assays as well as their mechanisms, advantages, and limitations.Entities:
Keywords: angiogenesis; anti-angiogenesis; anticancer; endothelial cells; growth factors; integrin αvβ3; pro-angiogenesis; vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF); vascularization
Year: 2019 PMID: 31100863 PMCID: PMC6631830 DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines7020037
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomedicines ISSN: 2227-9059
Angiogenesis assays: the most commonly used methods to evaluate angiogenesis modulators.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Cell counting |
Low cost |
High human error Requires high number of cells and multiple counts to achieve accuracy |
| Colorimetric |
Easy to use, low cost, safe, high reproducibility Used to determine both cell viability and cytotoxicity Potential for automation |
Toxic side effects of some dyes on mammalian cells Time consuming Contamination of reusable cell counting chambers | |
| DNA synthesis |
Potential to measure accurately toxicity of the biomolecule by evaluating extent of apoptosis |
Relatively high cost of immunohistochemical techniques Difficult to interpret results accurately | |
|
| Wound healing |
Simple and qualitative compared to other migration-based assays |
Difficult to achieve reproducibility Inconsistencies in confluency and data Difficult to interpret results accurately |
| Human dermal microvascular endothelial cell (HDMEC) sprouting |
Can evaluate effects on angiogenesis within 48 h Robust, reproducible, and representative model of microvascular angiogenesis Semi-automated software for quantification of sprouting area is available |
Less than ideal materials used to represent the extracellular matrix and the basement membrane | |
| Matrix degradation |
Inexpensive Easy to get basic information |
Time consuming Difficult to prepare for multiple tests | |
| Boyden chamber |
Fast Sensitive to changes in chemical concentration |
Expensive Difficult to maintain | |
| Phagokinetic track |
Quick, quantitative, easy measure of cellular motility Simple high-throughput assay, for use with cell types that are not amenable to time-lapse imaging |
The colloidal gold substrate used is essentially a foreign construct that does not accurately reflect human physiology | |
|
| Matrigel |
Accurate representation of a three-dimensional substrate Can evaluate potential pro-angiogenic factors |
Time-consuming Technically difficult |
| Co-culture |
Tubules form lumen Reliable |
Time-consuming (up to two weeks to set up apparatus and recover data) | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Easy to reproduce Realistic simulation of conditions in intact animals |
Technically difficult because of imprecise cuts of the adventitia and varying aorta sizes in mice | |
|
|
Precise evaluation of vascular sprouting from mature vessels in the adult Can maintain retinal vessel architecture and assess contribution of other cell types to the growth of new vessels |
Isolation of the retina is a critical step, requiring careful handling of the specimen Age of mice or other animal sources may be a critical factor Lack of blood flow, circulating endothelial progenitors, and hormonal factors that have key role in angiogenesis | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Low cost of chicken eggs Easy to reproduce technically and suits large-scale screening Easily visualized under a microscope |
Difficult to distinguish normal angiogenesis from induced | |
|
|
Potential to produce large number of yolk sac-dependent embryos for large-scale screening Relatively quick assay (6–12 h) and easily visualized under a microscope Disruption to vasculature does not damage the embryo |
Does not distinguish the exact point in angiogenic cascade specifically disrupted Cannot distinguish between angiogenesis and vasculogenesis | |
|
|
Repeatable method that can be applied in different animal models including rabbit, mouse, rat, guinea pig Easy identification of new blood vessels Reliable results because the cornea does not contain any pre-existing vasculature, so any new blood must be from angiogenesis |
Expensive Not suitable for large-scale screening Occurs in a non-vascular environment | |
|
|
Suitable for most long-term drug studies |
Requires expertise and cost to evaluate the data over extended time periods | |
|
|
Most realistic for in vivo angiogenesis Technically not difficult Quantification can be done by measuring the amount of hemoglobin in the plug |
Fairly expensive Possible to have some systemic error in the data because of non-identical sponges containing slow-release pellets |
HDMEC, human dermal microvascular endothelial cells.