| Literature DB >> 31139648 |
Suting Li1, Danhua Lu1, Jianming Tang1, Jie Min1, Ming Hu1, Yang Li1, Yaodan Liu1, Linlin Wang1, Cheng Liu1, Li Hong1.
Abstract
Ca2+ is an important ion in response to electrical stimulation (ES) and acts as second messenger in the regulation of various physiological processes. Pelvic floor electrical stimulation (PES) is a low-voltage clinical application, available for urinary incontinence (UI) treatment. Fibroblasts, as the main cellular component of vaginal wall and pelvic ligament, play an important role in the maintenance of pelvic health. We studied the effect of ES on fibroblasts in this study. ES was conducted with electrotaxis chambers on L929 fibroblast and the ES parameter was 100 mV/mm×2h. The results showed that ES increased intracellular Ca2+ concentration, promoted the expression of PCNA, CyclinB1, and CyclinD1, and increased the proportion of cells in S and G2 phages. After ES, fibroblasts get activated and proliferated. Besides, BAPTA-AM, a membrane permeated chelator for intracellular free Ca2+, partially inhibited the effect of ES on fibroblasts activation and proliferation promotion. Furthermore, we elucidated that Ca2+, as a second messenger and upstream signal for Smads and Akt signaling, regulated ES-induced nuclear translocation of smad2/3, phosphorylation of smad2/3, Akt, and GSK3β. Finally, we validated the effect of ES on PES mouse model. The results indicated that PES promoted the activation and proliferation of fibroblasts in vivo. In conclusion, we verify that ES can elevate the concentration of intracellular Ca2+ and activate its downstream signaling and then promote the activation of fibroblasts, which may be one of the mechanisms of PES therapy.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31139648 PMCID: PMC6500655 DOI: 10.1155/2019/7387803
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1The effect of ES on intracellular calcium concentration in L929 cell. (a) Lateral (A) and vertical (B) views of the cell ES device. (b) L929 cells loaded with Fluo-3AM and observed under Flow Cytometry immediately after the cells were treated with ES to evaluate intracellular Ca2+ levels (blue); the cells without any treatment were used as the control (green). P<0.01 compared with the control group. Every experiment was repeated for 3 times. Negative con: negative control group; Control: control group; ES: electrical stimulation group.
Figure 2The effect of ES and BAPTA-AM on cell proliferation and migration. (a)EdU incorporation was carried on immediately for 2h after ES. Analysis of (b) G1/S/G2 distributions of cell cycle, (c) cell migration, and (d) the expression of proliferation and cell cycle related proteins 24h later after ES treatment. P<0.001; NS: no significance compared with the control group. Every experiment was repeated for 3 times. Control: control group; ES: electrical stimulation group. BAPTA-AM: BAPTA-AM treatment group. B+ES: BAPTA-AM and electrical stimulation treatment group.
Figure 3The effects of ES on Smads signaling and fibroblasts transformation. (a) The effect of smad2/3 translocation after ES and BAPTA-AM treatment. (b) Col III, α-SMA, and Smads signaling related protein expression after ES and BAPTA-AM treatment. P<0.001, NS: no significance compared with control. Every experiment was repeated for 3 times. Control: control group; ES: electrical stimulation group. BAPTA-AM: BAPTA-AM treatment group. B+ES: BAPTA-AM and electrical stimulation treatment group.
Figure 4The effect of ES and Ca on AKT/GSK3β signaling activation. The protein expression of AKT, GSK3β, p-AKT, and p-GSK3β was detected after ES and BAPTA-AM treatment. P<0.05 and P<0.001 compared with control. Every experiment was repeated for 3 times. Control: control group; ES: electrical stimulation group. BAPTA-AM: BAPTA-AM treatment group. B+ES: BAPTA-AM and electrical stimulation treatment group.
Figure 5The effect of ES on mouse anterior vaginal wall. The effect of ES on PCNA (red) expression (a). α-SMA (red) expression (b), with vimentin (green) as an indicator of nonepithelial tissue. P<0.001 compared with the control group; eight mice for each group. Control: control group; ES: electrical stimulation group.