| Literature DB >> 31559315 |
Cheng Zhang1, Yu Zhu1, Shengdi Lu1, Wanrun Zhong1, Yanmao Wang1, Yimin Chai1.
Abstract
Diabetic wounds, as a kind of refractory wound, are very difficult to heal. Both endothelial progenitor cell (EPC) transplantation and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) can improve diabetic wound healing to some extent. However, PRP application cannot provide reparative cells, while EPC transplantation cannot replenish the required growth factors for wound healing. Thus, when applied alone, neither of these factors is sufficient for effective wound healing. Furthermore, the proliferation, differentiation, and fate of the transplanted EPCs are not well known. Therefore, in this study, we examined the efficacy of combined PRP application with EPC transplantation in diabetic wound healing. Our results indicated that PRP application improved EPC proliferation and migration. The Notch signaling pathway plays a key role in the regulation of the proliferation and differentiation of stem cells and angiogenesis in wound healing. The application of PRP upregulated the Notch pathway-related gene and protein expression in EPCs. Furthermore, experiments with shNotch1-transfected EPCs indicated that PRP enhanced the function of EPCs by upregulating the Notch1 signaling pathway. In vivo studies further indicated that the combination of PRP and EPC transplantation increased neovascularization, reduced wound size, and improved healing in rat wound models. Thus, PRP application can provide the necessary growth factors for wound healing, while EPC transplantation offers the required cells, indicating that the combination of both is a potent novel approach for treating diabetic wounds.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31559315 PMCID: PMC6735213 DOI: 10.1155/2019/5920676
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Diabetes Res Impact factor: 4.011
| Gene | Sequences | PCR product (bp) |
|---|---|---|
| VEGF | 5′-GGAGAGATGAGCTTCCTGCAGC-3′ | 336 |
| 5′-CCTTGGCTTGTCACATCTGCAA-3′ | ||
|
| ||
| PDGF | 5′-GTAGGACTGCTCAGTTCAAACAT-3′ | 444 |
| 5′-ACAGTTACTACACCCGTAAGGC-3′ | ||
|
| ||
| eNOS | 5′-GTACCGGCTGAGTACCCAAGCT-3′ | 360 |
| 5′-TCCCTCCTGGCTTCCAGTGT-3′ | ||
|
| ||
| SDF-1 | 5′-TGAGAGCCATGTCGCCAGAG-3′ | 511 |
| 5′-TCACACCTCTCACATCTTGAGCCT-3′ | ||
|
| ||
| Hes1 | 5′-GCTAAGGTGTTTGGAGGCT-3′ | 122 |
| 5′-CCGCTGTTGCTGGTGTA-3′ | ||
|
| ||
| Notch1 | 5′-CCGCAGTTGTGCTCCTGAA-3′ | 109 |
| 5′-ACCTTGGCGGTCTCGTAGCT-3′ | ||
|
| ||
| Jagged-1 | 5′-TCGCTGTATCTGTCCACCTG-3′ | 227 |
| 5′-AGTCACTGGCACGGTTGTAG-3′ | ||
|
| ||
| Jagged-2 | 5′-GGGCTCTTGCCACGAAGT-3′ | 479 |
| 5′-CATCCACCAGGTCCTCACAG-3′ | ||
|
| ||
| DII-4 | 5′-AAGAATAGCGGCAGTGGTCGTAA-3′ | 161 |
| 5′-CCTTGGATGATGATTTGGCTGA-3′ | ||
|
| ||
| Bax | 5′-CCGAGCTGATCAGAACCATCAT-3′ | 326 |
| 5′-TCTTCCAGATGGTGAGTGAGGC-3′ | ||
|
| ||
| Bcl2 | 5′-GGACAACATCGCTCTGTGGATG-3′ | 255 |
| 5′-TTGTGGCCCAGGTATGCACC-3′ | ||
|
| ||
| Caspase3 | 5′-GGTTCATCCAGTCGCTTTG-3′ | 99 |
| 5′-ATTCTGTTGCCACCTTTCG-3′ | ||
|
| ||
| GAPDH | 5′-GTCTCCTCTGACTTCAACAGCG-3′ | 131 |
| 5′-ACCACCCTGTTGCTGTAGCCAA-3′ | ||
Figure 1EPC apoptosis, proliferation, and migration in each group. (a) EPC proliferation in each group at days 0, 2, 4, and 6 is shown as the OD450 value. (b) EPC migration assay. The number of migrating EPCs was analyzed and is shown as a bar chart. (c) The percentage of apoptotic EPCs is shown as a bar chart. ∗p < 0.05 for the treatment group vs. the control group and #p < 0.05 for the 1 : 10 PRP group vs. the other concentration groups.
Figure 2qPCR and western blotting results of angiogenic and Notch 1 pathway-related genes in EPC. There were significant differences between the control and treatment groups. In addition, the 1 : 10 PRP groups had several genes that were significantly upregulated compared with those in the other groups. (a and c) Gene expression changes by qPCR. (b and d) Protein expression levels by western blotting. ∗p < 0.05 for the treatment groups vs. the control group and for the shNotch group vs. the other groups, §p < 0.05 for the 1 : 10 PRP group vs. the 1 : 20 PRP group, and #p < 0.05 for the 1 : 10 PRP group vs. the 1 : 5 PRP group.
Figure 3(a) Proliferation of the EPCs shown by the OD450 values at days 0, 2, 4, and 6. (b) Percentage of apoptotic EPCs shown as a bar chart. ∗p < 0.05 for the treatment groups vs. the control group and #p < 0.05 for the 1 : 10 PRP + shNotch1 group vs. the other treatment groups.
Figure 4In vivo test. (a) Wound situation and wound size, immediately after operation and at days 4, 7, and 14. Treatment groups showed a significant difference compared with the control group, ∗p < 0.05. (b) H&E and Masson staining of specimens at day 14. (c) CD31 and α-SMA immunostained samples of rats at day 14. ∗p < 0.05 for the treatment groups vs. the control group.