Hui Hu1, Chunyu Jiang1, Ruiting Li1, Jungong Zhao1. 1. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People's Hospital Shanghai, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Timely endothelial repair after intervention-associated vascular injury is critical to prevent restenosis and thrombosis. Compared to living cell therapies, exosomes may be a better alternative. Thus, we aimed to compare the role of exosomes derived from human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) versus those derived from endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) in vascular endothelial repair. MATERIAL/ METHODS: Exosomes secreted from HUVECs and EPCs were isolated and characterized respectively. In vitro, the effects of the two types of exosomes on migration and proliferation of endothelial cells were studied. In vivo, rats were systemically treated with the two exosome groups respectively after carotid artery endothelial injury induced by a balloon. The efficacy in promoting re-endothelialization was measured by Evans blue dye and histological examination. RESULTS: Both types of exosomes, sized from 30 nm to 100 nm, had sphere-shaped or cupped morphology, and expressed CD63, CD9, and CD81; but the total yield of exosomes (particles/mL) based on number of cells, was 4.2 times higher from EPCs than HUVECs. Compared with control treatment, both exosome treated groups manifested significant enhancement of migration and proliferation in vitro and vascular recovery at an early stage in vivo. The two exosome-treated groups, however, did not statistically significantly differ. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, our results indicated that exosomes derived from HUVECs and EPCs had similar morphology, size distributions and characteristics, but those derived from EPCs were more abundant with comparable biologic activity. Therefore, EPCs may be a robust source of exosomes to promote vascular repair. IJCEP
BACKGROUND: Timely endothelial repair after intervention-associated vascular injury is critical to prevent restenosis and thrombosis. Compared to living cell therapies, exosomes may be a better alternative. Thus, we aimed to compare the role of exosomes derived from human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) versus those derived from endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) in vascular endothelial repair. MATERIAL/ METHODS: Exosomes secreted from HUVECs and EPCs were isolated and characterized respectively. In vitro, the effects of the two types of exosomes on migration and proliferation of endothelial cells were studied. In vivo, rats were systemically treated with the two exosome groups respectively after carotid artery endothelial injury induced by a balloon. The efficacy in promoting re-endothelialization was measured by Evans blue dye and histological examination. RESULTS: Both types of exosomes, sized from 30 nm to 100 nm, had sphere-shaped or cupped morphology, and expressed CD63, CD9, and CD81; but the total yield of exosomes (particles/mL) based on number of cells, was 4.2 times higher from EPCs than HUVECs. Compared with control treatment, both exosome treated groups manifested significant enhancement of migration and proliferation in vitro and vascular recovery at an early stage in vivo. The two exosome-treated groups, however, did not statistically significantly differ. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, our results indicated that exosomes derived from HUVECs and EPCs had similar morphology, size distributions and characteristics, but those derived from EPCs were more abundant with comparable biologic activity. Therefore, EPCs may be a robust source of exosomes to promote vascular repair. IJCEP
Authors: C H P Arts; P Ph A Hedeman Joosten; J D Blankensteijn; F J T Staal; P Y Y Ng; G J Heijnen-Snyder; J J Sixma; H J M Verhagen; P G de Groot; B C Eikelboom Journal: Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 7.069
Authors: George C M Siontis; Giulio G Stefanini; Dimitris Mavridis; Konstantinos C Siontis; Fernando Alfonso; María J Pérez-Vizcayno; Robert A Byrne; Adnan Kastrati; Bernhard Meier; Georgia Salanti; Peter Jüni; Stephan Windecker Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-08-15 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Andrej Schmidt; Michael Piorkowski; Martin Werner; Matthias Ulrich; Yvonne Bausback; Sven Bräunlich; Henrik Ick; Johannes Schuster; Spiridon Botsios; Hans-Joachim Kruse; Ramon L Varcoe; Dierk Scheinert Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2011-09-06 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Sarah A Tracy; Azra Ahmed; John C Tigges; Maria Ericsson; Anoop K Pal; David Zurakowski; Dario O Fauza Journal: J Pediatr Surg Date: 2018-10-05 Impact factor: 2.545
Authors: Dylan Burger; Jose L Viñas; Shareef Akbari; Hajira Dehak; William Knoll; Alex Gutsol; Anthony Carter; Rhian M Touyz; David S Allan; Kevin D Burns Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 2015-06-12 Impact factor: 4.307
Authors: Yue Zhou; Pengfei Li; Andrew J Goodwin; James A Cook; Perry V Halushka; Eugene Chang; Hongkuan Fan Journal: Mol Ther Date: 2018-02-27 Impact factor: 11.454
Authors: Olivier G De Jong; Bas W M Van Balkom; Raymond M Schiffelers; Carlijn V C Bouten; Marianne C Verhaar Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2014-12-03 Impact factor: 7.561
Authors: K B Timizheva; M M Azova; A Ait Aissa; A V Aghajanyan; L V Tskhovrebova; M L Blagonravov Journal: Bull Exp Biol Med Date: 2021-06-26 Impact factor: 0.804