| Literature DB >> 33140920 |
Xi Xiang1, Hui Liu1,2, Liyun Wang1, Bihui Zhu1, Lang Ma1, Fangxue Du1, Ling Li1, Li Qiu1.
Abstract
Osteoarthritis (OA) is a commonEntities:
Keywords: homing; mesenchymal stem cell; microbubble; osteoarthritis; stromal cell‐derived factor‐1; ultrasound
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33140920 PMCID: PMC7521263 DOI: 10.1111/jcmm.15706
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cell Mol Med ISSN: 1582-1838 Impact factor: 5.310
FIGURE 1Preparation of MB(SDF‐1α) and OA animal model. A, Flow chart of chemotaxis microbubble MB(SDF‐1α) preparation. The carboxyl group carried by the lipid molecule and the amino group of SDF‐1 are linked by a covalent bond. After all, chemotactic microbubbles containing C3F8 and SDF‐1α linked in the outer shell were prepared. B, The modified Hulth's modelling method for OA. During the operation, the medial meniscus is removed, and the anterior cruciate ligament is severed, causing joint instability and eventually osteoarthritis. An OA model was established on bilateral knees
Grouping in in vitro experiments
| Groups | Upper chamber | Lower chamber |
|---|---|---|
| (1) Control | 1 mL BMSCs | Stem cell complete medium 1.5 mL |
| (2) SDF‐1α group | 1 mL BMSCs | 150 ng SDF‐1α + complete medium 1.5 mL |
| (3) MB group | 1 mL BMSCs | Add MB to the same volume of MB solution as MB(SDF‐1α) to 1.5 mL |
| (4) MB(SDF‐1α) group | 1 mL BMSCs | MB(SDF‐1α) solution containing 150 ng of SDF‐1α, supplemented with medium to 1.5 mL |
| (5) MB(SDF‐1α) + US group | 1 mL BMSCs | MB(SDF‐1α) solution containing 150 ng of SDF‐1α, supplemented with medium to 1.5 mL |
Grouping in vivo experiments
| Sections | Groups | Experiment procedure |
|---|---|---|
| A. Exogenous BMSCs | (1) Control | None |
| (2) BMSCs | Injection of BMSCs from the tail vein | |
| (3) BMSCs + US | Ultrasound irradiation at the knee joint after injecting BMSCs into the tail vein | |
| (4) BMSCs + MB+US | Ultrasound irradiation at the knee joint after injecting BMSCs and MB into the tail vein | |
| (5) BMSCs + MB(SDF‐1α) +US | Ultrasound irradiation at the knee joint after injecting BMSCs and MB(SDF‐1α) into the tail vein | |
| (6) BMSCs + MB(SDF‐1α)(IA)+US | After injecting BMSCs into the tail vein, MB(SDF‐1α) was injected into the knee joint, followed by ultrasound irradiation | |
| B. Non‐Exoogenous BMSCs | (1) Control | None |
| (2) MB | Injection of MB from the tail vein | |
| (3) MB + US | Ultrasound irradiation at the knee joint after injecting MB into the tail vein | |
| (4) MB(SDF‐1α) | Injection of MB(SDF‐1α) from the tail vein | |
| (5) MB(SDF‐1α) + US | Ultrasound irradiation at the knee joint after injecting MB(SDF‐1α) into the tail vein | |
| (6) MB(SDF‐1α)(IA)+US | Ultrasound irradiation after injecting MB(SDF‐1α) into the knee joint |
Abbreviation: IA, Intra‐articular injection.
Sequences of the PCR amplification primers
| Targets | Primer sequence(5′‐3′) |
|---|---|
| (1) CXCR4 | F:TTCTACCCCAATGACTTGTG; R:ATGTAGTAAGGCAGCCAACA |
| (2) CD73 | F:CAAATCCCACACAACCACTG; R:TGCTCACTTGGTCACAGGAC |
| (3) CD90 | F:GACCCGTGAGACAAAGAAGC; R:GCCCTCACACTTGACCAGTT |
| (4) GAPDH | F:CATCTCTGCCCCCTCTGCTG; R:GCCTGCTTCACCACCTCTTG |
FIGURE 2Characteristics of microbubbles. MB(SDF‐1α) and MB under the optical microscope presented uniform size and distribution. MB(SDF‐1α) under inverted fluorescence microscope exhibited obvious fluorescence while MB had no fluorescence. Flow cytometry of two kinds of microbubbles revalidated the presence of SDF‐1α on the surface of MB(SDF‐1α)
Beckman Coulter determination of concentration and particle size of microbubbles
| Time | Concentration (×108/mL) | Particle size (µm) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MB(SDF‐1α) | MB |
| MB(SDF‐1α) | MB |
| |
| 2 h | 2.54 ± 0.28 | 2.96 ± 0.11 | .138 | 1.624 ± 0.268 | 1.498 ± 0.287 | .107 |
| 8 h | 2.39 ± 0.62 | 2.62 ± 0.21 | .066 | 1.702 ± 0.293 | 1.510 ± 0.216 | .114 |
| 24 h | 2.21 ± 0.40 | 2.33 ± 0.24 | .071 | 1.722 ± 0.604 | 1.645 ± 0.448 | .092 |
|
| .278 | .312 | .094 | .118 | ||
FIGURE 3Stem cell in vitro migration assay. A, The number of cell migrations in each group in chemotaxis experiment and chemotaxis inhibition experiment. In the chemotaxis experiment, SDF‐1α and MB(SDF‐1α) groups had higher cell counts than the other groups (*), and the MB(SDF‐1α) group had the highest cell count (#). After blocking with AMD, there was no significant difference in the number of migrated cells in each group. Cell viability assessment of the number of migrated cells in each group in the chemotaxis experiment. There was no statistical difference in cell viability among the groups. B‐F (Group 1‐5), Flow cytometry was used to detect the expression of CXCR4 on the surface of BMSCs in each group. Group 2 and 5 had a relatively higher expression. G, qRT‐PCR of CXCR4 mRNA, and group MB(SDF‐1α) + US had the highest expression (*)
FIGURE 4A, HE staining of each group in verification of exogenous stem cell homing (Exogenous BMSCs group). B, HE staining of each group in verification of possible endogenous stem cell homing (Non‐Endogenous BMSCs group)
FIGURE 5A, Reddish O‐fixed green staining of each group in verification of exogenous stem cell homing (Exogenous BMSCs group). B, Reddish O‐fixed green staining of each group in verification of possible endogenous stem cell homing (Non‐Endogenous BMSCs group)
FIGURE 6A, IHC staining of CXCR4, CD73, CD90 in exogenous BMSCs groups and their quantitative analysis. B, IHC staining of CXCR4, CD73, CD90 in Non‐Endogenous BMSCs groups and their quantitative analysis. The blue arrows indicated the positive areas
FIGURE 7qRT‐PCR analysis of the expression levels of CXCR4, CD73 and CD90 mRNA.* represents a statistically significant difference