| Literature DB >> 35873535 |
Xiaolong Liu1,2, Xuran Li3,4, Guangyuan Wu1,4, Pengfei Qi1,4, Yanyan Zhang3, Zhiyu Liu5, Xinyue Li3, Yu Yu3, Xiangmei Ye1,4, Yang Li1,4, Dongguang Yang1,4, Yueqiu Teng1,4, Ce Shi1,4, Xin Jin3, Sen Qi6, Yuting Liu3, Shudan Wang3, Ying Liu3, Fenglin Cao1,4, Qingran Kong2, Zhenkun Wang1,4, Hong Zhang3,4.
Abstract
Objective: Rapid restoration of corneal epithelium integrity after injury is particularly important for preserving corneal transparency and vision. Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) can be taken into account as the promising regenerative therapeutics for improvement of wound healing processes based on the variety of the effective components. The extracellular vesicles form MSCs, especially exosomes, have been considered as important paracrine mediators though transferring microRNAs into recipient cell. This study investigated the mechanism of human umbilical cord MSC-derived small extracellular vesicles (HUMSC-sEVs) on corneal epithelial wound healing.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35873535 PMCID: PMC9303509 DOI: 10.1155/2022/1252557
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Stem Cells Int Impact factor: 5.131
Figure 1Morphological observation and identification of HUMSCs and HUMSC-sEVs. (a) Flow cytometry analysis of surface markers in HUMSCs. (b) Light morphology image of HUMSCs. (c) Morphology of HUMSC-sEVs under TEM. Scale bar, 100 nm. (d) Peak size of HUMSC-sEVs was around 80 nm as showed by NTA. (e) HUMSC-sEVs were positive for CD9, CD81, and CD63 as indicated by Western blot.
Figure 2The effect of HUMSCs and HUMSC-sEVs on corneal epithelial wound healing in vivo. (a, c) Fluorescein-stained images of defect corneas, before and after treatment with HUMSCs, HUMSCs-GW4869, HUMSC-sEVs, or PBS. (b) H&E staining showed the histologic appearance of the cornea. Data are expressed as the means ± SD. ∗P < 0.05, ∗∗P < 0.01, and ∗∗∗P < 0.001, n = 8.
Figure 3The effect of HUMSC-sEVs on HCECs' proliferation and migration in vitro. (a) Fluorescence images of CFSE-labeled HCECs (green) incubated with Dil-labeled HUMSC-sEVs (red). Nuclei were stained with DAPI (blue). (b) TEM of HCECs incubated with HUMSC-sEVs. (c, d) Representative images from in vitro scratch wound healing assays demonstrating that cell migrates into the cell-free region is significantly promoted in the presence of HUMSC-sEVs when compared to controls, n = 4. (e) CCK-8 assay showed increased proliferation of HCECs incubated with HUMSC-sEVs after 48 hours, n = 5. (f, g) The proliferating HCECs were detected by EdU incorporation. The cells were treated with HUMSC-sEVs or blank control, n = 3. Blue: nuclear staining (Hoechst33342); red: EdU staining. Data are expressed as the means ± SD. ∗P < 0.05, ∗∗P < 0.01, and ∗∗∗P < 0.001.
Figure 4Transcriptome and pathway analysis of HUMSC-sEV treatment. (a) Volcano plot of DEGs between HUMSC-sEV-treated HCECs and HUMSC-sEV-untreated HCECs. Dots in green stand for downregulated DEGs, red dots mean upregulated DEGs, and black dots are nonsignificant DEGs. (b) The KEGG annotation results of the DEGs were classified according to the pathway types in KEGG. DEG: differentially expressed gene; KEGG: Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes.
Figure 5Identification of miRNAs contained in HUMSC-sEVs. (a) miRNA abundance analysis of HUMSC-sEVs. (b) mRNA targets for the miRNAs significantly enriched in HUMSC-sEVs were identified and GO analysis. (c) The binding site between miR-21 and PTEN mRNA. MF: molecular function; GO: gene ontology.
Figure 6miR-21 regulates HCECs' proliferation and migration by activating PI3K/Akt pathway through targeting PTEN. (a, d) HUMSC-sEV treatment decreased the RNA and protein levels of PTEN in HCECs. (b) The expression level of miR-21 in HCECs. (c, f) The PTEN changed with miR-21 variation. (e) The expression of phospho-Akt after overexpression of PTEN. (g) The expression level of phospho-Akt after transfected with miR-21 mimics was detected by Western blot. Data are expressed as the means ± SD. ∗P < 0.05, ∗∗P < 0.01, and ∗∗∗P < 0.001.
Figure 7sEV-mediated transfer of miR-21 promotes HCEC proliferation and migration. (a, b) HCECs were treated with miR-21 KD HUMSC-sEVs or miR-21 contained HUMSC-sEVs for 18 h. The scratch assay showed the healing of the miR-21 KD HUMSC-sEV-treated group was slower than the miR-21 contained HUMSC-sEV-treated group, n = 5. (c) The CCK-8 assay showed the proliferation of the miR-21 KD HUMSC-sEV-treated group was lower than the miR-21 contained HUMSC-sEV-treated group after 18 hours, n = 3. (d, e) The proliferation of HCECs was detected by EdU incorporation after transfected with miR-21 mimics (at final concentration of 50 nM). Blue: nuclear staining (Hoechst33342); red: EdU staining, n = 3. (f) The CCK-8 assay showed the proliferation of the miR-21 mimic group was higher than control group after 48 hours, n = 3. (g, h) The scratch assay showed significantly faster wound closure in HCECs incubated with miR-21 mimics than NC after 18 hours, n = 5. Data are expressed as the means ± SD. ∗P < 0.05, ∗∗P < 0.01, and ∗∗∗P < 0.001. KD: knockdown.
Figure 8Schematic diagram describes the mechanism of HUMSC-sEVs in corneal epithelial defect.