4.5 Article

Prospective comparative analysis of the angiogenic capacity of monocytes and CD133(+) cells in a murine model of hind limb ischemia

期刊

CYTOTHERAPY
卷 11, 期 8, 页码 1041-1051

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.3109/14653240903191719

关键词

blood flow; capillary count; CD133(+) cells; hind limb ischemia; monocytes

资金

  1. Fond de Investigaciones Sanitarias (Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain) [FIS 040936]
  2. Gerencia Regional de Salud de Castilla y Leon, Spain [71/A/06]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background aims The aim of this study was to compare prospectively the vasculogenic capacity of. two cell sources, monocytes and CD133(+) cells. Methods Cells were obtained from healthy donors by adherence or magnetic selection. Animals studies were performed in a model of hind limb ischemia and different groups were established according to type and number of cells infused. Revascularization was measured by sequential blood flow analysis using a laser Doppler device and by assessing capillary density in the ischemic muscles. In order to locate the infused cells, immunofluorescence and immunocytochemistry techniques were performed and analyzed by light and confocal microscopy. Results During the study period there was a significant improvement in both limb perfusion and capillary density in mice filmed with either human monocytes or CD133(+) cells (P<0.05) compared with non-treated mice. No cells were detected as incorporated into the Vessels when 1x10(5) cells were used brit with higher doses (1x10(6)) a few human cells were observed integrated into the vessels in both groups of treated mice. Supernatants of both cell types showed vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), epidermal growth factor (EGO and platelet-derived growth factor- AB (PDGF-AB) expression. Conclusions Treatment with human monocytes or CD133(+) cells improves blood perfusion and capillary density in a murine model and both cell types seem to stimulate vasculogenesis in a fairly similar way.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据