116 research outputs found

    Smooth Muscle Stiffness Sensitivity is Driven by Soluble and Insoluble ECM Chemistry

    Get PDF
    Smooth muscle cell (SMC) invasion into plaques and subsequent proliferation is a major factor in the progression of atherosclerosis. During disease progression, SMCs experience major changes in their microenvironment, such as what integrin-binding sites are exposed, the portfolio of soluble factors available, and the elasticity and modulus of the surrounding vessel wall. We have developed a hydrogel biomaterial platform to examine the combined effect of these changes on SMC phenotype. We were particularly interested in how the chemical microenvironment affected the ability of SMCs to sense and respond to modulus. To our surprise, we observed that integrin binding and soluble factors are major drivers of several critical SMC behaviors, such as motility, proliferation, invasion, and differentiation marker expres- sion, and these factors modulated the effect of stiffness on proliferation and migration. Overall, modulus only modestly affected behaviors other than proliferation, relative to integrin binding and soluble factors. Surprisingly, patho- logical behaviors (proliferation, motility) are not inversely related to SMC marker expression, in direct conflict with previous studies on substrates coupled with single extracel- lular matrix (ECM) proteins. A high-throughput bead-based ELISA approach and inhibitor studies revealed that differ- entiation marker expression is mediated chiefly via focal adhesion kinase (FAK) signaling, and we propose that integrin binding and FAK drive the transition from a migratory to a proliferative phenotype. We emphasize the importance of increasing the complexity of in vitro testing platforms to capture these subtleties in cell phenotypes and signaling, in order to better recapitulate important features of in vivo disease and elucidate potential context-dependent therapeutic targets

    NGF and proNGF Regulate Functionally Distinct mRNAs in PC12 Cells: An Early Gene Expression Profiling

    Get PDF
    The biological activities of NGF and of its precursor proNGF are quite distinct, due to different receptor binding profiles, but little is known about how proNGF regulates gene expression. Whether proNGF is a purely pro-apoptotic molecule and/or simply a “less potent NGF” is still a matter of debate. We performed experiments to address this question, by verifying whether a proNGF specific transcriptional signature, distinct from that of NGF, could be identified. To this aim, we studied gene expression regulation by proNGF and NGF in PC12 cells incubated for 1 and 4 hours with recombinant NGF and proNGF, in its wild-type or in a furin-cleavage resistant form. mRNA expression profiles were analyzed by whole genome microarrays at early time points, in order to identify specific profiles of NGF and proNGF. Clear differences between the mRNA profiles modulated by the three neurotrophin forms were identified. NGF and proNGF modulate remarkably distinct mRNA expression patterns, with the gene expression profile regulated by NGF being significantly more complex than that by proNGF, both in terms of the total number of differentially expressed mRNAs and of the gene families involved. Moreover, while the total number of genes modulated by NGF increases dramatically with time, that by proNGFs is unchanged or reduced. We identified a subset of regulated genes that could be ascribed to a “pure proNGF” signalling, distinct from the “pure NGF” one. We also conclude that the composition of mixed NGF and proNGF samples, when the two proteins coexist, influences the profile of gene expression. Based on this comparison of the gene expression profiles regulated by NGF and its proNGF precursor, we conclude that the two proteins activate largely distinct transcriptional programs and that the ratio of NGF to proNGF in vivo can profoundly influence the pattern of regulated mRNAs

    Consensus guidelines for the use and interpretation of angiogenesis assays

    Get PDF
    The formation of new blood vessels, or angiogenesis, is a complex process that plays important roles in growth and development, tissue and organ regeneration, as well as numerous pathological conditions. Angiogenesis undergoes multiple discrete steps that can be individually evaluated and quantified by a large number of bioassays. These independent assessments hold advantages but also have limitations. This article describes in vivo, ex vivo, and in vitro bioassays that are available for the evaluation of angiogenesis and highlights critical aspects that are relevant for their execution and proper interpretation. As such, this collaborative work is the first edition of consensus guidelines on angiogenesis bioassays to serve for current and future reference
    corecore