Scratch wound and Matrigel tube formation assays.

<p>(A) Representative photograph of fibroblast wound closure after incubation with CM. An in vitro wound healing assay showed that AMM CM strongly improved the fibroblast wound closure compared with the CM of HDF, ADMs, and the control group. (B) Representative photograph of wound closure of endothelial cells after incubation with CM. AMM CM significantly promotes the wound closure of endothelial cells compared with the CM of HUVECs, ADMs, and control. <i>n</i> = 4 per group. ** <i>p</i><0.01 AMMs vs. ADMs, * <i>p</i><0.05 AMMs vs. ADMs,^‡<i>p</i><0.01 AMMs vs. HDFs, ^†<i>p</i><0.01 AMMs vs. 10% FBS. (C) Representative photograph of Matrigel tube formation of endothelial cells after incubation with CM. <i>n</i> = 6 per group. ** <i>p</i><0.01 AMMs vs. ADMs.</p

Experimental study design.

<p>Experimental study design.</p

Engraftment potential of AMMs.

<p>(A) Representative photographs of localised Dil-labelled ADMs and AMMs. (B) Quantification of engrafted ADMs and AMMs. Dil-labelled cells (red) in the wound area were quantified by histological analysis 4 weeks after cell injection. Dil-labelled cells were injected into the peri-wound areas of NOD/SCID mice. Nuclei were stained with DAPI (blue). <i>n</i> = 5 per group. * <i>p</i><0.05 AMMs vs. ADMs. (C) Fluorescent in situ hybridization on cell transplanted skin wound tissues. The cells (arrows) exhibited a fluorescent in situ hybridization signal (red) for human chromosome within the nuclei (arrows), suggesting engraftment of injected human cells. (D) Quantification of engrafted ADMs and AMMs by FISH analysis. Wound skin tissues were harvested 4 weeks after cell injection. <i>n</i> = 5 per group. * <i>p</i><0.05 AMMs vs. ADMs.</p

Criteria for histological scores.

<p>Criteria for histological scores.</p

The expression patterns of angiogenic and and proteins.

<p>(A) qRT-PCR was performed to measure the gene expression levels of HUVECs, HDFs, ADMs, and AMMs. Various cytokines were up-regulated in the AMMs compared with other cell groups. Individual values were normalised to GAPDH. <i>n</i> = 4 per group. ** <i>p</i><0.01 AMMs vs. ADMs, * <i>p</i><0.05 AMMs vs. ADMs,^‡<i>p</i><0.01 AMMs vs. HDFs, ^†<i>p</i><0.01 AMMs vs. HUVs. Abbreviations: HUV, HUVECs. (B) ELISA for IL-8 and EGF in the cell lysate and supernatant from AMMs, ADMs and HDFs. The amount of IL-8 and IGF-1 were markedly higher in the AMMs than other ADMs and HDFs groups. <i>n</i> = 4 per group. ** <i>p</i><0.01, * <i>p</i><0.05, AMMs vs. ADMs,^‡<i>p</i><0.01 AMMs vs. HDFs. (C) Comparison of the rate of cell apoptosis in response to SD. n = 5 per group. * <i>p</i><0.05 AMMs vs. ADMs, ^†<i>p</i><0.01 AMMs vs. HDFs.</p

Characteristics of AMMs and ADMs.

<p>(A) Microscopic view of AMMs and ADMs (each passage 3). (B) Representative FACS surface markers of AMMs and ADMs. Isotype controls were overlaid in a gray color on each histogram for surface antigen tested.</p

Decreased resting state functional connectivity in nonHAND group compared to seronegative control.

<p>Decreased resting state functional connectivity in nonHAND group compared to seronegative control.</p

The differences of resting connectivity between HAND group and nonHAND group.

<p>Upper images display the regions showing the FC with the left precuneus (P < .05, corrected). Lower images display the regions showing the FC with the right precuneus (P < .05, corrected).</p

Renderd <i>t</i> maps of FC value.

<p>(A, B) show the FC maps of HAND with the seed located in the left and right precuneus, respectively. (C, D) show the FC maps of nonHAND group with the seed located in the left and right precuneus (P < .005, uncorrected).</p

Baseline characteristics of study participants.

<p>Baseline characteristics of study participants.</p