Skip to main content
. 2010 Aug 27;101(12):2629–2636. doi: 10.1111/j.1349-7006.2010.01713.x

Figure 4.

Figure 4

 Cell morphology, invasion and migration induced by epoxyeicosatrienoic acid (EET) and EET antagonists. (A) Fluorescence images depicting actin‐myosin organization in PC‐3 cells treated with (a) vehicle, (b) 11,12‐EET (1.0 μmol/L), (c) 14,15‐epoxyeicosa‐5(Z)‐enoic acid (14,15‐EEZE) (5.0 μmol/L) and (d) 11,12‐EET and 14,15‐EEZE for 90 min at 37°C. (B) Examples of effects of 11,12‐EET (1.0 μmol/L), 14,15‐EEZE (5.0 μmol/L), and a combination of 11,12‐EET and 14,15‐EEZE on wound closures of PC‐3 cells at 37°C. (C) Effects of EET antagonists, 14,15‐EEZE (A, 5.0 μmol/L), 14,15‐EEZE‐PEG (B, 5.0 μmol/L), 14,15‐epoxyeicosa‐5(Z)‐enoic‐methylsulfonylimide (14,15‐EEZE‐mSI) (C, 5.0 μmol/L), and combinations of these antagonists and 11,12‐EET (E, 1.0 μmol/L) on invasion of PC‐3 cells (n = 12–18). (D) Effects of EET antagonists and combinations of these antagonists and 11,12‐EET (E, 1.0 μmol/L) on migration of PC‐3 cells (n = 9–12). *Significantly higher than control with P < 0.01. %Significantly lower than control with P < 0.05. #Significantly lower than 11,12‐EET‐induced invasion or migration with P < 0.01.