Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Sep 21.
Published in final edited form as: Lab Chip. 2012 Jul 27;12(18):3322–3330. doi: 10.1039/c2lc40526a

Figure 6. Biological validation of the double-damped flow system versus undamped and single-damped flow systems.

Figure 6

(A) Fluorescence images were stained for actin and paxillin in each of the flow conditions: static, undamped, single-damped, and double-damped. Cells were treated with 20 dyn/cm2 shear stress for 12 hours. (B) Average actin intensity per cell was normalized to static culture levels. The double-damped system shows a significant increase in actin levels compared to the static, undamped, and single-damped conditions. (C) Average paxillin intensity per cell was normalized to static culture levels. *Significantly lower values than the other three conditions (p<0.05). **Significantly lower than the undamped system (p<0.05). (D) Fluorescence images were labeled with DAPI and an antibody against eNOS in each of the flow conditions: static, undamped, single-damped, and double-damped flow. (E) Steady flow increases eNOS to a greater extent than pulsatile flow. Average eNOS intensity per cell was normalized to static culture levels. *The double-damped system shows a significant increase in eNOS levels over the other conditions (p < 0.05). **The undamped system is significantly higher than the static system (p < 0.05). Bar = 25 μm.