Figure 6.

(a) Differential HO-1 expression between HUVECs submitted to different treatments: CTL (control mock-treated cells), miR-22 K.D (cells treated with miR-22 inhibitor), miR-22 K.D; Mox-LDL (cells treated with miR-22 inhibitor and Mox-LDL), miR Neg Ctl; Mox-LDL (cells treated with control miR and Mox-LDL), and Mox-LDL (cells treated with Mox-LDL). HUVECs were either treated or not with miR-22 inhibitor or miR inhibitor negative control. HUVEC were incubated for 24 hours in culture medium supplemented with mock medium (CTL) or Mox-LDL. Total RNA was extracted and analyzed by qRT-PCR using HO-1-specific primers. Pooled data from 3 independent experiments are shown. ^*** P < 0.001 (Student's t test). (b) The effect of miR-22 knockdown on Mox-LDL treatment in HUVEC tubulogenesis. Representative fields of HUVEC cultures in tubulogenic conditions. HUVECs were either treated or not with miR-22 inhibitor or miR inhibitor negative control. Afterwards, cells were cultured in the presence or absence of Mox-LDL for 24 hours. HUVECs were then seeded on Matrigel supplemented with mock medium (CTL) or Mox-LDL (Mox-LDL) and incubated overnight. (c) Quantification of tubulogenesis in HUVEC cultures. After overnight incubation in Matrigel supplemented with mock medium (CTL) or Mox-LDL (Mox-LDL), pictures were taken of 4.906 mm square fields. Total tubule network length was then measured using the Image J computer program. Shown data are expressed as total tubule network length for each condition and normalized to the “miR-22 inhibitor; nontreated” control condition set as 100%. Mean ± SEM on 3 independent experiments performed in duplicate. ^*** P < 0.001 versus Mox-LDL (ANOVA, Turkey's multiple comparison test).