Skip to main content
. 2016 Mar 15;14:73. doi: 10.1186/s12967-016-0825-9

Fig. 5.

Fig. 5

Effects of PRPs on EaHy926 tube formation. EaHy926 tube formation was analyzed using μ-slide angiogenesis plates and WimTube software quantification. Compared with FBS, both L-PRP and P-PRP promoted the tube formation of EaHy926, with P-PRP showing greater effects. Bars represent the means and standard deviation (n = 5) and scales represent 250 μm; * indicates the statistically significant difference between PRPs and FBS (P < 0.05); # indicates the statistically significant difference between P-PRP and L-PRP (P < 0.05)