Skip to main content
. 2019 Dec 18;10(9):1694–1708. doi: 10.1016/j.apsb.2019.12.011

Figure 7.

Figure 7

Effect of Rd on angiogenesis in vitro. (A) HUVECs were treated with SMI Rd for 24 h under normoxia or hypoxia conditions. Cell viability was tested by MTT assays (n = 6). (B) and (C) Rd has no significant effect on HUVEC proliferation in hypoxia condition. HUVECs were treated with SMI or Rd for 24 h followed by EDU/HOECHST staining. (B) Representative images of EDU and HOECHST. Scale bar, 200 μm. (C) Ratio of EDU/HOECHST (n = 5). (D) and (E) Rd represses the migration of HUVECs under hypoxia condition. HUVECs were scratched by pipette tips and treated with SMI or Rd for 24 h. (D) Representative images of wound healing at 0 and 24 h. Scale bar = 1 mm. (E) Quantification of migration length (n = 6). (F) and (G) Rd suppresses tube formation of HUVECs under hypoxia condition. HUVECs were pre-treated with SMI or Rd for 24 h and seeded on Matrigel for 5.5 h followed by 0.5 h of calcein staining. (F) Representative images of tubes. Scale bar = 1 mm. (G) Quantification of tubes in (D) (n = 4). Data were expressed as mean ± SEM. **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001 vs. normoxia + DMSO group, #P < 0.05, ##P < 0.01, ###P < 0.001 vs. hypoxia + DMSO group.