Figure 6. TGF-β1-mediated mechanical stimulation to enhance enthesis injury repair.

(a) Schematic diagram of ELISA analysis. (b) ELISA analysis of TGF-β1 concentration during the enthesis healing procedure. n = 3 per group. (c) Representative image of H&E and Toluidine blue/Fast green staining of enthesis. Scale bar, 200 μm. (d) Quantitative analysis of H&E score and fibrocartilage thickness. The red dolt line indicated the perfect histological score of 28. n = 6 per group. (e) Quantitative analysis of Failure Load and stiffness. n = 9 per group. (f) Representative immunofluorescent images of Tdtomato (red) staining of Prrx1⁺ cells and DAPI (blue) staining of nuclei under different mechanical stimuli at postoperative 2 weeks. Scale bar, 200 μm. (g) Quantitative analysis of migration Prrx1⁺ cells at the healing area. n = 6 per group. Data were presented as mean ± SD. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

Figure 6—figure supplement 1. Mechanical stimulation could amplify the transmission of TGF-β signaling.

(a) Schematic image and gross view of the cell loading system. (b) Scratch assay and transwell assay of Prrx1 + cells. Scale bar, 100 μm. (c) Quantitative analysis of migration cells in a scratch assay. n = 5 per group. (d) Quantitative analysis of migration cells in transwell assay. n = 5 per group. (e) Western blot analysis of Smad2/3, phosphorylation of Smad2/3. (f) Quantitative analysis of western blot. n = 5 per group. Data were presented as mean ± SD. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.