Fig. 7.

Changes of ROS and ONOO⁻ level in the hCECs exposed to UVB and the effect of fullerenol or GSH. a₁-a₄) Representative images of immunofluorescence for intracellular ROS (DCFH-DA, green, counterstained with DAPI, blue) in hCECs. a₁) Control group. a₂) The UVB group. a₃) hCECs treated with 6.8 μg/ml GSH after exposure to UV for 2 h a₄) hCECs treated with 25 μg/ml fullerenol after exposure to UV for 2 h b₁-b₄). Flow cytometry analysis of the intracellular ROS production treated with fullerenol and GSH after UVB radiation damage. b₁) Control group. b₂) The UVB group. b₃) UVB + GSH group. b₄) UVB + fullerenol group. c₁-c₄) Representative images of hCECs fluoresced in yellow (ONOO⁻) and blue (DAPI). c₁) Control group. c₂) hCECs exposed to UV for 2 h c₃) hCECs treated with GSH for 24h. c₄) hCECs treated with fullerenol for 24 h. d) Comparison of the number of ROS-positive cells in different groups. e) The relative fluorescence intensity of ROS production in each group was analyzed with flow cytometry. f) Comparison of the number of ONOO⁻ positive cells. g-k) Representative images of immunofluorescence for 8-OHdG (green, counterstained with DAPI, blue): g₁-g₃) Control group. h₁-h₃) UVB group. i₁-i₃) UVB + GSH group. j₁-j₃) UVB + Fullerenol group. k) Quantitative analysis of the number of 8-OHdG-positive cells. The above detections were implemented in three independent experiments. Data were expressed as the mean ± SEM from three independent experiments. N = 3 samples per group. *P < 0.1, **P < 0.01, ****P < 0.0001 using one-way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey's test. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)