Suppr超能文献

[组蛋白1对HaCaT细胞增殖和迁移的影响]

[Influence of histatin 1 on the proliferation and migration of HaCaT cells].

作者信息

Jiang Yan, Wang Xian-yuan, Luo Xiang-dong

机构信息

School of Nursing, the Third Military Medical University, Chongqing 400038, China.

出版信息

Zhonghua Shao Shang Za Zhi. 2012 Jun;28(3):207-12.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To study the influence of histatin 1 (Hst1) on the proliferation and migration of human epidermal cell line HaCaT.

METHODS

(1) HaCaT cells were routinely cultured and divided into control group, 100, 30, and 3 µg/mL Hst1 groups, 10 ng/mL recombinant human epidermal growth factor (rhEGF) group, and 30 µg/mL Hst1 + 10 ng/mL rhEGF group, according to the random number table (the same dividing method used for following grouping), with 27 samples in each group. NO stimulating factor was added in control group, while Hst1 and(or) rhEGF in corresponding concentration(s) was (were) added in the latter 5 groups. Cell proliferation was assayed by cell counting method at post culture hour (PCH) 24, 48, and 72. (2) HaCaT cells were divided into control group and 100, 30, and 3 µg/mL Hst1 groups, with 27 samples in each group. NO stimulating factor was added in control group, while Hst1 in corresponding concentration was added in the latter 3 groups. Cell cycle was assayed with flow cytometry at PCH 24, 48, and 72, and PI was calculated. (3) HaCaT cells were divided into control group, 30 µg/mL Hst1 group, 10 ng/mL rhEGF group, 30 µg/mL Hst1 + 10 ng/mL rhEGF group, 15 µg/mL Hst1 + 5 ng/mL rhEGF group, and 15 µg/mL Hst1 + 10 ng/mL rhEGF group, with 10 samples in each group. NO stimulating factor was added in control group, while Hst1 and(or) rhEGF in corresponding concentration(s) was (were) added in the latter 5 groups. Cells in each group were divided into two portions: cells in one portion were treated by mitomycin C for 2 hours, while cells in the other portion were not. Scratching assay was conducted in both portions of cells. Cell migration was measured at post scratching hour (PSH) 0, 16, and 24, and the wound-area healing rate was calculated. Data were processed with analysis of variance, and LSD- t test or Dunnett t test was applied in paired comparison among groups.

RESULTS

(1) At PCH 24, the cell numbers in 10 ng/mL rhEGF group and 30 µg/mL Hst1 + 10 ng/mL rhEGF group were significantly higher than that in control group (with t values respectively 3.813, 5.410, P < 0.05 or P < 0.01). Except for cell numbers in 30 µg/mL Hst1 group and 3 µg/mL Hst1 group at PCH 48, cell numbers in the other groups as treated by Hst1 and (or) rhEGF were significantly higher than those in control group at PCH 48 and 72 (with t values from 7.754 to 24.979, P values all below 0.01). At PCH 72, the cell number was obviously higher in 100 µg/mL Hst1 group [(19.21 ± 0.59)×10⁴] than in 30 µg/mL Hst1 group [(16.19 ± 0.53)×10⁴)] and 3 µg/mL Hst1 group [(15.38 ± 0.13)×10⁴], with t values respectively 11.391, 19.017, P values all below 0.01. The cell number was higher in 30 µg/mL Hst1 + 10 ng/mL rhEGF group than in 30 µg/mL Hst1 group, 3 µg/mL Hst1 group, and 10 ng/mL rhEGF group (with t values from 4.579 to 34.884, P < 0.05 or P < 0.01). Cell numbers in all groups increased with prolongation of time. (2) Compared with those in control group at PCH 24 and 48, the percentage of cells in G0/G1 phase was decreased, the percentage of cells in S phase was increased (except for cell percentage of 30 µg/mL Hst1 group at PCH 24), and PI value was significantly increased in 100 µg/mL Hst1 group and 30 µg/mL Hst1 group (with t values from 4.752 to 16.104, P values all below 0.01). The PI value in 3 µg/mL Hst1 group was obviously higher than that in control group only at PCH 48 (t = 4.609, P < 0.01). At PCH 72, only the PI value in 100 µg/mL Hst1 group was higher than that in control group (t = 8.005, P < 0.01). Compared among the groups treated by Hst1, the percentage of cells in G0/G1 phase showed an elevating trend, and the percentage of cells in S phase and the PI value showed a declining trend along with the decrease in Hst1 concentration at each time point. Compared within each group treated by Hst1, the percentage of cells in G0/G1 phase declined first and then elevated, while the percentage of cells in S phase and the PI value elevated first and then declined along with prolongation of time. (3) Without treatment of mitomycin C, the wound-area healing rate in 30 µg/mL Hst1 group (75.9 ± 3.9)% at PSH 16 was significantly higher than those in control group and 10 ng/mL rhEGF group [(53.0 ± 3.5)%, (61.7 ± 2.5)%, with t values respectively 12.241, 7.598, P values all below 0.01], but lower than those in 30 µg/mL Hst1 + 10 ng/mL rhEGF group, 15 µg/mL Hst1 + 5 ng/mL rhEGF group, and 15 µg/mL Hst1 + 10 ng/mL rhEGF group [(95.0 ± 4.1)%, (97.0 ± 3.7)%, (80.5 ± 5.9)%, with t values from -11.324 to -2.502, P < 0.05 or P < 0.01]. After being treated by mitomycin C, the wound-area healing rate in 30 µg/mL Hst1 group at PSH 16 [(54.1 ± 4.5)%] was higher than that in control group [(35.8 ± 5.7)%, t = 7.790, P < 0.01], but lower than that in the same Hst1 concentration but without mitomycin C treatment group (t = -10.863, P < 0.01). There was no statistically significant difference in the wound-area healing rate between 30 µg/mL Hst1 group and other groups treated by Hst1 and rhEGF at PSH 16 (with t values from 0.061 to 2.030, P values all above 0.05). Compared within each group with or without treatment of mitomycin C, the wound-area healing rate at PSH 16 was not significantly different from that at PSH 24 (with F values from 0.856 to 3.062, P values all above 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Hst1 can promote the proliferation and migration of HaCaT cells. It has synergic effect with rhEGF on the promotion of cell proliferation, but their synergic effect on cell migration is not obvious.

摘要

目的

研究组蛋白1(Hst1)对人表皮细胞系HaCaT增殖和迁移的影响。

方法

(1)将HaCaT细胞常规培养,按随机数字表分为对照组、100、30和3 μg/mL Hst1组、10 ng/mL重组人表皮生长因子(rhEGF)组、30 μg/mL Hst1 + 10 ng/mL rhEGF组,每组27个样本(后续分组采用相同的分组方法)。对照组不添加刺激因子,后5组添加相应浓度的Hst1和(或)rhEGF。分别于培养后24、48和72小时采用细胞计数法检测细胞增殖情况。(2)将HaCaT细胞分为对照组、100、30和3 μg/mL Hst1组,每组27个样本。对照组不添加刺激因子,后3组添加相应浓度的Hst1。分别于培养后24、48和72小时采用流式细胞术检测细胞周期,并计算增殖指数(PI)。(3)将HaCaT细胞分为对照组、30 μg/mL Hst1组、10 ng/mL rhEGF组、30 μg/mL Hst1 + 个样本。对照组不添加刺激因子,后5组添加相应浓度的Hst1和(或)rhEGF。每组细胞分为两部分:一部分用丝裂霉素C处理2小时,另一部分不处理。对两部分细胞均进行划痕实验。分别于划痕后0、16和24小时测量细胞迁移情况,并计算伤口面积愈合率。数据采用方差分析进行处理,组间两两比较采用LSD - t检验或Dunnett t检验。

结果

(1)培养后24小时,10 ng/mL rhEGF组和30 μg/mL Hst1 + 10 ng/mL rhEGF组的细胞数量显著高于对照组(t值分别为3.813、5.410,P < 0.05或P < 0.01)。培养后48和72小时,除30 μg/mL Hst1组和3 μg/mL Hst1组外,其余Hst1和(或)rhEGF处理组的细胞数量均显著高于对照组(t值为7.754至24.979,P值均< 0.01)。培养后72小时,100 μg/mL Hst1组的细胞数量[(19.21 ± 0.59)×10⁴]明显高于30 μg/mL Hst1组[(16.19 ± 0.53)×10⁴]和3 μg/mL Hst1组[(15.38 ± 0.13)×10⁴],t值分别为11.391、19.017,P值均< 0.01。30 μg/mL Hst1 + 10 ng/mL rhEGF组的细胞数量高于30 μg/mL Hst1组、3 μg/mL Hst1组和10 ng/mL rhEGF组(t值为4.579至34.884,P < 0.05或P < 0.01)。所有组的细胞数量均随时间延长而增加。(2)培养后24和48小时,100 μg/mL Hst1组和30 μg/mL Hst1组的G0/G1期细胞百分比降低,S期细胞百分比增加(培养后24小时30 μg/mL Hst1组细胞百分比除外),PI值显著升高(t值为4.752至16.104,P值均< 0.01)。3 μg/mL Hst1组仅在培养后48小时的PI值明显高于对照组(t = 4.609,P < 0.01)。培养后72小时,仅100 μg/mL Hst1组的PI值高于对照组(t = 8.005,P < 0.01)。在Hst1处理组中,各时间点随着Hst1浓度降低,G0/G1期细胞百分比呈升高趋势,S期细胞百分比和PI值呈下降趋势。在每组Hst1处理组中,随着时间延长,G0/G1期细胞百分比先下降后升高,S期细胞百分比和PI值先升高后下降。(3)未用丝裂霉素C处理时,培养后16小时30 μg/mL Hst1组的伤口面积愈合率(75.9 ± 3.9)%显著高于对照组和10 ng/mL rhEGF组[(53.0 ± 3.5)%,(61.7 ± 2.5)%,t值分别为12.241、7.598,P值均< 0.01],但低于30 μg/mL Hst1 + 10 ng/mL rhEGF组、15 μg/mL Hst1 + 5 ng/mL rhEGF组和15 μg/mL Hst1 + 10 ng/mL rhEGF组[(95.0 ± 4.1)%,(97.0 ± 3.7)%,(80.5 ± 5.9)%,t值为 - 11.324至 - 2.502,P < 0.05或P < 0.01]。用丝裂霉素C处理后,培养后组的伤口面积愈合率[(54.1 ± 4.5)%]高于对照组[(35.8 ± 5.7)%,t = 7.790,P < 0.01],但低于相同Hst1浓度未用丝裂霉素C处理组(t = - 10.863,P < 0.01)。培养后16小时,30 μg/mL Hst1组与其他Hst1和rhEGF处理组的伤口面积愈合率差异无统计学意义(t值为0.061至2.030,P值均> 0.05)。在每组有或无丝裂霉素C处理的情况下,培养后16小时的伤口面积愈合率与培养后24小时相比差异无统计学意义(F值为0.856至3.062,P值均> 0.05)。

结论

Hst1可促进HaCaT细胞的增殖和迁移。Hst1与rhEGF在促进细胞增殖方面具有协同作用,但在促进细胞迁移方面协同作用不明显。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验