[Effects and mechanism of negative pressure microenvironment on the neogenesis of human umbilical vein endothelial cells].

To investigate the effects and mechanism of negative pressure microenvironment on the neogenesis of human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs). The experimental research methods were adopted. The third to the fifth passage of HUVECs in the logarithmic growth stage were used for the subsequent experiments. Three batches of cells were taken, with each batch of cells being divided into normal control group and negative pressure treatment alone group (both routinely cultured for 24 h), and 17-allylamino-17-demethoxy-geldanamycin (17-AAG) alone group and 17-AAG+negative pressure treatment group (both cultured with 17-AAG for 24 h). In addition, the intermittent negative pressure suction, with the negative pressure value of -5.33 kPa (suction for 30 s, pause for 10 s) was continuously applied for 8 h on cells in the two negative pressure treatment groups using an automatic three-dimensional cell gradient negative pressure loading device designed and developed by ourselves. After the treatment of the first batch of cells, the cell proliferation level was detected by cell counting kit 8 method at 0 (immediately), 24, 48, and 72 h of culture, with the number of samples being 6. After the treatment of the second batch of cells, the scratch experiment was performed. At 12 h after scratching, the cell migration was observed under an inverted phase contrast microscope and the cell migration rate was calculated, with the number of samples being 3. After the treatment of the third batch of cells, the tubule formation experiment was conducted. After 6 h of culture, the tubulogenesis was observed under an inverted phase contrast microscope and the total tubule length and the number of branch nodes of cells were calculated, with the number of samples being 3. The cells were taken and divided into normal control group, negative pressure treatment alone group, and 17-AAG+negative pressure treatment group. The cells were treated the same as in the previous corresponding group. After the treatment, Western blotting was used to detect the protein expressions of heat shock protein 90 (HSP90), caveolin 1, endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS), and eNOS phosphorylation site 1177 in the cells, and the eNOS phosphorylation site 1177/eNOS ratio was calculated, with the number of samples being 3; co-immunoprecipitation (co-precipitating HSP90 and caveolin 1, caveolin 1 and eNOS) and Western blotting were used to detect the protein expressions of caveolin 1 and eNOS in the cells, with the number of samples being 3; the protein co-localization of HSP90 and caveolin 1 and that of caveolin 1 and eNOS in the cells was assessed by immunofluorescence double staining. The molecular docking prediction of caveolin 1 and eNOS was processed by HADDOCK 2.4 protein-protein docking program. Data were statistically analyzed with analysis of variance for factorial design, one-way analysis of variance, and least significant difference method. Compared with that in normal control group, the cell proliferation level in 17-AAG alone group was significantly decreased at culture hour of 24, 48, and 72 after the treatment (<0.01), while the cell proliferation level in negative pressure treatment alone group was significantly increased at culture hour of 24, 48, and 72 after the treatment (<0.01). Compared with that in 17-AAG alone group, the cell proliferation level in 17-AAG+negative pressure treatment group was significantly increased at culture hour of 48 and 72 after the treatment (<0.05 or <0.01). Compared with that in negative pressure treatment alone group, the cell proliferation level in 17-AAG+negative pressure treatment group was significantly decreased at culture hour of 24, 48, and 72 after the treatment (<0.01). At 12 h after scratching, compared with (39.9±2.7)% in normal control group, the cell migration rate in 17-AAG alone group was significantly decreased ((10.7±2.7)%, <0.01), while the cell migration rate in negative pressure treatment alone group was significantly increased ((61.9±2.4)%, <0.01). Compared with those in 17-AAG alone group, the cell migration rate in 17-AAG+negative pressure treatment group was significantly increased ((37.7±3.7)%, <0.01). Compared with that in negative pressure treatment alone group, the cell migration rate in 17-AAG+negative pressure treatment group was significantly decreased (<0.01). At culture hour of 6 after the treatment, compared with those in normal control group, the total length of the tube formed by the cells in 17-AAG alone group was significantly shortened (<0.05) and the number of branch nodes was significantly reduced (<0.05), while the total length of the tube formed by the cells in negative pressure treatment alone group was significantly prolonged (<0.01) and the number of branch nodes was dramatically increased (<0.01). Compared with that in 17-AAG alone group, the number of branch nodes of the tube formed by the cells was significantly increased in 17-AAG+negative pressure treatment group (<0.05). Compared with those in negative pressure treatment alone group, the total length of the tube formed by the cells in 17-AAG+negative pressure treatment group was significantly shortened (<0.01) and the number of branch nodes was significantly reduced (<0.01). Western blotting detection showed that after treatment, the overall comparison of eNOS and caveolin 1 protein expressions among the three groups of cells showed no statistically significant differences (>0.05). The expression of HSP90 protein and the eNOS phosphorylation site 1177/eNOS ratio in the cells of negative pressure treatment alone group were significantly increased (<0.01) compared with those in normal control group. Compared with those in negative pressure treatment alone group, the HSP90 protein expression and the eNOS phosphorylation site 1177/eNOS ratio in the cells of 17-AAG+negative pressure treatment group were significantly decreased (<0.01). Co-immunoprecipitation and Western blotting detection after the treatment showed that compared with those in normal control group, the expression of caveolin 1 protein in the cells of negative pressure treatment alone group was significantly increased (<0.01), while the protein expression of eNOS was significantly decreased (<0.05). Compared with those in negative pressure treatment alone group, the expression of caveolin 1 protein in the cells of 17-AAG+negative pressure treatment group was significantly decreased (<0.01), while the protein expression of eNOS was significantly increased (<0.01). After the treatment, compared with those in normal control group, the co-localization of HSP90 and caveolin 1 protein in the cells of negative pressure treatment alone group was significantly increased, while the co-localization of caveolin 1 and eNOS protein was significantly decreased. Compared with those in negative pressure treatment alone group, the co-localization of HSP90 and caveolin 1 protein in the cells of 17-AAG+negative pressure treatment group was significantly decreased, while the co-localization of caveolin 1 and eNOS protein was significantly increased. Molecular docking prediction suggested that caveolin 1 interacted strongly with eNOS and inhibited the 1177 site phosphorylation of eNOS. The negative pressure microenvironment may inhibit the binding of caveolin 1 to eNOS by promoting the binding of HSP90 to caveolin 1 in HUVECs, so as to relieve the inhibition of 1177 site phosphorylation of eNOS by caveolin 1, thereby promoting the proliferation, migration, and tubulogenesis of HUVECs, and ultimately promoting the neogenesis of HUVECs.