Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesLaboratory StudyPubMedOpen access

A comparative study of the influence of two types of PHEMA stents on the differentiation of ASCs to myocardial cells.

Lao S., Xu J., Liu Y., Cai S., Lin L., Zhang J.

Laboratory Study on Cardiovascular Disease, published in Mol Med Rep (2017) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Laboratory Study
Journal
Mol Med Rep (2017)
Country
Greece
Reported sample size
—
Source database
PubMed
PMID
28586071
PMCID
PMC5482065
DOI
10.3892/mmr.2017.6680
Citations
1

Abstract (original English)

In the present study, subcutaneous fat was obtained from adult women that had undergone conventional liposuction surgery. A comparative study was performed to investigate the effect of transparent and white poly‑β‑hydroxyethyl methacrylate (PHEMA) stents, which have different surface and cross‑sectional morphological characteristics, on the differentiation of adipose‑derived stem cells (ASCs) into myocardial cells. The cell counting kit‑8 assay revealed that cell growth increased at varying rates among the different treatment groups. The absorbance of the experimental transparent PHEMA treated group increased in a time‑dependent manner with the duration of incubation. The highest levels of proliferation were observed in the transparent PHEMA group. In addition, the transparent PHEMA treated group exhibited the strongest cell adhesion ability, which was significantly different to that of the white PHEMA group (P<0.01 and P<0.05 for Matrigel and fibronectin assay, respectively). Comparisons between the two stent materials with the inducer control group revealed statistically significant differences in the rate of ASC differentiation (P<0.05). The level of differentiation was the greatest in the transparent PHEMA group, and was significantly different to the white PHEMA group (P<0.05) and the blank control group (P<0.01). The results suggest that the inducers 5-aza-2-deoxycytidin

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is preclinical work; animal or laboratory results cannot be applied to humans.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence
Adipose TissueAdultCell AdhesionCell DifferentiationCell LineCell ProliferationFemaleHumansHydrogel, Polyethylene Glycol DimethacrylateMyocytes, Cardiac

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research