It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Electric Cell-Substrate Impedance Sensing (ECIS) can produce reproducible wounding models by mechanically disrupting a cell monolayer. This study compared in vitro wound-healing using human cerebral microvascular endothelial cells (hCMVEC) with both single electrode (8W1E) and multiple electrodes (8W10E+) arrays. Measurements of hCMVEC migration and barrier functions were conducted, revealing variable levels of barrier disruption could be achieved by altering the duration and magnitude of the applied current. In all scenarios, the barrier (Rb) did not recover the strength observed prior to injury. Localization of junctional proteins following wounding were analyzed by immunocytochemistry. Following wounding, cell migration was generally faster on the 8W10E+ than the 8W1E array. Immunohistochemical analysis revealed non-viable cells remained on the 8W1E electrodes but not the 8W10E+ electrodes. However, viable cells partially remained on the 8W10E+ electrodes following wounding. In addition, the 8W10E+ electrodes demonstrated variation in cell loss across electrodes within the same well. This suggests the type of wounding is different on the two array types. However, our data show both arrays can be used to model incomplete barrier recovery and therefore both have potential for testing of drugs to improve endothelial barrier function. This is the first time that the possibility of using the 8W10E+ array as a wounding model is addressed. We highlight the differences in wounding produced between the two arrays, and can be used to study the underlying causes for impaired barrier function following CNS injuries.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Department of Anatomy and Medical Imaging, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland 1010, New Zealand; Centre for Brain Research, University of Auckland, Auckland 1010, New Zealand
2 Centre for Brain Research, University of Auckland, Auckland 1010, New Zealand; Department of Molecular Medicine and Pathology, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland 1010, New Zealand