Phenotypic modulations of human umbilical vein endothelial cells and human dermal fibroblasts using two angiogenic assays

Summary— Different angiogenic assays in vitro have helped to define various events underlying angiogenesis. In this report we have compared the phenotypic modifications of human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVE cells) and human dermal fibroblasts using Matrigel and collagen gels. Both HUVE cel...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Biology of the cell 1991-01, Vol.72 (3), p.275-278
Main Authors: Bikfalvi, Andreas, Cramer, Elisabeth M., Tenza, Danièle, Tobelem, Gérard
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Cells, Cultured
cord formation
Endothelium, Vascular - cytology
Endothelium, Vascular - physiology
Fibroblasts - cytology
Fibroblasts - physiology
Fluorescent Antibody Technique
Humans
in vitro anglogenesis
Matrigel
Neovascularization, Pathologic - physiopathology
Phenotype
Skin - blood supply
Skin - cytology
Skin Physiological Phenomena
Umbilical Veins
Vimentin - analysis
von Willebrand Factor - analysis
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Summary— Different angiogenic assays in vitro have helped to define various events underlying angiogenesis. In this report we have compared the phenotypic modifications of human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVE cells) and human dermal fibroblasts using Matrigel and collagen gels. Both HUVE cells and human dermal fibroblasts form a network of anastomosing cords that apparently resemble blood capillaries when grown on Matrigel. The whole network was formed by several cellular aggregates joined to each other by cellular cords. Lumen formation was not observed in this angiogenic system. In opposite, considerable differences between HUVE cells and human dermal fibroblasts were observed in the three‐dimensional angiogenic assay on collagen gels described by Montesano et al [14]. These results indicate that data obtained with angiogenic systems using Matrigel must be interpreted with caution and that the assay described by Montesano et al [14], is more reliable to describe angiogenesis.
ISSN:0248-4900
1768-322X
DOI:10.1016/0248-4900(91)90298-2