Fig. 3: Experimental evaluation of subcutaneous implantation with cell-loaded 3D hydrogel scaffolds in nude mice. | Nature Communications

Fig. 3: Experimental evaluation of subcutaneous implantation with cell-loaded 3D hydrogel scaffolds in nude mice.

From: Functional reconstruction of injured corpus cavernosa using 3D-printed hydrogel scaffolds seeded with HIF-1α-expressing stem cells

Fig. 3

a Images of heparin-free and heparin-coated 3D hydrogel scaffolds loaded with different cells before and 60 days after subcutaneous implantation. b Images of H&E staining in the cell-free, MDSCs, vector and mHIF-1α groups after implantation in nude mice for 30 and 60 days. The scale bar is 100 μm (n = 3). c Three-dimensional angiography images of blood vessels in two implanted scaffolds after implantation in nude mice for 30 and 60 days. The scale bar is 100 μm (n = 3). d, e Expression of VEGF, SDF-1 and PDGF at the protein level via WB detection in the scaffold tissue after 60 days (n = 3). (Unpaired, two-tailed t-test. In e-VEGF, **p = 0.0093, mHIF-1α+Heparin-free vs Control *p = 0.0249, Vector+Heparin-free vs Control *p = 0.0434; in e-PDGF, ***p = 0.0003, **p = 0.0079, *p = 0.016; in e, SDF-1, mHIF-1α+Heparin vs Control ***p = 0.0006, mHIF-1α + Heparin-free vs Control ***p = 0.0006, *p = 0.0249). f Comparative gene expression analysis of VEGF, PDGF and SDF-1 via qRT-PCR assay in the implanted scaffold tissue after 60 days (n = 3). (Unpaired, two-tailed t-test. In f, VEGF, **p = 0.0045, *p = 0.0104; in f, PDGF, **p = 0.0025, ***p = 0.0003; in f, SDF-1, mHIF-1α + Heparin vs Control **p = 0.0025, mHIF-1α + Heparin-free vs Control **p = 0.0069). Data are displayed as mean ± SD. (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001).

Back to article page