Extended Data Fig. 2: D-BMSCs and EVsD-BMSCs demonstrate similar rejuvenating capabilities compared to F-BMSCs and EVsF-BMSCs.
a, Representative images of EdU staining and the quantitative analysis of EdU-positive cells (n = 5). Scale bar, 200 μm. b, Representative images of SA-β-Gal staining and their quantitative analysis (n = 5). Scale bar, 200 μm. c, Representative images of γ-H2AX staining of cells and their quantitative analysis (n = 5). Scale bar, 100 μm. d–f, Representative images of ARS (d), ALP (e), and Oil Red O (f) staining of cells and their quantitative analysis (n = 5). Scale bar, 3 mm (d and e) or 100 μm (f). g, Morphology of EVs isolated from D-BMSCs (EVsD-BMSCs), Scale bar, 100 nm. h, Diameter distribution of EVsD-BMSCs as revealed by NTA. i, The zeta potential of the EVsD-BMSCs. The data points are represented by circles. Boxplots display median (center line), IQR (box limits), and 1.5 × IQR (whiskers). j, CD9, CD81, and TSG101 protein levels in EVsD-BMSCs by western blotting. k, Mean EVs concentration in different EVs groups (n = 5). l, Representative images of EdU staining of A-BMSCs treated with different EVs and their quantitative analysis (n = 5). Scale bar, 200 μm. m, Representative images of SA-β-Gal staining of A-BMSCs treated with different EVs and their quantitative analysis (n = 5). Scale bar, 200 μm. n, Representative images of γ-H2AX staining of A-BMSCs treated with different EVs and their quantitative analysis (n = 5). Scale bar, 100 μm. o–q, Representative images of ARS (o), ALP (p), and Oil Red O (q) staining of A-BMSCs treated with different EVs and their quantitative analysis (n = 5). Scale bar, 3 mm (o and p) or 100 μm (q). Statistical significance was calculated by one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni’s multiple comparisons test (a–f and k–q). Data are presented as mean ± s.d. ****P < 0.0001.
