Chick embryo CAM assay: macroscopic and microscopic assessment of Drm-induced neovascularization
| Treatment . | n . | Blood vessels,* mean ± SD . | Intersection points,† mean ± SD . | Microvessel density,† % . |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vehicle | 10 | 6 ± 3 | 0 | 0.0 |
| rDrm | 20 | 27 ± 4‡ | 23 ± 3 | 16.0 |
| Mock-COS cells | 20 | 10 ± 3 | 5 ± 2 | 3.5 |
| Drm-COS cells | 20 | 28 ± 3‡ | 24 ± 2 | 16.6 |
| Treatment . | n . | Blood vessels,* mean ± SD . | Intersection points,† mean ± SD . | Microvessel density,† % . |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vehicle | 10 | 6 ± 3 | 0 | 0.0 |
| rDrm | 20 | 27 ± 4‡ | 23 ± 3 | 16.0 |
| Mock-COS cells | 20 | 10 ± 3 | 5 ± 2 | 3.5 |
| Drm-COS cells | 20 | 28 ± 3‡ | 24 ± 2 | 16.6 |
Gelatin sponges containing vehicle, 100 ng rDrm, mock-transfected or Drm-transfected COS cells (18 000 cells per sponge) were implanted on top of chick embryo CAMs at day 8.
The angiogenic response was assessed macroscopically at day 12 by counting the number of blood vessels entering the sponge.
The angiogenic response was assessed histologically by a planimetric method of “point counting” as described.24
P < .001 versus vehicle and Mock-COS cells.