Table 2.

Angiogenic response to the MM endothelial cell or HUVEC conditioned medium (CM) assessed by the chick embryo chorioallantoic membrane (CAM)-gelatin sponge assay





No. of vessels at × 250 within 0.125 mm2
Sponge loaded with
No. of CM*
No. of vessels at the sponge-CAM boundary at × 50
Inside the sponge
At the sponge-CAM boundary
Negative control medium  10   11 ± 4  0   4 ± 2  
Positive control medium   10   38 ± 9   18 ± 7   25 ± 8  
MM endothelial cell CM   32   53 ± 15§  27 ± 10§  36 ± 12§ 
HUVEC CM
 
20
 
21 ± 6§
 
1 ± 1§
 
6 ± 2§
 




No. of vessels at × 250 within 0.125 mm2
Sponge loaded with
No. of CM*
No. of vessels at the sponge-CAM boundary at × 50
Inside the sponge
At the sponge-CAM boundary
Negative control medium  10   11 ± 4  0   4 ± 2  
Positive control medium   10   38 ± 9   18 ± 7   25 ± 8  
MM endothelial cell CM   32   53 ± 15§  27 ± 10§  36 ± 12§ 
HUVEC CM
 
20
 
21 ± 6§
 
1 ± 1§
 
6 ± 2§
 
*

Each tested on 2 to 3 eggs with similar results and expressed as mean.

The negative and positive control media were RPMI-1640 medium alone or containing bFGF (200 μg/mL), respectively.

Results are expressed as the final mean ± 1 SD.

§

P < .01 or better (analysis of variance by Fisher and Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Duncan [t], Bonferroni [t], and Wilcoxon paired tests).

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal