Briefly, Confluent HUVEC cells were harvested and diluted in DMEM

Briefly, Confluent HUVEC cells were harvested and diluted in DMEM with 10%

FBS, which were then seeded on Matrigel-coated 24-well plates. Cell culture medium was then replaced by conditioned medium. After 16 h, Matrigel was fixed, stained with H & E and examined under inverted microscope. The mean tube length in five random fields per well was quantified by computer software. Cell migration assay Briefly, confluent monolayer of HUVEC was cultured with non-growth factor containing media for 12 h before harvesting. Harvested cells were suspended in serum-free DMEM199 and HUVEC cells were seeded onto tissue culture inserts in triplicate. The inserts were removed after 8 h culture and washed with PBS. Non-migrated cells on the upper surface of the inserts were removed by wiping with cotton swabs. The inserts were fixed in Epigenetics Compound Library in vitro neutral buffered formalin solution, stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H & E) and mounted on microscope slides. HUVEC migration was quantitated by counting the number of cells in three random fields (!200) per insert. cDNA microarray analysis The gene expression was compared between SGC7901-siRNA and SGC7901-vector cells for three times [9].

RNA was extracted from 80-90% confluent cells using Trizol and purified with RNeasy spin columns (Qiagen, Valencia, CA) according to the manufacturers’ instructions. Quality of the RNA was ensured before labeling by analyzing 20 to 50 ng of each sample using the RNA 6000 NanoAssay and a Bioanalyzer 2100 (Agilent, Palo Alto, CA). Samples with a peak ratio of 1.8 to 2.0 were considered suitable for labeling. Cy3- or Cy5-labeled cDNA was generated and the Cy3/Cy5 single-stranded cDNA/cot1 DNA pellet was resuspended in hybridization buffer, then the hybridization mix was applied to GEArray Q Series Human Angiogenesis Gene Array. The ratios of gene expression were considered to be significant if they were 2 or 0.5 in at least two independent L-NAME HCl experiments. Genes were assigned to functional families based on information from LocusLink

and PubMed. Statistical analysis Data were presented as mean ± standard deviation (S.D.) unless otherwise specified. Comparisons between groups were made using the Student-Newman-Keuls test or the Kruskal-Wallis test. All data were analyzed using the SPSS software package (SPSS Inc, Chicago, USA). A value of P < 0.05 was considered significant. Results Down-regulation of COX-2 inhibited the growth and tumorigenecity of gastric cancer cells As Figure 1 showed, SGC7901 cells were transfected and then one resistant clone (SGC7901-siRNA) with significantly decreased COX-2 expression and one vector transfected control clone (SGC7901-vector) were selected. The results of MTT assay showed that down-regulation of COX-2 might significantly decrease the proliferation of SGC7901 cells (Figure 2A).

Comments are closed.