(Downloading may take up to 30 seconds.
If the slide opens in your browser, select File -> Save As to save it.)
Click on image to view larger version.


Figure 3


Fig. 3. Cell migration towards ECM substrates. (A) Haptotactic migration of HTR-8/SVneo towards various purified ECM substrates. The filters were coated on the lower surface with 20 µg/ml of the substrates. Data are expressed as mean ± s.d. under baseline conditions (BSA). Post-hoc comparison of BSA versus test substrates after significant ANOVA for repeated-measures main effect, Dunnet's test (n=4). *P<0.05. (B) Migration versus haptotaxis of HTR-8/SVneo cells. Filters were coated with purified FN or EMILIN-1 on their upper (migration) or lower (haptotaxis) surfaces and the cells were allowed to migrate for 5 hours. The values shown represent the mean ± s.d. of five experiments. P was calculated for values obtained in haptotactic versus migration conditions. (C) Haptotactic migration of HTR-8/SVneo and fresh EVT cells in response to FN or EMILIN1 was determined by FATIMA assay at one time point (5 hours). The mean ± s.d. of three experiments is reported. (D) The effect of the {alpha}4 function-blocking mAb P1H4 is shown. For EMILIN1 and gC1q1 P values are reported. The values shown represent the mean ± s.d. of three experiments.