Ell population. In the PN group, the percentages of EPCs within the kidney mononuclear cell population were not significantly different following renal reperfusion at any of the time points. In contrast, MedChemExpress Homatropine methobromide treatment with IPC resulted in a marked increase in EPC number. Data are shown as mean 6 SEM. *Significant difference vs. Sham group (P,0.05); #significant difference vs. PN group (P,0.05). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0055389.gCell Proliferation and NeovascularizationCD34 immunochemistry was used to investigate whether attenuation of renal injury in the IPC group was associated with angiogenesis promoted by EPCs. We detected the most significant effect of IPC at 24 h after reperfusion (Fig. 6). Peritubular capillary density in the PN group was significantly reduced compared toIschemic Preconditioning and RenoprotectionFigure 6. Immunohistochemical staining for CD34 at 24 h after reperfusion (6200). CD34 expression was decreased in PN group (B) compared with the IPC group (C) and the Sham group (A). PCRI in the PN group was significantly increased compared to the IPC group and the Sham group (P,0.05), however, there was no significant difference between the Sham and IPC groups. Data are shown as mean 6 SEM (D). *Significant difference vs. Sham group (P,0.05); #significant difference vs. IPC group (P,0.05). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0055389.gthat in the IPC and Sham groups (P,0.05). However, there was no significant difference between density in the Sham and IPC groups. The PCRI was 0.6060.55 in rats with IPC, 3.6061.14 in PN samples, and 0.4060.55 in the Sham group. To assess the number of proliferating cells, immunochemical staining with PCNA was performed. The most significant effect of IPC was detected after 24 h of reperfusion. As depicted in Fig. 7, the Sham group exhibited a minimal degree of cell proliferation as evaluated using PCNA staining. IPC treatment significantly promoted cell proliferation compared with the PN group, as reflected by the number of PCNA-positive cells (135628 vs. 26.069.1 , P,0.05). The majority of the proliferating cells were capillary endothelial cells while a minority were renal tubular epithelial cells. This might be related to the effects on EPCs, which accumulated in ischemic kidneys, and are mediated by IPC.significantly increased SDF-1a expression was observed in the PN group at 72 h and in the IPC group at 24?2 h compared 15857111 to the Sham group (P,0.05). Further, SDF-1a mRNA was more abundant in the IPC group compared to the PN group at 24?2 h (P,0.05). For IGF-1 mRNA, however, there were no statistically significant differences between the three groups (Fig. 8).Angiogenic Factor Protein ExpressionVEGF-A, SDF-1a, and IGF-1 protein expression were also MK-8931 examined. As shown in Fig. 9, VEGF-A expression in the IPC group was significantly increased compared with the PN and Sham groups at 6 h (P,0.05). However, there was no difference between 1317923 VEGF-A expression in the PN and Sham groups. SDF1a protein was expressed at higher levels in the PN and IPC groups compared with the Sham group at 24 h; the IPC group showed a greater increase in SDF-1a expression when compared to the PN group (P,0.05). For IGF-1 expression, however, there was no significant difference between groups.mRNA Expression of Angiogenic FactorsqPCR was used to investigate the levels of mRNA of angiogenic factors in the kidney. VEGF-A mRNA expression was significantly higher in IPC rats compared with the other two groups in the early phase follow.Ell population. In the PN group, the percentages of EPCs within the kidney mononuclear cell population were not significantly different following renal reperfusion at any of the time points. In contrast, treatment with IPC resulted in a marked increase in EPC number. Data are shown as mean 6 SEM. *Significant difference vs. Sham group (P,0.05); #significant difference vs. PN group (P,0.05). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0055389.gCell Proliferation and NeovascularizationCD34 immunochemistry was used to investigate whether attenuation of renal injury in the IPC group was associated with angiogenesis promoted by EPCs. We detected the most significant effect of IPC at 24 h after reperfusion (Fig. 6). Peritubular capillary density in the PN group was significantly reduced compared toIschemic Preconditioning and RenoprotectionFigure 6. Immunohistochemical staining for CD34 at 24 h after reperfusion (6200). CD34 expression was decreased in PN group (B) compared with the IPC group (C) and the Sham group (A). PCRI in the PN group was significantly increased compared to the IPC group and the Sham group (P,0.05), however, there was no significant difference between the Sham and IPC groups. Data are shown as mean 6 SEM (D). *Significant difference vs. Sham group (P,0.05); #significant difference vs. IPC group (P,0.05). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0055389.gthat in the IPC and Sham groups (P,0.05). However, there was no significant difference between density in the Sham and IPC groups. The PCRI was 0.6060.55 in rats with IPC, 3.6061.14 in PN samples, and 0.4060.55 in the Sham group. To assess the number of proliferating cells, immunochemical staining with PCNA was performed. The most significant effect of IPC was detected after 24 h of reperfusion. As depicted in Fig. 7, the Sham group exhibited a minimal degree of cell proliferation as evaluated using PCNA staining. IPC treatment significantly promoted cell proliferation compared with the PN group, as reflected by the number of PCNA-positive cells (135628 vs. 26.069.1 , P,0.05). The majority of the proliferating cells were capillary endothelial cells while a minority were renal tubular epithelial cells. This might be related to the effects on EPCs, which accumulated in ischemic kidneys, and are mediated by IPC.significantly increased SDF-1a expression was observed in the PN group at 72 h and in the IPC group at 24?2 h compared 15857111 to the Sham group (P,0.05). Further, SDF-1a mRNA was more abundant in the IPC group compared to the PN group at 24?2 h (P,0.05). For IGF-1 mRNA, however, there were no statistically significant differences between the three groups (Fig. 8).Angiogenic Factor Protein ExpressionVEGF-A, SDF-1a, and IGF-1 protein expression were also examined. As shown in Fig. 9, VEGF-A expression in the IPC group was significantly increased compared with the PN and Sham groups at 6 h (P,0.05). However, there was no difference between 1317923 VEGF-A expression in the PN and Sham groups. SDF1a protein was expressed at higher levels in the PN and IPC groups compared with the Sham group at 24 h; the IPC group showed a greater increase in SDF-1a expression when compared to the PN group (P,0.05). For IGF-1 expression, however, there was no significant difference between groups.mRNA Expression of Angiogenic FactorsqPCR was used to investigate the levels of mRNA of angiogenic factors in the kidney. VEGF-A mRNA expression was significantly higher in IPC rats compared with the other two groups in the early phase follow.
