Human versus bovine endothelial cell culture on glass and tissue-culture plastic

Abstract

SUMMARY: This work demonstrates that human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs; Passages 1 and 5) attach to and grow on glass poorly in comparison to bovine aortic endothelial cells (BAECs; Passage 5). Seventeen hours after seeding passage 5 cells, there are 6.0 + 0.1 × 103 HUVECs/cm 2 (mean + SE, n = 12) on gelatin-coated glass, vs. 29.3 _+ 1.5 × 10 3 BAECs/cm 2. This poor attachment and growth is due to a dependence of HUVECs on surface charge and preadsorbed fibronectin not shared by BAECs, because both cell types proliferate on tissue culture plastic and HUVECs can be made to grow comparably well on gelatin-coated glass by the further addition of poly-L-lysine and fibronectin. These data indicate the existence of a human-bovine species difference with respect to endothelial celt adhesion to and growth on glass.

Shiga toxin enhances functional tissue factor on human glomerular endothelial cells: implications for the pathophysiology of hemolytic uremic syndrome

“…Cells were plated on 12‐well tissue culture plates precoated with endothelial cell attachment factor, in the case of HGECs, or fibronectin (adsorbed from a 10 µg mL −1 solution for 1 h at room temperature) in the case of HUVECs. As it is known that the extracellular matrix molecules employed in precoating of cell culture surfaces could affect the in vitro behavior and response of endothelial cells [10–13], a set of experiments was performed in which the type of cell culture surface precoating was reversed, i.e. HGECs were plated on 12‐well tissue culture plates precoated with fibronectin and HUVECs on 12‐well tissue culture plates precoated with endothelial cell attachment factor in order to exclude any possible role of the extracellular matrix proteins in the results obtained.…”

Sex‐Specific Response to Combinations of Shear Stress and Substrate Stiffness by Endothelial Cells In Vitro

“…These may include the influence of molecular contributors such as past environments and epigenetic changes, donor demographics and medical history, donor genetic variability, the species and tissue origin of the donor cells, and the lack and inclusion of cellcell interaction by self and other cell types. [11,43,[93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103] They also take the form of environmental contributors such as the choice of stimulating device, the choice of substrate material and extracellular matrix protein used for attachment, the collection of mechanical and chemical factors omitted from investigation, the range of stimuli included for investigation, the supplements included in cell culture media formulations, and the influence of sex hormones. [1,45,47,[104][105][106][107][108] Addressing all of these molecular and environmental contributors is untenable for the in vitro medium, thus the best course of action is to recognize these contributors and report in sufficient detail the information that is known and unknown.…”