Coculture of endothelial cells and smooth muscle cells in bilayer and conditioned media models.

Smooth muscle cell (SMC) growth characteristics are affected by endothelial cells (ECs) in vivo and in vitro. In this study, we compare a bilayer EC/SMC coculture model that allows cell contact with a model of SMCs growing in media continuously conditioned by ECs, but without physical contact. Bovine aortic SMCs were plated on one side of a 13-microns-thick, semipermeable membrane. Three models were compared: (1) SMCs cultured alone (with no cells on the opposite side of the membrane, O/SMC); (2) SMCs cultured with ECs on the opposite side of the membrane in a bilayer coculture system that allows physical contact between ECs and SMCs (EC/SMC); and (3) SMCs cultured in media continuously conditioned by adjacent ECs, without contact (conditioned media, CM). After cultures were established, SMCs were harvested at 7 and 14 days after plating (n = 5 cultures/day/group). SMC DNA and protein content and [3H]thymidine incorporation were measured in each group. On Days 7 and 14 after plating, ECs in both the EC/SMC and CM models stimulated SMC proliferation > 50% compared to O/SMC controls (P < 0.05). SMC density was similar for the EC/ SMC and CM models at Day 7, but SMC density was higher in the EC/SMC group at Day 14 in culture (P < 0.05). At Day 7, protein synthesis was similar in the three groups, but by Day 14, SMCs in the EC/SMC group had produced significantly less cellular protein/ DNA than SMCs in the CM group (P < 0.05), which in turn had less protein/DNA than the control (O/SMC) group (P < 0.05). SMCs in the EC/SMC and CM groups retained a thin, spindle shape with filamentous projections, compared to the hypertrophic appearance of SMCs in the absence of ECs. Electron microscopy revealed projections from SMCs which traversed the pores in the coculture membrane and made intimate contact with ECs. The degree of EC/SMC contact increased from 7 to 14 days (P < 0.05). Compared to SMCs alone, ECs in bilayer coculture or conditioned media altered SMCs growth characteristics similarly after 7 days in culture. By 14 days, however, the bilayer coculture had a significantly greater effect on SMC density and protein synthesis. The bilayer model is unique in terms of luminal/abluminal orientation of the cells, the proximity of the cell layers, and the presence of physical cell contact. Since the bilayer model amplifies the effect of ECs on SMCs, it may be more useful than conditioned media to study EC-SMC interactions.

[1]  M. Merrilees,et al.  Interaction of aortic endothelial and smooth muscle cells in culture. Effect on glycosaminoglycan levels. , 1981, Atherosclerosis.

[2]  W. Risau,et al.  Polarized secretion of a platelet-derived growth factor-like chemotactic factor by endothelial cells in vitro , 1987, The Journal of cell biology.

[3]  M. Fillinger,et al.  Effect of endothelial cells and transforming growth factor-beta 1 on cultured vascular smooth muscle cell growth patterns. , 1994, Journal of vascular surgery.

[4]  M. Fillinger,et al.  The effect of endothelial cell coculture on smooth muscle cell proliferation. , 1993, Journal of vascular surgery.

[5]  P. Jones,et al.  Construction of an artificial blood vessel wall from cultured endothelial and smooth muscle cells. , 1979, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[6]  F. Maxfield,et al.  Polarized binding of lipoprotein lipase to endothelial cells. Implications for its physiological actions. , 1992, Arteriosclerosis and thrombosis : a journal of vascular biology.

[7]  P. D. de Groot,et al.  Reconstitution of the vascular wall in vitro. A novel model to study interactions between endothelial and smooth muscle cells. , 1986, Experimental cell research.

[8]  P. Ganz,et al.  Short- and long-term interactions of endothelium and vascular smooth muscle in coculture: effects on cyclic GMP production. , 1986, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[9]  A. Sandra,et al.  Apical-basal membrane polarity of membrane phosphatases in isolated capillary endothelium: alteration in ultrastructural localisation under culture conditions. , 1993, Journal of anatomy.

[10]  M. Reidy,et al.  Mechanisms of Arterial Graft Failure: The Role of Cellular Proliferation , 1987, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[11]  S Glagov,et al.  Shear stress regulation of artery lumen diameter in experimental atherogenesis. , 1987, Journal of vascular surgery.

[12]  An endothelial cell-derived growth factor , 1980, The Journal of cell biology.

[13]  T. W. James,et al.  Assay for nanogram quantities of DNA in cellular homogenates. , 1979, Analytical biochemistry.

[14]  B. Binder,et al.  Polar secretion of endothelin-1 by cultured endothelial cells. , 1992, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[15]  M. Gimbrone,et al.  Plasmalemmal proteins of cultured vascular endothelial cells exhibit apical-basal polarity: analysis by surface-selective iodination , 1986, The Journal of cell biology.

[16]  E. Betz,et al.  Fibromuscular proliferates induced in vitro using a trans-filter culture system , 1991, Research in experimental medicine. Zeitschrift fur die gesamte experimentelle Medizin einschliesslich experimenteller Chirurgie.

[17]  B L Langille,et al.  Reductions in arterial diameter produced by chronic decreases in blood flow are endothelium-dependent. , 1986, Science.

[18]  M. Davies,et al.  Regression of intimal hyperplasia with restoration of endothelium-dependent relaxing factor-mediated relaxation in experimental vein grafts. , 1993, Surgery.

[19]  T Togawa,et al.  Adaptive regulation of wall shear stress to flow change in the canine carotid artery. , 1980, The American journal of physiology.

[20]  R. Sayers,et al.  Human venous endothelium can promote intimal hyperplasia in a paracrine manner. , 1994, Journal of vascular surgery.

[21]  R. Rosenberg,et al.  Cultured endothelial cells produce heparinlike inhibitor of smooth muscle cell growth , 1981, The Journal of cell biology.

[22]  J. Chamley-Campbell,et al.  What controls smooth muscle phenotype? , 1981, Atherosclerosis.

[23]  A M Melkumyants,et al.  Endothelium dependent control of arterial diameter by blood viscosity. , 1989, Cardiovascular research.

[24]  C. Bolognesi,et al.  Improved microfluorometric DNA determination in biological material using 33258 Hoechst. , 1979, Analytical biochemistry.

[25]  A. Marcus,et al.  Interactions of arterial cells. Studies on the mechanisms of endothelial cell modulation of cholesterol metabolism in co-cultured smooth muscle cells. , 1987, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[26]  Julie H. Campbell,et al.  Vascular smooth muscle in culture , 1987 .

[27]  D. Graham,et al.  Aortic endothelial and smooth muscle cell co-culture: an in vitro model of the arterial wall. , 1991, Journal of investigative surgery : the official journal of the Academy of Surgical Research.

[28]  M. Daemen,et al.  Enhanced cellular proliferation in intact stenotic lesions derived from human arteriovenous fistulas and peripheral bypass grafts. Does it correlate with flow parameters? , 1996, Circulation.

[29]  A. Gotlieb,et al.  Endothelial stimulation of intimal cell proliferation in a porcine aortic organ culture. , 1989, The American journal of pathology.

[30]  S. Schwartz,et al.  Common mechanisms of proliferation of smooth muscle in atherosclerosis and hypertension. , 1987, Human pathology.

[31]  P. Davies,et al.  Co-cultivation of vascular endothelial and smooth muscle cells using microcarrier techniques. , 1982, Experimental cell research.