Fig. 9

Anti-miR-200c and CAT accelerate WH upon ROS and in DFU KCs and co-treatment is synergic. a HaCaT cells were infected with either anti-miR-200c or with a control virus (anti-miR-scr) and a scratch assay was performed. Graph showing the % of cell free area vs time zero of anti-miR-200c treated cells compared with miR-scramble control at the time points indicated in figure (N = 6; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01). b HaCaT cells were treated with 400 UI/ml CAT for the indicated times during the scratch assay. Graph showing the % of cell free area vs time zero of CAT treated cells compared to untreated control at the timepoints indicated in figure (N = 5; **p < 0.01). c HaCaT cells were infected with anti-miR-200c or with a control virus. A scratch assay was performed and then cells were treated or not for 16 h with 400 μM H₂O₂, afterwards cells were treated or not with CAT for 8 h. Representative image of scratch assay showing the migration process at 24 h. d HaCaT cells were infected with either anti-miR-200c or with a control virus, then cells were irradiated with 50 J/m² of UV light. Afterwards, a scratch assay was performed, and the cells were treated or not with 400 UI/ml CAT. Representative images of the scratch assay monitoring cellular migration at 72 h. e Scatter plot showing the % of cell free area vs time zero at 24 h (N = 6; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001). f Scatter plot showing the % of cell free area vs time zero at 72 h (N = 6; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001). g KCs of DFU pts were infected either with a lentivirus encoding anti-miR-200c or with a control virus (anti-miR-scr). Afterwards, cells were incubated with 400 UI/ml equine CAT for additional 24 h. Representative image of a scratch assay that monitored the migration process at 24 h. h Scatter plot showing % of cell free area vs time zero (N = 6; *p < 0.05; ***p < 0.001)