Skip to main content
Fig. 6 | Journal of Biological Engineering

Fig. 6

From: Discrimination between the effects of pulsed electrical stimulation and electrochemically conditioned medium on human osteoblasts

Fig. 6

Electrical stimulation (ES) affects the redox system of MG-63 cells. A Fluorescence microscopy of intracellular ROS levels of adherent cells after 2 h ES. Note that ES does not influence intracellular ROS levels (LSM 780, scale bars 20 μm). B Mean Fluorescence Intensity (MFI) of ROS in the cytoplasm (CellROX orange) and ROS in the nucleus and mitochondria (CellROX green) (mean ± s.e.m., n = 5 independent experiments á 30–50 cells; Two-way ANOVA with Bonferroni posttests, compared to corresponding control). C DCFDA ROS fluorescence of non-adherent cells measured via flow cytometry (representative example of n = 3–4 independent experiments, flow cytometry). D DCFDA fluorescence (mean ± s.e.m., n = 3–4 independent experiments; One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni posttests, compared to control). E) Antioxidant concentration in ES cells stimulated in medium with and without 1 mM pyruvate (mean ± s.e.m., n = 3, Two-way ANOVA with Bonferroni posttests). Note that antioxidant concentration decreased in stimulated cells without pyruvate

Back to article page