Figure 1.
CAP set-up: (a) Configuration of CAP generation device. (b) electrical circuit diagram.
Figure 2.
Radial measurement of helium plasma jet: (a) plasma tube aligned with optical probe (b) schematic diagram of holder and probe; (c) intensity of major species drop along radius.
Table 1.
Different CAP parameter (output voltage and resistance value) effects for MSC growth in vitro.
Figure 3.
Emission spectrum of helium cold plasma at an output voltage of 3.68 kV.
Figure 4.
CAP effects on cell growth: MSC and BrCa cell growth under condition 5 (RA = 3000 Ω, RB = 3000 Ω, output voltage is 3.68 KV) in 0s, 30 s, 60 s, 90 s of CAP treatment.
Data are mean ± SEM, n = 9; *p<0.05 when compared to BrCa cells under 30 and 60 s CAP treatments.
Figure 5.
CAP effects on cell growth: MSC and BrCa cell growth under condition 4 (RA = 3700 Ω, RB = 3700 Ω, output voltage is 3.28 KV) in 0 s, 30 s, 60 s, 90 s of CAP treatment.
Data are mean ± SEM, n = 9; *p<0.05 when compared to BrCa cells under 30 and 90 s CAP treatments.
Figure 6.
Fluorescence microscopy images. Live (green) and dead (red) BrCa cells (A–E) and MSCs (F–J) under 0, 30, 60, 90 and 120 s of CAP treatment.
Figure 7.
CAP treated MSC proliferation.
MSC 1, 3 and 5 day proliferation under different daily CAP treatments. Data are mean ± SEM, n = 9; *p<0.05 and #p<0.01 when compared to 60 and 90 s daily treatment after day 1 and day 3; **p<0.05 and ##p<0.01 when compared to 90s treatment after day 1 and day 3; &p<0.01 when compared to 90 s daily treatment after day 5 and &&p<0.05 when compared to 60s daily treatment after day 5.
Figure 8.
CAP treated BrCa cell proliferation.
Significantly inhibited BrCa cell 1, 3 and 5 day proliferation under different daily CAP treatments. Data are mean ± SEM, n = 9; *p<0.01 when compared to 0 s and 30 s daily treatment after day 1; **p<0.01 when compared to all other samples after day 3 and day 5. #p<0.01 when compared to 0 s and 30 s daily treatment after day 3 and day 5; and &p<0.01 when compared to untreated samples (0 s) after day 3 and day 5.
Figure 9.
BrCa cell migration via Transwell Migration assay.
CAP treatment decreased invasion of BrCa in matrigel transwell. Cells were treated with CAP in 0 s, 30 s, 60 s and 90 s. CAP treatment influenced invasion of BrCa cell in matrigel transwell.
Figure 10.
Quantified BrCa cell invasion in matrigel transwell.
Data are mean ± SEM, n = 9; *p<0.001 when compared to all other treatments. **p<0.01 when compared to 0 s, and 30 s daily treatment. ***p<0.001 when compared to 0 s controls.
Figure 11.
Wound healing assay: BrCa cells treated with different CAP time were captured every 5 hours.
Figure 12.
Representation of the rate of closure for each condition: untreated BrCa, CAP treated 30 s, 60 s, 90 s.
Data are mean ± SEM, n = 9; *p<0.01 when comparing the untreated group with CAP treatment of 30 s, 60 s and 90 s.
Figure 13.
Representative microscopy images of BrCa migration pathway.
Cell tracks of the first line of bottom of scratch for each condition in first 9 hours: untreated BrCa cells, CAP treated 30 s, 60 s, and 90 s.
Figure 14.
BrCa cell migration velocity after CAP treatment.
(A) Cell velocity distribution of the first line of bottom of scratch for each condition in first 9 hours. X axis represents velocity distribution (µm/second) and Y axis represents cell percentage (%). (B) Quantification of average migration distance of BrCa cells under different CAP treatments in 9 hours. Data are mean ± SEM, n = 9; *p<0.001, **p<0.001 and ***p<0.001 when compared to all other treatments.