Effects of cigarette smoke and nicotine on cell viability, migration and myofibroblastic differentiation
Author
dc.contributor.author
Silva, D.
Author
dc.contributor.author
Cáceres, M.
es_CL
Author
dc.contributor.author
Arancibia, R.
es_CL
Author
dc.contributor.author
Martínez, C.
es_CL
Author
dc.contributor.author
Martínez, J.
es_CL
Author
dc.contributor.author
Smith, P. C.
Admission date
dc.date.accessioned
2014-01-09T19:01:00Z
Available date
dc.date.available
2014-01-09T19:01:00Z
Publication date
dc.date.issued
2012-02-04
Cita de ítem
dc.identifier.citation
J Periodont Res 2012; 47: 599–607
en_US
Identifier
dc.identifier.other
doi:10.1111/j.1600-0765.2012.01472.x
Identifier
dc.identifier.uri
https://repositorio.uchile.cl/handle/2250/124057
General note
dc.description
Artículo de publicación ISI.
en_US
Abstract
dc.description.abstract
Background and Objective: Several studies have analysed the role of nicotine as a
prominent agent affecting wound repair in smokers. However, tobacco smoke
contains several components that may alter gingival wound healing. The present
study aimed to analyse the roles of cigarette smoke condensate (CSC) and nicotine
on cell viability, cell migration/invasion and myofibroblastic differentiation using
primary cultures of human gingival fibroblasts.
Material and Methods: To compare the effects of CSC and nicotine, gingival
fibroblasts were stimulated with CSC (0.4–500 lg/mL) and the corresponding nicotine
concentrations (0.025–32 lg/mL) present in research cigarettes (1R3F). Cell
viability was evaluated through the MTS assay. Cell migration and invasion were
assessed through scratch wound assays, collagen nested matrices and transwell
migration. a-Smooth muscle actin production was evaluated by western blotting.
Results: Cigarette smoke condensate at 50 lg/mL induced a moderate increase in
cell viability, whereas the corresponding nicotine concentration (3.2 lg/mL) did
not produce this response. Cigarette smoke condensate at 250 lg/mL, but not
nicotine at 16 lg/mL (the corresponding nicotine concentration), induced cell
death. Both nicotine and CSC stimulated cell migration (50 lg/mL CSC; 3.2 lg/
mL nicotine). At 150 lg/mL, CSC inhibited cell migration; however, the corresponding
concentration of nicotine (9.6 lg/mL), did not have this effect. Although
both nicotine and CSC inhibited a-smooth muscle actin production, only the latter
induced a statistically significant effect on this response.
Conclusion: Cigarette smoke condensate may stimulate cell survival and
migration at low concentrations and inhibit these cell responses at higher levels
of exposure. Moreover, CSC may interfere in myofibroblastic differentiation.
These results show that cigarette smoke, but not nicotine, may significantly alter
cell viability, cell migration and myofibroblastic differentiation in gingival
mesenchymal cells.