FIGURE 1

Cancer cell‐derived exosomes promote the angiogenesis and migration viability of HUVECs in vitro and in vivo. (A) Representative TEM images of exosomes (red arrows) (scale bar = 100 nm). (B) Western blotting of the whole‐cell lysates or exosome lysates for the classical exosomal protein markers (CD63 and Hsp70) and GAPDH. (C) Representative confocal microscope images of F‐actin (red), nucleus (blue), and PKH67‐labeled exosomes (green) in HUVECs co‐cultured with various exosomes or PBS for 24 h (scale bar = 30 μm). (D) Representative images of tube formation and migration of HUVECs treated by IOSE‐80/exo, SKOV3/exo, and A2780/exo, respectively (scale bar = 100 μm). Total master segments length, number of master junctions, master nodes, and migration cells were regarded as indicators of angiogenic ability in vitro and assessed by ImageJ (mean ± SD, n = 3). (E) Left: Representative confocal images of zebrafish vessel models injected with IOSE‐80/exo, SKOV3/exo, or A2780/exo. The subintestinal vessels (SIV) (green) and exosomes (red) are shown. White arrows indicate newly formed blood vessels. Right: Quantification of the number of ectopic sprouts observed per fish (mean ± SD) injected with IOSE‐80/exo (n = 16), SKOV3/exo (n = 22), and A2780/exo (n = 18), respectively. Data are shown by at least three independent experiments, and the Student's t‐test was used to compare differences. *p < .05, **p < .01