Fig. 4

Functional consequences of VCE-004.8 on HIF-1α stabilization. a PrimeKit co-cultures were seeded on day 0 and the indicated concentration of rhVEGFA or VCE-004.8 was added on day 2. Tube formation was analyzed, and the results were plotted using the Incucyte FLR software in terms of network length on day 7 ± SD (n = 3). **p < 0.01, **p < 0.001 rhVEGFA- or VCE-004.8-treated cells vs untreated cells (one-way ANOVA followed Tukey’s test). b HBMECs were plated on Matrigel-coated cultured dishes and treated with VCE-004.8. Quantitative analysis of number of branch formation was performed using the ImageJ v1.45 software. Data represent the mean ± SD (n = 3). *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 rhVEGFA- or VCE-004.8-treated cells vs untreated cells (one-way ANOVA followed Tukey’s test). c Representative images from the experiment described in a are shown (magnification × 4). d–e Scratch assay on MO3.13 cells treated with rhVEGFA in the presence of anti-VEGFA (d) or conditioned medium from HBMECs treated with VCE-004.8 in the absence or the presence of anti-VEGFA for 24 h (e). Results were plotted using the Incucyte FLR software in terms of percentage of wound confluence ± SD (n = 3) as a function on time. *p < 0.05, ***p < 0.001 vs control; ^#p < 0.05 vs rhVEGFA- or VCE-004.8-treated cells (one-way ANOVA followed Tukey’s test)