Modeling of the myogenic induction of BMSCs
After 14 days’ myogenic differentiation, MyoD1 and Myogenin expressions were positive and increased sharply (Fig. 2A and 2B). At the same time, the expression of FOXO1 and p-AKT/AKT in the OM group were statistically higher than those in the control group (t Foxo1=-14.84, P Foxo1<0.001, t p−AKT/AKT=-6.94, P p−AKT/AKT=0.002, Fig. 2C).
The effect of different glucose concentration and time points on the cell viability during myogenic induction
No significant difference was observed in the cell viability of the 25 mmol/L glucose group from 24 h to 72 h (F = 3.95, P = 0.053). But the cell viability in the 35 mmol/L glucose group lowered at 48 h, and decreased obviously at 72 h. The cell viability at 72 h was significantly lower than those in other three time points (P 72h vs 48h=0.014, P 72h vs 24h=0.001, P 72h vs 48h=0.001, Fig. 3). According to above results, the concentration of glucose at 35 mmol/L was selected for subsequent experiments, and the cells in all groups were treated for 72 h or 14 days.
The decrease effects of high glucose and the increase effects of resveratrol on cell viability and proliferation during myogenic induction of BMSCs
After the treatment of 72 h, there were significant differences in cell viabilities and proliferations (the percentage of G2 + S) among five groups (F viability=20.46, P viability <0.001, F proliferation=124.73, P proliferation<0.001, Fig. 4). Cell viability and proliferation in the OM + R group were highest, and significantly than those in all other four groups (P viability OM+R vs OM=0.005, P proliferation OM+R vs OM<0.001, P viability OM+R vs OM+G<0.001, P proliferation OM+R vs OM+G<0.001, P viability OM+R vs OM+G+R=0.001, P proliferation OM+R vs OM+G+R<0.001, P viability OM+R vs OM+G+R+EX527<0.001, P proliferation OM+R vs OM+G+R+EX527<0.001).
Cell viabilities and proliferations in the OM and OM + G + R groups were significantly higher than those in OM + G and OM + G + R + EX527 groups (P viability OM+G vs OM=0.002, P proliferation OM+G vs OM<0.001, P viability OM+G+R+EX527 vs OM=0.003, P proliferation OM+G+R+EX527 vs OM<0.001, P viability OM+G+R vs OM+G=0.006, P proliferation OM+G+R vs OM+G=0.003, P viability OM+G+R+EX527 vs OM +G+R=0.011, P proliferation OM+G+R+EX527 vs OM +G+R=0.004).
Compared to the OM group, the cell viability in the OM + R + G group changed barely (P = 0.446). Differently, the cell proliferation in the OM + R + G group decreased significantly (P < 0.001). Unlike above two groups, there were no significant differences in cell viabilities and proliferations between the OM + G group and the OM + G + R + EX527 group (P viability =0.725, P proliferation=0.881).
The effect of high glucose and resveratrol on the expression of MyoD1 and Myogenin
After 14 days’ treatment, there were significant differences in MyoD1 and Myogenin expressions among all five groups (F MyoD1=70.93, P MyoD1<0.001, F Myogenin=77.45, P Myogenin<0.001, Fig. 5). The expressions of MyoD1 and Myogeni in the OM + R group were highest and obviously higher than those in all other groups (P MyoD1 OM+R vs OM<0.001, P Myogenin OM+R vs OM =0.006, P MyoD1 OM+R vs OM+G<0.001, P Myogenin OM+R vs OM+G<0.001, P MyoD1 OM+G+R vs OM+R<0.001, P MyoD1 OM+G+R+EX527 vs OM+R<0.001, P Myogenin OM+G+R vs OM+R=0.001, P Myogenin OM+G+R+EX527 vs OM+R<0.001).
The expressions of MyoD1 and Myogeni in the OM and OM + G + R groups were significantly higher than those in OM + G and OM + G + R + EX527 groups (all P ≤ 0.001). At last, no clear changes were seen in MyoD1 and Myogenin expressions between the OM + G + R group and the OM group (P MyoD1 =0.727, P Myogenin =0.196). Compared to the OM + G group, the expression of MyoD1 in the OM + R + G + E527 group changed a little (P = 0.924), differently, the expression of Myogeni in the OM + R + G group decreased significantly (P < 0.001).
The effect of high glucose and resveratrol on the ROS level and SOD activity
During the process of myogenic differentiation of BMSCs, significant differences were seen in the ROS levels and SOD activities among all five groups (F ROS=150.09, P ROS<0.001, F SOD=30.42, P SOD<0.001, Fig. 6). The ROS levels in OM and OM + R groups were significantly lower than those in the OM + G, OM + G + R and OM + G + R + EX527 groups (all P < 0.001), while SOD activities in these three groups were obviously lowered than those in OM and OM + R groups (all P < 0.001).
No significant differences were seen in ROS level and SOD activity between the OM + R group and the OM group (P ROS=0.171, P SOD=0.797). The ROS levels in OM + G + R and OM + G + R + EX527 groups were significantly lower than that in the OM + G group (P OM+G+R vs OM+G<0.001, P OM+G+R+EX527 vs OM+G=0.019).
On the contrary, SOD activity in the OM + G + R group were significantly higher than that in the OM + G group (P OM+G+R vs OM+G=0.03), but there was no significant difference in SOD activity between the OM + G + R + EX527 group and the OM + G group (P = 0.801).Finally, compared to the OM + G + R group, the ROS level in the OM + G + R + EX527 group elevated significantly (P = 0.001) and the SOD activity lowered significantly(P = 0.019).
The expressions of FOXO1 and the ratios of p-AKT/AKT in different groups
No FOXO1 were detected in the OM + G + R + EX527 group. There were significant differences both in the expressions of FOXO1 and p-AKT/AKT among other four groups (F = 179.78, P < 0.001, F = 208.45, P < 0.001, Fig. 7). The expression of FOXO1 and p-AKT/AKT in the OM + R group were highest, and significantly higher than those in other groups (all P < 0.001).
Except the OM + R group, the expression of FOXO1 in the OM + G was lowest, and obviously lower than those in OM and OM + G + R groups (P OM vs OM+G<0.001, P OM+G+R vs OM+G=0.023). Moreover, significant difference was seen between the OM group and the OM + G + R group (P = 0.003, Fig. 7A).
Besides the OM + R group, p-AKT/AKT in the OM group was apparently higher than those in OM + G, OM + G + R and OM + G + R + EX527 groups (all P < 0.001, Fig. 7B). No significant difference was seen in p-AKT/AKT among OM + G, OM + G + R and OM + G + R + EX527 groups (P OM+G+R vs OM+G=0.063, P OM+G+R+EX527 vs OM+G=0.547), but significant difference was seen between the OM + G + R group and the OM + G + R + EX527 group (P = 0.022).