Fig. 8

Inflammatory cells infiltration and urothelial tight junction integrity of urinary bladder in rats following cyclophosphamide (CYP) stimulation with and without GPR120 agonist / extracorporeal shock wave treatment (ESWT). Immunofluorescent (IF) staining of bladder sections with CD68 antibody showing normal urothelium in sham controls with (a) and without (b) ESWT. Inflammation noted in rats following CYP treatment (c). Significant attenuation of inflammatory cell infiltration after ESWT (d) and GPR120 agonist (i.e., GW9508) (e) treatment. f Summary of differences in numbers of CD68+ cells in the five groups of animals (n = 6 per group). IF staining of ZO-1 showing normal urothelial integrity in sham controls with (g) and without (h) ESWT. Impaired urothelial integrity noted in rats following CYP treatment (i). Significant protection of urothelial integrity after ESWT (j) and GPR120 agonist (i.e., GW9508) (k) treatment. f Summary of differences in numbers of ZO-1+ cells in the five groups of animals (n = 6 per group). Values expressed as the mean ± SEM. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 vs. CYP; ^††p < 0.01 vs. controls; ns, non-significance. Significance of differences determined by one-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s post-hoc comparisons tests. Scale bars in right lower corner represent 100 μm. SC = sham control; CYP = cyclophosphamide; ESWT = extracorporeal shock wave treatment; GW9508 = GPR120 agonist