FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / BMC Med Genomics / Transcriptional profiling differences for articular cartilag...
BMC medical genomics2009; 2; 60; doi: 10.1186/1755-8794-2-60

Transcriptional profiling differences for articular cartilage and repair tissue in equine joint surface lesions.

Abstract: Full-thickness articular cartilage lesions that reach to the subchondral bone yet are restricted to the chondral compartment usually fill with a fibrocartilage-like repair tissue which is structurally and biomechanically compromised relative to normal articular cartilage. The objective of this study was to evaluate transcriptional differences between chondrocytes of normal articular cartilage and repair tissue cells four months post-microfracture. Methods: Bilateral one-cm2 full-thickness defects were made in the articular surface of both distal femurs of four adult horses followed by subchondral microfracture. Four months postoperatively, repair tissue from the lesion site and grossly normal articular cartilage from within the same femorotibial joint were collected. Total RNA was isolated from the tissue samples, linearly amplified, and applied to a 9,413-probe set equine-specific cDNA microarray. Eight paired comparisons matched by limb and horse were made with a dye-swap experimental design with validation by histological analyses and quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). Results: Statistical analyses revealed 3,327 (35.3%) differentially expressed probe sets. Expression of biomarkers typically associated with normal articular cartilage and fibrocartilage repair tissue corroborate earlier studies. Other changes in gene expression previously unassociated with cartilage repair were also revealed and validated by RT-qPCR. Conclusions: The magnitude of divergence in transcriptional profiles between normal chondrocytes and the cells that populate repair tissue reveal substantial functional differences between these two cell populations. At the four-month postoperative time point, the relative deficiency within repair tissue of gene transcripts which typically define articular cartilage indicate that while cells occupying the lesion might be of mesenchymal origin, they have not recapitulated differentiation to the chondrogenic phenotype of normal articular chondrocytes.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2009-09-14 PubMed ID: 19751507PubMed Central: PMC2751772DOI: 10.1186/1755-8794-2-60Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The study focuses on the differences in gene expression between normal knee joint cartilage cells (chondrocytes) and the repair cells that form in lesions four months after a microfracture procedure in horses. It finds that significant transcriptional disparities exist between these two cell types, indicating substantial functional differences.

Research Methods

  • The researchers conducted full-thickness lesions on both distal femurs of four adult horses. They induced these articular cartilage defects without extending into the subchondral bone, mimicking a specific type of cartilage damage.
  • These defects were followed by a subchondral microfracture intended to stimulate the growth of repair tissue.
  • Four months after the procedure, they picked repair tissue from the lesion site and seemingly healthy articular cartilage from the same joint for analysis.
  • The collected tissues underwent total RNA isolation, linear amplification, and application to an equine-specific cDNA microarray to detail gene expression patterns.
  • Using a dye-swap experimental design, eight comparison samples were set up by matching by limb and horse, validated by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) and histological analyses.

Research Results

  • Statistic analyses showed 3,327 (35.3%) differentially expressed probe sets, that is, there were significant genetic expression differences present between the normal and repair cells.
  • The study’s findings confirmed previous research. The expression of well-known biomarkers associated with normal cartilage and fibrocartilage repair tissue was seen.
  • Certain changes in gene expression unrelated to cartilage repair in previous studies were uncovered, and these were validated through RT-qPCR.

Conclusions

  • The wide variation in transcriptional profiles between normal chondrocytes and lesion-filling cells indicates notable functional differences.
  • Four months post-operation, repair tissue was deficient in transcripts typically seen in regular articular cartilage. This suggests that while the cells filling the lesion may be from a mesenchymal origin, they have not differentiated to assume the chondrogenic phenotype of healthy chondrocytes.

Cite This Article

APA
Mienaltowski MJ, Huang L, Frisbie DD, McIlwraith CW, Stromberg AJ, Bathke AC, Macleod JN. (2009). Transcriptional profiling differences for articular cartilage and repair tissue in equine joint surface lesions. BMC Med Genomics, 2, 60. https://doi.org/10.1186/1755-8794-2-60

Publication

BMC medical genomics
ISSN: 1755-8794
NlmUniqueID: 101319628
Country: England
Language: English
Volume: 2
Pages: 60

Researcher Affiliations

Mienaltowski, Michael J
  • University of Kentucky, Department of Veterinary Science, Maxwell H, Gluck Equine Research Center, Lexington, KY 40546-0099, USA. mmienalt@health.usf.edu
Huang, Liping
    Frisbie, David D
      McIlwraith, C Wayne
        Stromberg, Arnold J
          Bathke, Arne C
            Macleod, James N

              Grant Funding

              • P20 RR016481 / NCRR NIH HHS

              References

              This article includes 63 references

              Citations

              This article has been cited 18 times.
              1. Bagge J, Berg LC, Janes J, MacLeod JN. Donor age effects on in vitro chondrogenic and osteogenic differentiation performance of equine bone marrow- and adipose tissue-derived mesenchymal stromal cells. BMC Vet Res 2022 Nov 3;18(1):388.
                doi: 10.1186/s12917-022-03475-2pubmed: 36329434google scholar: lookup
              2. Pechanec MY, Boyd TN, Baar K, Mienaltowski MJ. Adding exogenous biglycan or decorin improves tendon formation for equine peritenon and tendon proper cells in vitro. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2020 Sep 23;21(1):627.
                doi: 10.1186/s12891-020-03650-2pubmed: 32967653google scholar: lookup
              3. Gruber BL, Mienaltowski MJ, MacLeod JN, Schittny J, Kasper S, Flück M. Tenascin-C expression controls the maturation of articular cartilage in mice. BMC Res Notes 2020 Feb 17;13(1):78.
                doi: 10.1186/s13104-020-4906-8pubmed: 32066496google scholar: lookup
              4. Hinderer EW 3rd, Flight RM, Dubey R, MacLeod JN, Moseley HNB. Advances in gene ontology utilization improve statistical power of annotation enrichment. PLoS One 2019;14(8):e0220728.
                doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0220728pubmed: 31415589google scholar: lookup
              5. Decker RS. Articular cartilage and joint development from embryogenesis to adulthood. Semin Cell Dev Biol 2017 Feb;62:50-56.
                doi: 10.1016/j.semcdb.2016.10.005pubmed: 27771363google scholar: lookup
              6. Mienaltowski MJ, Dunkman AA, Buckley MR, Beason DP, Adams SM, Birk DE, Soslowsky LJ. Injury response of geriatric mouse patellar tendons. J Orthop Res 2016 Jul;34(7):1256-63.
                doi: 10.1002/jor.23144pubmed: 26704368google scholar: lookup
              7. Mienaltowski MJ, Adams SM, Birk DE. Tendon proper- and peritenon-derived progenitor cells have unique tenogenic properties. Stem Cell Res Ther 2014 Jul 8;5(4):86.
                doi: 10.1186/scrt475pubmed: 25005797google scholar: lookup
              8. Finno CJ, Bannasch DL. Applied equine genetics. Equine Vet J 2014 Sep;46(5):538-44.
                doi: 10.1111/evj.12294pubmed: 24802051google scholar: lookup
              9. Orth P, Rey-Rico A, Venkatesan JK, Madry H, Cucchiarini M. Current perspectives in stem cell research for knee cartilage repair. Stem Cells Cloning 2014;7:1-17.
                doi: 10.2147/SCCAA.S42880pubmed: 24520197google scholar: lookup
              10. Dunkman AA, Buckley MR, Mienaltowski MJ, Adams SM, Thomas SJ, Kumar A, Beason DP, Iozzo RV, Birk DE, Soslowsky LJ. The injury response of aged tendons in the absence of biglycan and decorin. Matrix Biol 2014 Apr;35:232-8.
                doi: 10.1016/j.matbio.2013.10.008pubmed: 24157578google scholar: lookup
              11. Xue X, Zheng Q, Wu H, Zou L, Li P. Different responses to mechanical injury in neonatal and adult ovine articular cartilage. Biomed Eng Online 2013 Jun 17;12:53.
                doi: 10.1186/1475-925X-12-53pubmed: 23773399google scholar: lookup
              12. Hamanishi M, Nakasa T, Kamei N, Kazusa H, Kamei G, Ochi M. Treatment of cartilage defects by subchondral drilling combined with covering with atelocollagen membrane induces osteogenesis in a rat model. J Orthop Sci 2013 Jul;18(4):627-35.
                doi: 10.1007/s00776-013-0379-0pubmed: 23564076google scholar: lookup
              13. Lee CM, Kisiday JD, McIlwraith CW, Grodzinsky AJ, Frisbie DD. Synoviocytes protect cartilage from the effects of injury in vitro. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2013 Feb 1;14:54.
                doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-14-54pubmed: 23374282google scholar: lookup
              14. Cosden RS, Lattermann C, Romine S, Gao J, Voss SR, MacLeod JN. Intrinsic repair of full-thickness articular cartilage defects in the axolotl salamander. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2011 Feb;19(2):200-5.
                doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2010.11.005pubmed: 21115129google scholar: lookup
              15. Brosnahan MM, Brooks SA, Antczak DF. Equine clinical genomics: A clinician's primer. Equine Vet J 2010 Oct;42(7):658-70.
                doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2010.00166.xpubmed: 20840582google scholar: lookup
              16. McGivney BA, McGettigan PA, Browne JA, Evans AC, Fonseca RG, Loftus BJ, Lohan A, MacHugh DE, Murphy BA, Katz LM, Hill EW. Characterization of the equine skeletal muscle transcriptome identifies novel functional responses to exercise training. BMC Genomics 2010 Jun 23;11:398.
                doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-11-398pubmed: 20573200google scholar: lookup
              17. Ignatyeva N, Gavrilov N, Timashev PS, Medvedeva EV. Prg4-Expressing Chondroprogenitor Cells in the Superficial Zone of Articular Cartilage. Int J Mol Sci 2024 May 21;25(11).
                doi: 10.3390/ijms25115605pubmed: 38891793google scholar: lookup
              18. Mienaltowski MJ, Callahan M, Gonzales NL, Wong A. Examining the Potential of Vitamin C Supplementation in Tissue-Engineered Equine Superficial Digital Flexor Tendon Constructs. Int J Mol Sci 2023 Dec 4;24(23).
                doi: 10.3390/ijms242317098pubmed: 38069418google scholar: lookup
              Subscribe to our newsletter
              Join 99,359 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.