Cargando…

Proteomic differences between native and tissue‐engineered tendon and ligament

Tendons and ligaments (T/Ls) play key roles in the musculoskeletal system, but they are susceptible to traumatic or age‐related rupture, leading to severe morbidity as well as increased susceptibility to degenerative joint diseases such as osteoarthritis. Tissue engineering represents an attractive...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kharaz, Yalda A., Tew, Simon R., Peffers, Mandy, Canty‐Laird, Elizabeth G., Comerford, Eithne
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5132062/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27080496
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pmic.201500459
_version_ 1782470995628523520
author Kharaz, Yalda A.
Tew, Simon R.
Peffers, Mandy
Canty‐Laird, Elizabeth G.
Comerford, Eithne
author_facet Kharaz, Yalda A.
Tew, Simon R.
Peffers, Mandy
Canty‐Laird, Elizabeth G.
Comerford, Eithne
author_sort Kharaz, Yalda A.
collection PubMed
description Tendons and ligaments (T/Ls) play key roles in the musculoskeletal system, but they are susceptible to traumatic or age‐related rupture, leading to severe morbidity as well as increased susceptibility to degenerative joint diseases such as osteoarthritis. Tissue engineering represents an attractive therapeutic approach to treating T/L injury but it is hampered by our poor understanding of the defining characteristics of the two tissues. The present study aimed to determine differences in the proteomic profile between native T/Ls and tissue engineered (TE) T/L constructs. The canine long digital extensor tendon and anterior cruciate ligament were analyzed along with 3D TE fibrin‐based constructs created from their cells. Native tendon and ligament differed in their content of key structural proteins, with the ligament being more abundant in fibrocartilaginous proteins. 3D T/L TE constructs contained less extracellular matrix (ECM) proteins and had a greater proportion of cellular‐associated proteins than native tissue, corresponding to their low collagen and high DNA content. Constructs were able to recapitulate native T/L tissue characteristics particularly with regard to ECM proteins. However, 3D T/L TE constructs had similar ECM and cellular protein compositions indicating that cell source may not be an important factor for T/L tissue engineering.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5132062
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-51320622016-12-02 Proteomic differences between native and tissue‐engineered tendon and ligament Kharaz, Yalda A. Tew, Simon R. Peffers, Mandy Canty‐Laird, Elizabeth G. Comerford, Eithne Proteomics Animal Proteomics Tendons and ligaments (T/Ls) play key roles in the musculoskeletal system, but they are susceptible to traumatic or age‐related rupture, leading to severe morbidity as well as increased susceptibility to degenerative joint diseases such as osteoarthritis. Tissue engineering represents an attractive therapeutic approach to treating T/L injury but it is hampered by our poor understanding of the defining characteristics of the two tissues. The present study aimed to determine differences in the proteomic profile between native T/Ls and tissue engineered (TE) T/L constructs. The canine long digital extensor tendon and anterior cruciate ligament were analyzed along with 3D TE fibrin‐based constructs created from their cells. Native tendon and ligament differed in their content of key structural proteins, with the ligament being more abundant in fibrocartilaginous proteins. 3D T/L TE constructs contained less extracellular matrix (ECM) proteins and had a greater proportion of cellular‐associated proteins than native tissue, corresponding to their low collagen and high DNA content. Constructs were able to recapitulate native T/L tissue characteristics particularly with regard to ECM proteins. However, 3D T/L TE constructs had similar ECM and cellular protein compositions indicating that cell source may not be an important factor for T/L tissue engineering. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016-05-11 2016-05 /pmc/articles/PMC5132062/ /pubmed/27080496 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pmic.201500459 Text en © 2016 The Authors. Proteomics Published by Wiley‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Animal Proteomics
Kharaz, Yalda A.
Tew, Simon R.
Peffers, Mandy
Canty‐Laird, Elizabeth G.
Comerford, Eithne
Proteomic differences between native and tissue‐engineered tendon and ligament
title Proteomic differences between native and tissue‐engineered tendon and ligament
title_full Proteomic differences between native and tissue‐engineered tendon and ligament
title_fullStr Proteomic differences between native and tissue‐engineered tendon and ligament
title_full_unstemmed Proteomic differences between native and tissue‐engineered tendon and ligament
title_short Proteomic differences between native and tissue‐engineered tendon and ligament
title_sort proteomic differences between native and tissue‐engineered tendon and ligament
topic Animal Proteomics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5132062/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27080496
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pmic.201500459
work_keys_str_mv AT kharazyaldaa proteomicdifferencesbetweennativeandtissueengineeredtendonandligament
AT tewsimonr proteomicdifferencesbetweennativeandtissueengineeredtendonandligament
AT peffersmandy proteomicdifferencesbetweennativeandtissueengineeredtendonandligament
AT cantylairdelizabethg proteomicdifferencesbetweennativeandtissueengineeredtendonandligament
AT comerfordeithne proteomicdifferencesbetweennativeandtissueengineeredtendonandligament