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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |