Cargando…

Two independent proteomic approaches provide a comprehensive analysis of the synovial fluid proteome response to Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation

BACKGROUND: Autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) has a failure rate of approximately 20%, but it is yet to be fully understood why. Biomarkers are needed that can pre-operatively predict in which patients it is likely to fail, so that alternative or individualised therapies can be offered. We p...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hulme, Charlotte H., Wilson, Emma L., Fuller, Heidi R., Roberts, Sally, Richardson, James B., Gallacher, Pete, Peffers, Mandy J., Shirran, Sally L., Botting, Catherine H., Wright, Karina T.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5932832/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29720234
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13075-018-1573-4
_version_ 1783319878903529472
author Hulme, Charlotte H.
Wilson, Emma L.
Fuller, Heidi R.
Roberts, Sally
Richardson, James B.
Gallacher, Pete
Peffers, Mandy J.
Shirran, Sally L.
Botting, Catherine H.
Wright, Karina T.
author_facet Hulme, Charlotte H.
Wilson, Emma L.
Fuller, Heidi R.
Roberts, Sally
Richardson, James B.
Gallacher, Pete
Peffers, Mandy J.
Shirran, Sally L.
Botting, Catherine H.
Wright, Karina T.
author_sort Hulme, Charlotte H.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) has a failure rate of approximately 20%, but it is yet to be fully understood why. Biomarkers are needed that can pre-operatively predict in which patients it is likely to fail, so that alternative or individualised therapies can be offered. We previously used label-free quantitation (LF) with a dynamic range compression proteomic approach to assess the synovial fluid (SF) of ACI responders and non-responders. However, we were able to identify only a few differentially abundant proteins at baseline. In the present study, we built upon these previous findings by assessing higher-abundance proteins within this SF, providing a more global proteomic analysis on the basis of which more of the biology underlying ACI success or failure can be understood. METHODS: Isobaric tagging for relative and absolute quantitation (iTRAQ) proteomic analysis was used to assess SF from ACI responders (mean Lysholm improvement of 33; n = 14) and non-responders (mean Lysholm decrease of 14; n = 13) at the two stages of surgery (cartilage harvest and chondrocyte implantation). Differentially abundant proteins in iTRAQ and combined iTRAQ and LF datasets were investigated using pathway and network analyses. RESULTS: iTRAQ proteomic analysis confirmed our previous finding that there is a marked proteomic shift in response to cartilage harvest (70 and 54 proteins demonstrating ≥ 2.0-fold change and p < 0.05 between stages I and II in responders and non-responders, respectively). Further, it highlighted 28 proteins that were differentially abundant between responders and non-responders to ACI, which were not found in the LF study, 16 of which were altered at baseline. The differential expression of two proteins (complement C1s subcomponent and matrix metalloproteinase 3) was confirmed biochemically. Combination of the iTRAQ and LF proteomic datasets generated in-depth SF proteome information that was used to generate interactome networks representing ACI success or failure. Functional pathways that are dysregulated in ACI non-responders were identified, including acute-phase response signalling. CONCLUSIONS: Several candidate biomarkers for baseline prediction of ACI outcome were identified. A holistic overview of the SF proteome in responders and non-responders to ACI  has been profiled, providing a better understanding of the biological pathways underlying clinical outcome, particularly the differential response to cartilage harvest in non-responders. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13075-018-1573-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5932832
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59328322018-05-09 Two independent proteomic approaches provide a comprehensive analysis of the synovial fluid proteome response to Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation Hulme, Charlotte H. Wilson, Emma L. Fuller, Heidi R. Roberts, Sally Richardson, James B. Gallacher, Pete Peffers, Mandy J. Shirran, Sally L. Botting, Catherine H. Wright, Karina T. Arthritis Res Ther Research Article BACKGROUND: Autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) has a failure rate of approximately 20%, but it is yet to be fully understood why. Biomarkers are needed that can pre-operatively predict in which patients it is likely to fail, so that alternative or individualised therapies can be offered. We previously used label-free quantitation (LF) with a dynamic range compression proteomic approach to assess the synovial fluid (SF) of ACI responders and non-responders. However, we were able to identify only a few differentially abundant proteins at baseline. In the present study, we built upon these previous findings by assessing higher-abundance proteins within this SF, providing a more global proteomic analysis on the basis of which more of the biology underlying ACI success or failure can be understood. METHODS: Isobaric tagging for relative and absolute quantitation (iTRAQ) proteomic analysis was used to assess SF from ACI responders (mean Lysholm improvement of 33; n = 14) and non-responders (mean Lysholm decrease of 14; n = 13) at the two stages of surgery (cartilage harvest and chondrocyte implantation). Differentially abundant proteins in iTRAQ and combined iTRAQ and LF datasets were investigated using pathway and network analyses. RESULTS: iTRAQ proteomic analysis confirmed our previous finding that there is a marked proteomic shift in response to cartilage harvest (70 and 54 proteins demonstrating ≥ 2.0-fold change and p < 0.05 between stages I and II in responders and non-responders, respectively). Further, it highlighted 28 proteins that were differentially abundant between responders and non-responders to ACI, which were not found in the LF study, 16 of which were altered at baseline. The differential expression of two proteins (complement C1s subcomponent and matrix metalloproteinase 3) was confirmed biochemically. Combination of the iTRAQ and LF proteomic datasets generated in-depth SF proteome information that was used to generate interactome networks representing ACI success or failure. Functional pathways that are dysregulated in ACI non-responders were identified, including acute-phase response signalling. CONCLUSIONS: Several candidate biomarkers for baseline prediction of ACI outcome were identified. A holistic overview of the SF proteome in responders and non-responders to ACI  has been profiled, providing a better understanding of the biological pathways underlying clinical outcome, particularly the differential response to cartilage harvest in non-responders. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13075-018-1573-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-05-02 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC5932832/ /pubmed/29720234 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13075-018-1573-4 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Hulme, Charlotte H.
Wilson, Emma L.
Fuller, Heidi R.
Roberts, Sally
Richardson, James B.
Gallacher, Pete
Peffers, Mandy J.
Shirran, Sally L.
Botting, Catherine H.
Wright, Karina T.
Two independent proteomic approaches provide a comprehensive analysis of the synovial fluid proteome response to Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation
title Two independent proteomic approaches provide a comprehensive analysis of the synovial fluid proteome response to Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation
title_full Two independent proteomic approaches provide a comprehensive analysis of the synovial fluid proteome response to Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation
title_fullStr Two independent proteomic approaches provide a comprehensive analysis of the synovial fluid proteome response to Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation
title_full_unstemmed Two independent proteomic approaches provide a comprehensive analysis of the synovial fluid proteome response to Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation
title_short Two independent proteomic approaches provide a comprehensive analysis of the synovial fluid proteome response to Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation
title_sort two independent proteomic approaches provide a comprehensive analysis of the synovial fluid proteome response to autologous chondrocyte implantation
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5932832/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29720234
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13075-018-1573-4
work_keys_str_mv AT hulmecharlotteh twoindependentproteomicapproachesprovideacomprehensiveanalysisofthesynovialfluidproteomeresponsetoautologouschondrocyteimplantation
AT wilsonemmal twoindependentproteomicapproachesprovideacomprehensiveanalysisofthesynovialfluidproteomeresponsetoautologouschondrocyteimplantation
AT fullerheidir twoindependentproteomicapproachesprovideacomprehensiveanalysisofthesynovialfluidproteomeresponsetoautologouschondrocyteimplantation
AT robertssally twoindependentproteomicapproachesprovideacomprehensiveanalysisofthesynovialfluidproteomeresponsetoautologouschondrocyteimplantation
AT richardsonjamesb twoindependentproteomicapproachesprovideacomprehensiveanalysisofthesynovialfluidproteomeresponsetoautologouschondrocyteimplantation
AT gallacherpete twoindependentproteomicapproachesprovideacomprehensiveanalysisofthesynovialfluidproteomeresponsetoautologouschondrocyteimplantation
AT peffersmandyj twoindependentproteomicapproachesprovideacomprehensiveanalysisofthesynovialfluidproteomeresponsetoautologouschondrocyteimplantation
AT shirransallyl twoindependentproteomicapproachesprovideacomprehensiveanalysisofthesynovialfluidproteomeresponsetoautologouschondrocyteimplantation
AT bottingcatherineh twoindependentproteomicapproachesprovideacomprehensiveanalysisofthesynovialfluidproteomeresponsetoautologouschondrocyteimplantation
AT wrightkarinat twoindependentproteomicapproachesprovideacomprehensiveanalysisofthesynovialfluidproteomeresponsetoautologouschondrocyteimplantation