Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Arthritis Research & Therapy 1/2017

Open Access 01.12.2017 | Research article

Autologous chondrocyte implantation-derived synovial fluids display distinct responder and non-responder proteomic profiles

verfasst von: Charlotte H. Hulme, Emma L. Wilson, Mandy J. Peffers, Sally Roberts, Deborah M. Simpson, James B. Richardson, Pete Gallacher, Karina T. Wright

Erschienen in: Arthritis Research & Therapy | Ausgabe 1/2017

Abstract

Background

Autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) can be used in the treatment of focal cartilage injuries to prevent the onset of osteoarthritis (OA). However, we are yet to understand fully why some individuals do not respond well to this intervention. Identification of a reliable and accurate biomarker panel that can predict which patients are likely to respond well to ACI is needed in order to assign the patient to the most appropriate therapy. This study aimed to compare the baseline and mid-treatment proteomic profiles of synovial fluids (SFs) obtained from responders and non-responders to ACI.

Methods

SFs were derived from 14 ACI responders (mean Lysholm improvement of 33 (17–54)) and 13 non-responders (mean Lysholm decrease of 14 (4–46)) at the two stages of surgery (cartilage harvest and chondrocyte implantation). Label-free proteome profiling of dynamically compressed SFs was used to identify predictive markers of ACI success or failure and to investigate the biological pathways involved in the clinical response to ACI.

Results

Only 1 protein displayed a ≥2.0-fold differential abundance in the preclinical SF of ACI responders versus non-responders. However, there is a marked difference between these two groups with regard to their proteome shift in response to cartilage harvest, with 24 and 92 proteins showing ≥2.0-fold differential abundance between Stages I and II in responders and non-responders, respectively. Proteomic data has been uploaded to ProteomeXchange (identifier: PXD005220). We have validated two biologically relevant protein changes associated with this response, demonstrating that matrix metalloproteinase 1 was prominently elevated and S100 calcium binding protein A13 was reduced in response to cartilage harvest in non-responders.

Conclusions

The differential proteomic response to cartilage harvest noted in responders versus non-responders is completely novel. Our analyses suggest several pathways which appear to be altered in non-responders that are worthy of further investigation to elucidate the mechanisms of ACI failure. These protein changes highlight many putative biomarkers that may have potential for prediction of ACI treatment success.
Abkürzungen
ACI
Autologous chondrocyte implantation
ANOVA
Analysis of variance
APOB
Apolipoprotein B-100
C4
Complement C4
CD3
T-cell surface glycoprotein CD3
Ck2
Casein kinase 2
COL1A1
Collagen alpha-1(I) chain
COL1A2
Collagen alpha-2(II) chain
DAVID
Database for Annotation, Visualization and Integrated Discovery
DYNC1H1
Cytoplasmic dynein 1 heavy chain 1
ELISA
Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay
ERK
Mitogen-activated protein kinase 3
ERP29
Endoplasmic reticulum resident protein 29
F7
Coagulation factor VII
FC
Fold-change
FCN3
Ficolin-3
FDR
False discovery rate
GABRAPL2
Gamma-aminobutyric acid receptor-associated protein-like 2
GBA
Glucosylceramidase
GMFB
Glia maturation factor beta
GPLD1
Phosphatidylinositol-glycan-specific phospholipase D
HDL
High-density lipoprotein
HINT1
Histidine triad nucleotide-binding protein 1
HMGB2
High mobility group protein B2
HSP76
Heat shock protein 76
IGFBP6
Insulin-like growth factor binding protein 6
Jnk
Mitogen-activated protein kinase
LCAT
Phosphatidylcholine-sterol acyltransferase
LC-MS/MS
Liquid chromatography tandem mass-spectrometry
LDL
Low-density lipoprotein receptor
LTF
Lactotransferrin
LXR/RXR
Liver X Receptor/Retinoic X receptor
MASP1
Mannan-binding lectin serine protease 1
MASP2
Mannan-binding lectin serine protease 2
MCID
Minimal clinically important difference
MMP1
Matrix metalloproteinase 1
MYH10
Myosin-10
MYLK
Myosin light chain kinase, smooth muscle
NFkB complex
Nuclear factor kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B cells complex
OA
Osteoarthritis
OARSI
Osteoarthritis Research Society International
P38 MAPK
P38 mitogen-activated protein-kinases
PAM
Peptidyl-glycine alpha-amidating monooxygenase
PDCD6IP
Programmed cell death 6-interacting protein
PF4
Platelet factor 4
PI3K complex
Phosphoinositide-3 kinase complex
PLG
Plasminogen
POSTN
Periositin
PSMA7
Proteasome subunit alpha type-7
Rock
Rho-associated protein kinase 1
RPL22
60S ribosomal protein L22
Rxr
Retinoic X receptor
S100-A13
S100 calcium binding protein A13
SF
Synovial fluid
STX7
Syntaxin-7
Tgf beta
Transforming growth factor beta
TGFβ1
Transforming growth factor beta 1
Vegf
Vascular endothelial growth factor

Background

Traumatic cartilage injury can lead to the development of osteoarthritis (OA) [1]. Autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) has been adopted clinically to repair cartilage damage [2, 3] and is a procedure that involves two surgeries. The first is to harvest cartilage from a minor load-bearing region of the joint (Stage I), followed by a 3–4 week chondrocyte extraction and culture expansion phase, and the second procedure (Stage II) occurs when chondrocytes are implanted into the pathological cartilage defect [3, 4]. Within our centre, the procedure has a 19% failure rate, as defined by a lack of improvement in Lysholm score [5], which is comparable to other centres [6, 7]. Demographic- and injury-associated risk factors for failure have been identified [810]; however, currently there is little understanding of the biological nature of ACI failure. We hypothesise that an individual’s probability of failure to respond to ACI can be predicted, and that the metrics required to make such a prediction will come from improved understanding of the pathology of the failure in the first instance. Further, we aim to address the need to identify putative biomarkers that can be used to predict patient long-term outcome prior to cartilage repair therapy. The importance of this has been highlighted by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) who published guidelines highlighting the need “to determine whether biomarkers are useful in identifying those individuals most likely to receive clinically important benefits from an intervention; and to determine whether biomarkers are useful for identifying individuals at earlier stages of OA in order to institute treatment at a time more amenable to disease modification” [11]. The synovial fluid (SF) surrounding the ACI repair site provides a biological fluid that can be assessed to profile the joint environment and to investigate the biological response and innate repair following a ‘controlled injury’, such as that which is sustained at Stage I of the ACI procedure. Despite strong evidence that unbiased proteomic approaches can identify novel biomarkers of OA progression (reviewed in De Ceuninck and Berberbaum [12] and Hsueh et al. [13]), relatively few studies have focused on the SF [14, 15]. The limited numbers of studies that have analysed human SF proteins in cartilage injury and repair have tested for markers of OA of known biological relevance to cartilage injury [1619]. Using a targeted approach to biomarker identification, our group has been able to demonstrate that the absence of detectable aggrecanase-1 activity in the SF can be used along with lower age and higher baseline knee function as a predictive marker of ACI success [19], indicating that SF biomarkers have the potential for the stratification of patients to appropriate cartilage repair therapies. We are unaware of any published work that has used an untargeted approach to investigate the SF proteome before, during, or after an intervention to treat cartilage injury. There is therefore a requirement to complete an unbiased assessment to identify putative predictive biomarkers that may allow for ACI patient stratification.
The broad dynamic range of proteins in SF [20, 21] means that abundant proteins can make it difficult to interrogate low abundance proteins by suppressing their detectability. The deepest examination of the SF proteome to date (equine SF) [21] used hexapeptide libraries [22, 23] to capture low abundance proteins. In this publication, we have profiled the SF proteome from patients undergoing ACI treatment at both stages of the procedure using dynamic range compression with hexapeptide libraries and label-free quantification proteomics by liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS).

Methods

Synovial fluid collection and storage

Following local research ethical committee approval and with informed consent, SF was collected from the knee joints of patients at Stages I (harvest; 15 samples) and II (implantation of cells; 24 samples) of ACI by injecting 20 mL of saline and then extending and flexing the leg at least 20 times prior to intra-articular aspiration of as much SF as possible [24]. SF was then centrifuged at 6000 g for 15 mins at 4 °C before being divided into aliquots and stored in –196 °C liquid nitrogen prior to analyses. Prior to selection of suitable patient samples for this study, the dilution factor of the SFs was assessed by measurement of urea concentrations in the SF and plasma (harvested at the same time). Based on evidence that the urea concentration of plasma and SF is equivalent, the dilution factor could then be calculated as described previously [19, 25]. Any samples with a dilution factor over 10 were excluded from the study.
As has previously been used [2628], we defined responders as a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) at approximately 12 months post-treatment if they had an increase of 10 points in the Lysholm score (which ranges from 0–100, with 100 representing ‘perfect’ knee function [29]). Fourteen SF donors were considered as responders, with a mean improvement of 33 points (range 17–54) and 13 SF donors were considered as non-responders with a mean decrease in Lysholm score of 14 points (range 4–46). Matched Stage I and II samples were included for seven responders and six non-responders; however, all of the proteomic data presented in this study are based on non-matched statistical comparisons to ensure the maximal number of patient samples could be included in each comparison. The demographic information and change in Lysholm score for these patients is shown in Table 1. None of the demographic parameters, other than difference in Lysholm score between baseline and 12 months post-ACI, were significantly different between responders and non-responders at Stage I or Stage II, or between Stage I and Stage II in responders or non-responders (p > 0.05; Mann-Whitney U test; Table 1).
Table 1
Demographic data for patient participants whose samples from Stage I or Stage II were analysed who responded clinically (responders) or who did not respond (non-responders) to autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI)
 
Stage I
Stage II
p value (A) R v NR SI; (B) R v NR SI
p value (A) SI v SII R; (B) SI v SII NR
Responders (n = 8)
Non-responders (n = 7)
Responders (n = 12)
Non-responders (n = 12)
Difference in Lysholm Score
27 (17–38)
–8 (–4 to –17)
34 (17–54)
–11 (–4 to –46)
(A) 0.0003; (B) <0.0001
(A) 0.21; (B) 0.55
BMI (kg/m2)
29 (23–31)
27 (24–31)
27 (23–48)
29 (22–36)
(A) 0.94; (B) 0.54
(A) 0.73; (B) 0.68
Age (years)
32 (17–49)
40 (25–50)
40 (17–90)
43 (25–52)
(A) 0.28; (B) 0.92
(A) 0.17; (B) 0.58
Male (n)
8
7
11
10
(A) >0.99; (B) >0.99
(A) >0.99; (B) 0.51
Smoker (n)
1
2
1
3
(A) 0.54; (B) 0.59
(A) >0.99; (B) >0.99
Dilution factor of SF
5 (3–9)
4 (2–7)
4 (1–9)
3 (2–5)
(A) 0.48; (B) 0.25
(A) 0.53; (B) 0.50
Total defect area (cm2)
14 (0.4–24)
6 (0.6–12)
6 (1–20)
5 (0.6–12)
(A) 0.74; (B) 0.35
(A) 0.45; (B) 0.28
Patella defect (n)
1
1
4
2
(A) >0.99; (B) 0.64
(A) 0.60; (B) >0.99
LFC defect (n)
2
0
0
0
(A) 0.47; (B) >0.99
(A) 0.15; (B) >0.99
LTP defect (n)
1
0
0
0
(A) >0.99; (B) >0.99
(A) 0.15; (B) >0.99
MFC defect (n)
2
2
1
6
(A) >0.99; (B) 0.07
(A) 0.54; (B) 0.63
Trochlea defect (n)
0
3
2
1
(A) 0.20; (B) >0.99
(A) 0.49; (B) 0.12
Multiple defects (n)
1
0
1
1
(A) >0.99; (B) >0.99
(A) >0.99; (B) >0.99
Unknown defect location (n)
1
1
4
2
(A) >0.99; (B) 0.64
(A) 0.60; (B) >0.99
None of the demographic parameters, other than difference in Lysholm scores, showed differences between responders (R) and non-responders (NR) in individuals whose synovial fluids (SFs) from Stage I (SI) or Stage II (SII) were compared, nor were there differences between individuals who were either responders or non-responders when comparing Stage I and Stage II samples (p ≥ 0.05; Mann-Whitney U test). Data are shown as median (range) unless otherwise indicated. BMI body mass index, LFC lateral femoral condyle, LTP lateral tibial plateau, MFC medial femoral condyle

Sample preparation and analysis using label-free proteomics

All SF samples were maintained as separate samples throughout the protein equalisation, mass spectrometry, and label-free quantification steps, and no pooling of any samples was performed; hence, the abundance of proteins was quantified for each of the 39 samples and mean protein abundance across the experimental groups was calculated prior to analysis of protein changes.

SF preparation and protein equalisation using ProteoMiner™

The dynamic range of proteins in SF was compressed using ProteoMiner™ beads (BioRad, Hemel Hempstead, UK) as described previously [21]. Briefly, SF was treated with hyaluronidase (1 mg/ml) [21, 30] and digestion was confirmed using a Coomassie stained 1D-SDS PAGE gel. Total protein was quantitated using a Pierce™ 660-nm protein assay (Thermo Scientific, Hemel Hempstead, UK) [31] and 5 mg of total protein was exposed to ProteoMiner™ beads. After washing, bead-bound proteins were treated with 0.05% (w/v) RapiGest (Waters, Manchester, UK) in 25 mM ammonium bicarbonate for 10 min at 80 °C prior to reduction, alkylation, and in-situ protein digestion without removal of the beads, ensuring complete proteome access. The digestion was completed in LoBind protein tubes (Eppendorf, Stevenage, UK) followed by acidification of trifluoroacetic acid to a final concentration of 0.5% (v/v). This treatment inactivates and precipitates the Rapigest detergent which can then be removed by centrifugation. The peptide-containing supernatant fractions were frozen at –20 °C prior to LC-MS/MS.

Mass spectrometry and label-free quantification

Tryptic peptides were subjected to LC-MS/MS, analysed using a 2-h gradient on a NanoAcquity™ ultraperformance LC (Waters, Manchester, UK) coupled online to a Q-Exactive Quadrupole-Orbitrap instrument (Thermo-Fisher Scientific Hemel Hempstead, UK) as described previously [32]. For label-free quantification, the raw files of the acquired spectra were analysed by the ProgenesisQI™ software (Waters, Manchester, UK) [33]. Briefly, the top five spectra for each feature were exported from ProgenesisQI™ and utilised for peptide identification with a locally implemented Mascot server (Version 2.3.01), searching against the Unihuman reviewed database. Search parameters used were: peptide mass tolerances, 10 ppm; fragment mass tolerance, 0.01 Da; 2+ and 3+ ions; missed cleavages, 1; enzyme, trypsin; instrument type, ESI-FTICR. Modifications included were: fixed carbamidomethyl cysteine and variable oxidation of methionine, lysine, and proline. To maximise the number of quantifiable proteins but simultaneously use an acceptable false discovery rate (FDR), the peptide matches above an identify-threshold were adjusted to give an FDR of 1% before the protein identifications were re-imported into ProgenesisQI™ for the label-free relative quantification. Quantification was undertaken using unique peptides only. Statistical analysis was performed using ProgenesisQI™ software; briefly transformed normalised abundances were used for one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and all peptides (with p < 0.05) of an identified protein were included. For analysis of the proteins, the mean abundance of each protein across the experimental groups (e.g. Stage I samples from responders etc.) was calculated and those proteins with a ≥2.0-fold-change (FC) between the comparator groups were reported. For use in network and pathway analysis, however, a less stringent cut-off of ≥1.2-FC was used to allow for the study of systemic changes, as has been appropriate in similar studies using pathway and network approaches [34].

Pathway and network analysis of proteomic datasets

Proteins were analysed using the pathway enrichment and topological analysis tools in Ingenuity™ (Qiagen, US) [35] to identify and visualise the canonical pathways which are differentially affected between Stages I and II of ACI. To allow for greater confidence in the pathway analysis, an independent platform, the Database for Annotation, Visualization and Integrated Discovery (DAVID) [36], was used to analyse functional pathway based on the protein changes.

Validation of mass spectrometry using ELISA

Two proteins were selected to validate the MS findings because they: (1) had associated biological relevance to cartilage injury and repair; (2) showed consistent differential abundance between Stages I and II of ACI in non-responders versus responders; and (3) could be measured using available enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs). These proteins, matrix metalloproteinase 1 (MMP1) [37] and S100 calcium binding protein A13 (S100-A13) [38], were quantified using duo-set ELISAs (R&D systems, Wiesbardon, Germany) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Samples were assessed in duplicate and mean optical density values were used to calculate the protein concentration. SF was diluted 1:2 and 1:100 for the assessment of MMP1 and S100-A13, respectively. The protein concentration of each protein was normalised to total protein concentration. Statistical analysis was performed in GraphPad Prism version 6.0.

Results

Proteomic data has been deposited in the PRIDE ProteomeXchange and can be accessed using the identifier PXD005220 [39].

Differential abundance of proteins in responders versus non-responders to ACI

Proteomic analysis identified that Ig kappa chain V-II region MIL demonstrated a +2.6-FC in non-responders versus responders to ACI in SF at Stage I (Fig. 1a). Nine proteins demonstrated differential abundance at Stage II between responders and non-responders (26S protease regulatory subunit 7, +2.3-FC; 26S proteasome non-ATPase regulatory subunit 13, +2.4-FC; ferritin light chain, +2.9-FC; platelet factor 4, +3.3-FC; thrombospondin-1, +3.4-FC; nucleosome assembly protein 1-like 1, +4.9-FC; cofilin-1, +7.1-FC; EH domain-containing protein 1, +7.3-FC; and T-complex protein 1 subunit eta, +8.4-FC) (Fig. 1a).

Differential abundance of proteins after controlled cartilage injury (Stage I versus Stage II)

When comparing Stage I with Stage II, 116 proteins were >2.0-fold differentially abundant. Non-responders to ACI displayed a distinct and marked response to Stage I surgery, such that between Stages I and II, 33 proteins were upregulated and 59 downregulated, 12 of which demonstrated common expression change in clinical responders to ACI (Table 2; Fig. 1b). Fifteen proteins were upregulated and nine proteins were downregulated between Stage I and Stage II in responders to ACI (Table 3; Fig. 1b).
Table 2
Fold-change of proteins that are differentially expressed in the synovial fluid collected at Stage I compared to Stage II of the ACI procedure in clinical non-responders. Proteins shown in italic were validated using enzyme linked immunosorbant assay
Protein
Fold change
Description
Accession
Perilipin-4
Q96Q06
–4.3
Syntaxin-7
O15400
–3.9
Fermitin family homolog 3
Q86UX7
–3.7
Deoxynucleoside triphosphate triphosphohydrolase SAMHD1
Q9Y3Z3
–3.7
PDZ and LIM domain protein 1
O00151
–3.6
Sorting nexin-5
Q9Y5X3
–3.3
Neuroblast differentiation-associated protein AHNAK
Q09666
–3.2
Signal recognition particle 14 kDa protein
P37108
–3.0
Hyaluronan and proteoglycan link protein 3
Q96S86
–3.0
Heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoprotein K
P61978
–2.9
ATP-citrate synthase
P53396
–2.9
Fatty acid-binding protein, epidermal
Q01469
–2.8
60S ribosomal protein L12
P30050
–2.7
Fatty acid-binding protein, adipocyte
P15090
–2.6
Insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 6
P24592
–2.6
Protein canopy homolog 3
Q9BT09
–2.6
Tripeptidyl-peptidase 1
O14773
–2.5
PDZ and LIM domain protein 3
Q53GG5
–2.5
Cellular nucleic acid-binding protein
P62633
–2.5
Bifunctional glutamate/proline-tRNA ligase
P07814
–2.5
Protein disulfide-isomerase A3
P30101
–2.4
Peroxiredoxin-6
P30041
–2.4
Tryptase alpha/beta-1
Q15661
–2.4
Endoplasmic reticulum resident protein 29
P30040
–2.4
Peroxiredoxin-1
Q06830
–2.4
Na(+)/H(+) exchange regulatory cofactor NHE-RF1
O14745
–2.4
Mitochondrial import inner membrane translocase subunit TIM14
Q96DA6
–2.4
Mortality factor 4-like protein 1
Q9UBU8
–2.4
Fructose-bisphosphate aldolase A
P04075
–2.3
Microtubule-associated protein RP/EB family member 1
Q15691
–2.3
Leucine zipper transcription factor-like protein 1
Q9NQ48
–2.3
Transcription elongation factor A protein 1
P23193
–2.3
2',3'-cyclic-nucleotide 3'-phosphodiesterase
P09543
–2.3
Histamine N-methyltransferase
P50135
–2.3
Protein S100-A13
Q99584
–2.3
Acrosomal protein SP-10
P26436
–2.2
AP-2 complex subunit beta
P63010
–2.2
S-phase kinase-associated protein 1
P63208
–2.2
High mobility group protein B3
O15347
–2.2
Cytokine-like protein 1
Q9NRR1
–2.2
Mitochondrial fission 1 protein
Q9Y3D6
–2.2
Filamin-A
P21333
–2.2
Nuclear migration protein nudC
Q9Y266
–2.1
Cathepsin K
P43235
–2.1
Prostaglandin E synthase 3
Q15185
–2.1
Vinculin
P18206
–2.1
Plastin-2
P13796
–2.1
Coronin-1C
Q9ULV4
–2.1
Ig heavy chain V-I region V35
P23083
–2.1
Stress-induced-phosphoprotein 1
P31948
–2.1
Putative phospholipase B-like 2
Q8NHP8
–2.1
Gelsolin
P06396
–2.0
Spectrin beta chain, erythrocytic
P11277
–2.0
Stathmin
P16949
–2.0
Hsc70-interacting protein
P50502
–2.0
40S Ribosomal protein
P23396
–2.0
Epidermal growth factor receptor substrate 15
P42566
22.5
Hemoglobin subunit theta-1
P09105
6.1
C-type lectin domain family 11 member A
Q9Y240
5.6
Periostin
Q15063
5.1
Collagen alpha-1(I) chain
P02452
4.7
Spectrin alpha chain, erythrocytic 1
P02549
4.0
Collagen alpha-1(V) chain
P20908
3.7
Fibrinogen gamma chain
P02679
3.5
Collagen alpha-1(XII) chain
Q99715
3.3
Complement C1q tumor necrosis factor-related protein 3
Q9BXJ4
3.1
Adiponectin
Q15848
3.0
Adipocyte enhancer-binding protein 1
Q8IUX7
3.0
Latent-transforming growth factor beta-binding protein 1
Q14766
3.0
Fibrinogen beta chain
P02675
3.0
Chondroitin sulfate proteoglycan 4
Q6UVK1
2.9
Fibrinogen alpha chain
P02671
2.8
Interstitial collagenase (MMP1)
P03956
2.7
Secreted phosphoprotein 24
Q13103
2.7
Collagen alpha-2(V) chain
P05997
2.6
Ferritin light chain
P02792
2.6
C4b-binding protein alpha chain
P04003
2.6
Nucleobindin-1
Q02818
2.4
C4b-binding protein beta chain
P20851
2.2
Vitamin K-dependent protein S
P07225
2.2
Fibronectin
P02751
2.2
Prosaposin
P07602
2.1
Integrin beta-like protein 1
O95965
2.1
Adipocyte plasma membrane-associated protein
Q9HDC9
2.1
Cytoplasmic dynein 1 heavy chain 1
Q14204
2.0
Soluble scavenger receptor cysteine-rich domain-containing protein SSC5D
A1L4H1
2.0
F-actin-capping protein subunit beta
P47756
2.0
Mannan-binding lectin serine protease 1
P48740
2.0
Thrombospondin-3
P49746
2.0
Positive numbers denote an increase in the protein at Stage II; negative numbers denote a decrease in the protein at Stage II
Table 3
Proteins that are differentially expressed with a ≥2.0-fold-change in the synovial fluid collected at Stage I compared to Stage II of the ACI procedure in clinical responders
Protein
Fold change
Description
Accession
Heat shock protein 75 kDa, mitochondrial
Q12931
–470.0
Microtubule-associated protein 1B
P46821
–17.2
Adenosylhomocysteinase
P23526
–3.7
Complement factor H-related protein 3
Q02985
–2.8
Mannose-1-phosphate guanyltransferase beta
Q9Y5P6
–2.7
Peroxiredoxin-4
Q13162
–2.5
Oxysterol-binding protein 1
P22059
–2.4
Protein canopy homolog 3
Q9BT09
–2.1
Spermatid perinuclear RNA-binding protein
Q96SI9
–2.0
Ferritin light chain
P02792
2.2
Secreted phosphoprotein 24
Q13103
2.2
Chondroitin sulfate proteoglycan 4
Q6UVK1
2.3
Collagen alpha-2(I) chain
P08123
2.3
Collagen alpha-1(V) chain
P20908
2.5
26S protease regulatory subunit 6A
P17980
2.7
Collagen alpha-2(V) chain
P05997
2.9
Collagen alpha-1(I) chain
P02452
3.3
Spectrin alpha chain, erythrocytic 1
P02549
4.1
Histidine triad nucleotide-binding protein 1
P49773
4.2
Platelet factor 4
P02776
4.2
Alpha-1-acid glycoprotein 2
P19652
4.3
Protein 4.1
P11171
4.3
Periostin
Q15063
4.5
26S proteasome non-ATPase regulatory subunit 13
Q9UNM6
4.6
Positive numbers denote an increase in the protein at Stage II, negative numbers denote a decrease in the protein at Stage II

Identification of canonical pathways and protein networks associated with protein changes between Stage I and II

Several canonical pathways were associated with the protein changes identified in both clinical responders and non-responders (Fig. 2). Figure 3, however, highlights the disparity in the proteome response to Stage I between clinical responders and non-responders, as a much greater number of functional/disease pathways were activated or inhibited in association with these differentially abundant proteins. Using Ingenuity software, canonical pathways that were most significantly connected with these protein changes in non-responders were Liver X Receptor/Retinoic X receptor (LXR/RXR) activation (p = 1.63 × 10–7), complement system (p = 9.33 × 10–7), and acute phase response signalling (p = 1.69 × 10–6) (Fig. 2). Independent pathway analysis of the proteins using DAVID also highlighted the complement system (p = 2.1 × 10–6) as highly associated with the protein changes seen between Stages I and II of ACI in non-responders.
The Stage I versus Stage II responder network consisted predominantly of proteins associated with connective tissue disorders (p = 8.2 × 10–7). In non-responders to ACI, however, the top scoring network included several proteins associated with the inflammatory response (p = 2.75 × 10–5) (Fig. 4). Transforming growth factor beta 1 (TGFβ1) and CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein beta were predicated to be the most significant upstream regulators associated with the networks of protein changes identified between Stages I and II in non-responders and responders, respectively (Table 4). TGFβ was also predicted as an upstream regulator of the protein changes identified between Stages I and II in responders; therefore, it may be important in the regulation of protein response between Stages I and II, irrespective of outcome.
Table 4
Analysis of upstream regulators of interactome networks generated from protein changes between Stages I (SI) and II (SII) in either responders or non-responders to ACI were identified using Ingenuity Pathway Analysis software
Upstream regulators
Activation z score (SII v SI)
p value of overlap
Target molecules in dataset
Non-responders
 
TGFB1
–1.595
9.46E–10
APOB,APOC2,APOE,CD44,COL1A1,COL1A2,COL5A1,COMP,CSPG4,CTSD,ECM1,FETUB,FN1,FTL,GSN,HINT1,HSPG2,HTRA1,IGFBP6,LCAT,MYLK,PCOLCE2,PDXK,POSTN,RAP1A,S100A4,TGFBI
DYSF
NP
2.01E–09
CFD,FN1,FTL,LCP1,LYZ,PROS1,S100-A13,S100A4
MYC
3.046
2.20E–09
ALDOA,ANXA5,CCT3,CD44,COL1A1,COL1A2,COL5A1,CSPG4,CTSD,ECM1,FN1,HSPA9,LYZ,NCL,NUCB1,NUDC,PAM,PTN,RPL22,RPL30,TF
COL9A1
1.308
2.79E–09
COMP,FN1,HSPG2,TGFBI,THBS4
Beta-estradiol
2.271
5.01E–09
ALDOA,APOE,CD44,COL1A1,COL1A2,COMP,CTSD,F7,FN1,GMFB,HSPA2,HSPA8,HSPA9,HTRA1,IGFBP6,LTF,LYZ,MYLK,PAM,PDIA3,QSOX1,RAP1A,RPS13,S100-A13,SLC9A3R1,TF,THBS4
Lipopolysaccharide
–0.104
5.96E–09
ANXA5,APOB,APOC2,APOE,CD44,CFD,COL1A1,COL1A2,COL5A1,CSPG4,FN1,GSN,HDGFRP3,HMGB2,HSPA8,HTRA1,ITIH2,LBP,LTF,LYZ,PARK7,PCOLCE,PCOLCE2,PDIA3,PLG,TF
Dihydrotestosterone
–1.091
1.03E–08
ALDOA,APOE,CCT3,FN1,FTL,GSN,HINT1,LYZ,MYLK,NUCB1,PAM,POSTN,PROS1,RPL30,TF
HRAS
0.623
2.52E–08
CD44,COL1A1,COL1A2,ERP29,FN1,GSN,HSPA8,HTRA1,LYZ,MYH10,PDIA5,PLTP,POSTN,RPL30,S100A4
KRAS
2.226
3.99E–08
ALDOA,CD44,COL1A1,FN1,GBA,GSN,MYLK,PCOLCE,PDIA3,PSMA7,RNASE4,S100A4
SMARCB1
–1.195
4.82E–08
APOC4,CD44,COL1A1,COL1A2,GSN,LBP,POSTN,PTN,RAB14
Responders
 
CEBPB
–1.067
2.03E–07
APOB,CFD,COL1A1,COL1A2,F7,HSPA8,PLG
FLI1
NP
3.82E–07
COL1A1,COL1A2,HSPA8,PF4
S-adenosylhomocysteine
NP
1.21E–06
COL1A1,COL1A2
SCX
NP
1.65E–06
COL1A1,COMP,POSTN
Tgf beta (group)
–1.454
5.16E–06
COL1A1,COL1A2,LCAT,POSTN,TGFBI
ENTPD5
NP
1.21E–05
COL1A1,COL1A2
MKX
NP
1.21E–05
COL1A1,COL1A2
GATA4
NP
2.86E–05
COL1A1,COL1A2,POSTN,TGFBI
Nilotinib
NP
3.39E–05
COL1A1,COL1A2
TBX5
NP
5.50E–05
COL1A1,COL1A2,POSTN
The 10 upstream regulators with the lowest p values are demonstrated for both responders and non-responders. The p value of overlap is calculated based on the overlap between protein changes within the dataset with known targets of the transcriptional regulator, calculated using a Fisher’s exact test. The activation z score can be used to infer likely activation states of the upstream regulators based on the direction of protein abundance change in the dataset, i.e. a negative activation z score indicates that the upstream regulator is downregulated at Stage II compared to stage I, thus eliciting the specific directions of protein changes of the target molecules at Stage II compared to Stage I of ACI. NP indicates no prediction of activation status could be generated by the software

Measurement of MMP1 and S100-A13 protein in SF by ELISA

MMP1 and S100-A13 protein abundance in SF from the same patient cohort was measured using ELISA. Biochemical assessment replicated the MS finding that SF MMP1 concentration is significantly increased at Stage II in non-responders (Stage I, 800 ± 889 pg/ml; Stage II, 7741 ± 8065 pg/ml (mean ± SD); p = 0.006; Mann-Whitney U test) (Fig. 5). However, measurement of MMP1 via ELISA also demonstrated a significant increase in concentration at Stage II compared to Stage I in responders to ACI (albeit to a lesser order of magnitude: Stage I, 655 ± 837 pg/ml; Stage II, 2672 ± 3576 pg/ml (mean ± SD); p = 0.039; Mann-Whitney U test) (Fig. 5). In this patient cohort, no correlation between Lysholm score and MMP1 could be demonstrated (r = 0.02; p = 0.94; Spearman’s correlation).
Biochemical quantification identified a significant decrease in S100-A13 expression at Stage II (94 ± 31 pg/ml (mean ± SD)) compared to Stage I (245 ± 123 pg/ml (mean ± SD); p =0.02; Mann-Whitney U test) of the ACI process in clinical non-responders and no significant difference in responders (Stage I, 200 ± 118 (mean ± SD); Stage II, 138 ± 93 (mean ± SD); p = 0.2; Mann-Whitney U test) thus validating MS findings (Fig. 5). To assess whether the differential abundance of S100-A13 identified between Stages I and II was genuinely only a response of clinical non-responders, further statistical analysis including only the paired Stage I (n = 7) and II (n = 6) samples was completed. The paired analysis also confirmed the MS findings, with non-responders having lower SF S100-A13 concentration at Stage II compared to Stage I (Stage I, 270 ± 113 (mean ± SD); Stage II, 116 ± 112 (mean ± SD); p = 0.03; Wilcoxon-matched pairs) and no significant difference in S100-A13 concentration between Stages I and II demonstrated in clinical responders (Stage I, 204 ± 127 (mean ± SD); Stage II, 140 ± 53 (mean ± SD); p = 0.22; Wilcoxon-matched pairs). Again, Lysholm score and S100-A13 concentration did not correlate in this cohort (r = 0.0002; p = 0.99; Spearman’s correlation).

Discussion

The unbiased quantitative study of the human SF proteome is relatively limited [14, 15] and few studies are reported which identify novel biomarkers for the diagnosis of cartilage injury or for their prognostic or predictive value in the treatment of cartilage injuries [16, 18]. To our knowledge, only four studies have assessed SF or blood for biomarkers of cartilage injury treatment [16, 17, 19, 40] from which limited putative predictive markers have been identified.
The patient cohort used in this study presents an opportunity to explore which proteins are altered between individuals who have responded well to ACI and those non-responders whose joint function has deteriorated post-treatment. Although a non-responder is generally defined as an individual who does not demonstrate an improvement in Lysholm score of 10 or more points, we have been able to identify proteins that relate to the worst clinical outcomes in our cohort; in future studies, these protein changes will need to be explored further in non-responders with a lesser negative response to ACI. It would have been interesting to assess how cartilage regeneration related to clinical outcome in these patients; unfortunately, however, data regarding the quality and amount of repair tissue in the defect site post-treatment were not routinely collected for these patients.
Ideally, a biomarker that predicts response to cell therapy would be measured before the patient undergoes cartilage harvest. This study, however, demonstrated that only one protein displayed differential abundance between responders and non-responders at Stage I of the ACI procedure. Interestingly, the vast majority of differences in the proteomic profile of SF were evident between Stages I and II of the ACI procedure, particularly in non-responders to ACI. Analysis of the pathways that are altered between Stages I and II of ACI illustrates further the disparity in biological response to a controlled cartilage injury in clinical responders versus non-responders. This suggests that it may be the response of the patients to the cartilage harvest procedure at Stage I that proves to be the best predictor of clinical outcome.
One of the biologically relevant proteins identified that increased in the SF of non-responders at Stage II compared to Stage I of ACI was MMP1. Along with other MMP family members, it is overexpressed in many forms of arthritis [37] and has been strongly associated with increased joint inflammation [41, 42]. Since MMP1 has cartilage degradation properties [37], implanting chondrocytes into a joint with high levels of active MMP1 might be detrimental to any new cartilage formation. However, the ELISA used in this study assessed total MMP1 protein; therefore, additional studies to determine how much active MMP1 is present would be needed to further elucidate the mechanisms of action. Nonetheless, a higher absolute level of MMP1 found in the SF of non-responders at Stage II compared to Stage I of the ACI procedure is suggested to be predictive of a poor outcome, which could inform the second stage of the ACI procedure. For example, it may be that an individual with high levels of MMP1 at Stage II requires a tailored procedure and could benefit from delayed chondrocyte implantation to allow for dampening of inflammation or a coincidental treatment to reduce MMP1 activity specifically or to reduce joint inflammation.
Interestingly, S100-A13 abundance was found to be significantly lower in the SF from non-responders to ACI at Stage II compared to Stage I. This finding is completely novel since, despite six of these family members having been studied in cartilage (S100B [43], S100-A2 [44], S100-A4 [45], S100-A8 [46], S100-A9 [46], and S100-A11 [47]), we are unaware of any studies that have assessed the role of S100-A13 in cartilage or SF. S100-A13 therefore presents an attractive novel candidate for further study, not only to confirm its potential as a predictive biomarker but also to improve our biological understanding of the processes underlying cartilage injury and repair.
Despite MMP1 and S100-A13 both having potential as candidate biomarkers to determine whether or not a patient is suitable to continue to the second stage of ACI, it is unlikely that any individual biomarkers will be sufficient to determine which patients are suitable candidates for a cartilage repair therapy. Patient demographics have already been identified which are known to pre-dispose to ACI failure, including gender, body mass index, age, and the size of the cartilage lesion [10, 25, 48]. Our long-term aim is to work towards the development of a clinical prediction model which will likely include known risk factors, along with a panel of biomarkers that, together, can predict the response of an individual to ACI. This exploratory study has indicated a plethora of potential SF biomarkers that may contribute to the development of such a clinical prediction model. Other studies have also indicated that the quality of the culture-expanded autologous chondrocytes affects patient clinical outcome (higher percentage positivity of CD44-expressing cells and increased collagen type II and aggrecan expression correlate with good clinical outcome, whereas lower cell viability correlates with poor clinical response to ACI) [28, 49, 50]. Therefore, ideally, the quality of ACI cells prior to implantation at Stage II, along with known demographic risk factors, would be considered as part of a clinical prediction matrix. We have already shown that the absence of detectable aggrecanse-1 is able to predict ACI success, and that lower age and the use of a collagen patch are also indicators of ACI success [19]; consequently, markers identified within this study may be added to this developing predictive model.
Many of the protein shifts observed in the SF between Stages I and II of the ACI procedure are likely to be associated with acute mechanisms of cartilage healing in response to the cartilage harvest, which could be considered as a controlled injury. Furthermore, the differences observed in this shift when comparing responders and non-responders to ACI could be a result of differences in the mechanisms of action and/or the rate/magnitude of an individual’s innate capacity for cartilage healing. Our evaluation of the SF proteome shift both before and after such a defined injury represents a period of acute response to injury and could therefore be considered as a model of short-term natural healing in humans. In order to validate that the response observed in this model is due to the cartilage harvest and not the arthroscope procedure, an appropriate control group should be evaluated. In future work we will aim to test potential biomarkers in a stem cell treatment group which will similarly undergo a Stage I arthroscope (but without a cartilage harvest) followed by cell implantation at Stage II in a comparable time frame.
Pathway and network analyses were performed to try and elucidate the functional implications of the observed proteome shift. Confidence can be taken from these findings, as pathways of known biological relevance were identified. For example, the complement system, which was activated in non-responders to ACI, can lead to cartilage degradation [47]. Other biologically relevant pathways that were identified include the acute phase response, which in contrast was dysregulated in non-responders. Dysregulation of the acute phase response has previously been associated with the proteome of OA knees [51], and serum amyloid-A, a key acute-phase protein, is increased in abundance in the SF and blood of individuals with OA [52]. Both of these observations indicate that the acute-phase response may be a contributing factor as to why some individuals do not respond well to ACI and there is merit in further studying how this pathway is altered in these individuals.
Interestingly, TGFβ1 was suggested as the most potent potential upstream regulator of the network of non-responder SF protein response to ACI. TGFβ1 is suggested to regulate twenty-seven of the network proteins, and therefore manipulation of this biological network via TGFβ1 may serve as a potential method to influence response to ACI in clinical non-responders. It is strongly established that TGFβ signalling is highly influential on the development and progression of OA [53]. Specifically, TGFβ is important in the regulation of chondrocyte hypertrophy and maturation [54]. Mutations in the TGFβ1 gene, as well as genetic variation in other members of the TGFβ signalling pathway, have been related to OA development [53]. Moreover, in transgenic animals which overexpress the type-II TGFβ receptor, chondrocytes in the superficial zone of the cartilage are hypertrophic with increased type X collagen expression and decreased proteoglycans [55]. Together, these observations highlight the importance of TGFβ for chondrocyte homeostasis; therefore, in non-responders to ACI, perhaps aberrant upstream expression of TGFβ contributes to their poor cartilage formation.
Canonical pathway analysis has also highlighted more novel pathway modifications within non-responders to ACI such as inhibition of LXR/RXR. Dimerisation of RXRs and LXR initiates transcriptional regulation that is involved in the regulation of inflammation [56]. Interestingly, proteomic profiling of the SF from osteoarthritic shoulders has highlighted dysregulation of the LXR/RXR pathway in response to OA [57], and agonism of the LXR/RXR pathway has previously been suggested as a therapeutic target for OA since human cartilage explants treated with a synthetic LXR agonist showed reduced cytokine-mediated degradation of proteoglycans [58]. Although further study is required to determine how inhibition of the LXR/RXR pathway may lead to a poor clinical response to ACI, it may be that these individuals are demonstrating a more ‘osteoarthritic’ phenotype, perhaps meaning that ACI may be insufficient to repair their cartilage injury.
The most striking biologically relevant canonical pathway groupings that were upregulated in non-responders to ACI were inflammatory and immune responses. This strengthens the suggestion that poor response to ACI in these individuals may be attributed to the chondrocytes being implanted into an unsuitable, highly inflammatory environment. Alternatively, it may indicate that these individuals have a more pronounced immune reaction to cartilage injury in general, and that this is an indicative response of ‘poor healers’.

Conclusion

We have identified proteins that are altered within the SF following cartilage injury and ACI, and have highlighted proteome changes in response to the cartilage harvest procedure in ACI which relates to clinical outcome. These protein changes represent a plethora of potential predictive biomarkers that, with further validation, could help in the identification of patients who are not suited to ACI or perhaps any cartilage repair procedure. Pathway and network analyses of the altered SF proteome have highlighted both known and novel biological pathways that may be implicated in the response to Stage I of ACI. These data present an opportunity for future study which could vastly improve our knowledge of how a joint responds to cartilage injury and how that may differ between individuals who do or do not have the capacity for cartilage repair.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Dr. Heidi Fuller for her invaluable advice on proteomic techniques and approaches, Prof. Rob Beynon for his advice on study design and for the use of his facilities, and Dr. John Garcia for advice with statistical analyses.

Funding

We would like to thank Arthritis Research UK for supporting this work via grants 19429, 20815, and 21122. MJP is funded through a Wellcome Trust Clinical Intermediate Fellowship. The sponsors had no involvement in the study design, data collection and interpretation, or preparation of the manuscript.

Availability of data and materials

Proteomic data has been deposited in the PRIDE ProteomeXchange and can be accessed using the identifier PXD005220.

Authors’ contributions

CHH, ELW, KTW, MJP, and SR came up with conception and design of the trial. CHH, ELW, MJP, and DMS collected data which was then analysed and interpreted by CHH, ELW, KTW, DMS, and MJP. CHH, ELW, MJP, SR, DMS, JBR, PG, and KTW drafted the manuscript, and critically revised and approved the final article. PG and JBR provided patient synovial fluid samples. Funding for the study was obtained by KTW and SR. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Not applicable for this study.
SF samples from patients undergoing ACI were collected under three independent ethical approvals: ‘Investigating the potential for cells and molecules isolated from orthopaedic patients for modelling and understanding pathogenic conditions and developing diagnostic markers and therapies for musculoskeletal disorders and spinal cord injury’ (11/NW/0875); ‘Autologous cell therapy for Osteoarthritis: An evaluation of the safety and efficacy of autologous transplantation of articular chondrocytes and/or bone marrow derived stromal cells to repair chondral/osteochondral lesions of the knee’ (11/WM/0175) and ‘Arthritis and cartilage repair study’ (06/Q6201/9). 11/NW/0875 was approved by the NRES committee North West—Liverpool East. 11/WM/0175 was approved by the NRES committee West Midlands—Coventry and Warwick, and 06/Q2601/9 was approved by Shropshire and Staffordshire—Shropshire local research ethics committee. All patients gave valid informed consent prior to samples being collected.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
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.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Lotz MK, Kraus VB. New developments in osteoarthritis. Posttraumatic osteoarthritis: pathogenesis and pharmacological treatment options. Arthritis Res Ther. 2010;12:211.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Lotz MK, Kraus VB. New developments in osteoarthritis. Posttraumatic osteoarthritis: pathogenesis and pharmacological treatment options. Arthritis Res Ther. 2010;12:211.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Gillogly SD, Voight M, Blackburn T. Treatment of articular cartilage defects of the knee with autologous chondrocyte implantation. J Orthop Sport Phys Ther. 1998;28:241–51.CrossRef Gillogly SD, Voight M, Blackburn T. Treatment of articular cartilage defects of the knee with autologous chondrocyte implantation. J Orthop Sport Phys Ther. 1998;28:241–51.CrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Richardson JB, Caterson B, Evans EH, Ashton BA, Roberts S. Repair of human articular cartilage after implantation of autologous chondrocytes. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1999;81:1064–8.CrossRefPubMed Richardson JB, Caterson B, Evans EH, Ashton BA, Roberts S. Repair of human articular cartilage after implantation of autologous chondrocytes. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1999;81:1064–8.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Wright KT, Mennan C, Fox H, Richardson JB, Banerjee R, Roberts S. Characterization of the cells in repair tissue following autologous chondrocyte implantation in mankind: a novel report of two cases. Regen Med. 2013;8:699–709.CrossRefPubMed Wright KT, Mennan C, Fox H, Richardson JB, Banerjee R, Roberts S. Characterization of the cells in repair tissue following autologous chondrocyte implantation in mankind: a novel report of two cases. Regen Med. 2013;8:699–709.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Lysholm J, Gillquist J. Evaluation of knee ligament surgery results with special emphasis on use of a scoring scale. Am J Sports Med. 1982;10:150–4.CrossRefPubMed Lysholm J, Gillquist J. Evaluation of knee ligament surgery results with special emphasis on use of a scoring scale. Am J Sports Med. 1982;10:150–4.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Knutsen G, Drogset JO, Engebretsen L, Grontvedt T, Ludvigsen TC, Loken S, et al. A randomized multicenter trial comparing autologous chondrocyte implantation with microfracture: long-term follow-up at 14 to 15 years. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2016;98:1332–9.CrossRef Knutsen G, Drogset JO, Engebretsen L, Grontvedt T, Ludvigsen TC, Loken S, et al. A randomized multicenter trial comparing autologous chondrocyte implantation with microfracture: long-term follow-up at 14 to 15 years. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2016;98:1332–9.CrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Niemeyer P, Porichis S, Steinwachs M, Erggelet C, Kreuz PC, Schmal H, et al. Long-term outcomes after first-generation autologous chondrocyte implantation for cartilage defects of the knee. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42:150–7.CrossRefPubMed Niemeyer P, Porichis S, Steinwachs M, Erggelet C, Kreuz PC, Schmal H, et al. Long-term outcomes after first-generation autologous chondrocyte implantation for cartilage defects of the knee. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42:150–7.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Dugard MN, Herman Kuiper J, Parker J, Roberts S, Robinson E, Harrison P, et al. Development of a tool to predict outcome of autologous chondrocyte implantation. Cartilage. 2017;8(2):119–30.CrossRefPubMed Dugard MN, Herman Kuiper J, Parker J, Roberts S, Robinson E, Harrison P, et al. Development of a tool to predict outcome of autologous chondrocyte implantation. Cartilage. 2017;8(2):119–30.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Niemeyer P, Salzmann GM, Hirschmüller A, Südkamp NP. Factors that influence clinical outcome following autologous chondrocyte implantation for cartilage defects of the knee. Z Orthop Unfall. 2012;150(1):83–8.CrossRefPubMed Niemeyer P, Salzmann GM, Hirschmüller A, Südkamp NP. Factors that influence clinical outcome following autologous chondrocyte implantation for cartilage defects of the knee. Z Orthop Unfall. 2012;150(1):83–8.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Jungmann PM, Salzmann GM, Schmal H, Pestka JM, Sudkamp NP, Niemeyer P. Autologous chondrocyte implantation for treatment of cartilage defects of the knee: what predicts the need for reintervention? Am J Sports Med. 2012;40:58–67.CrossRefPubMed Jungmann PM, Salzmann GM, Schmal H, Pestka JM, Sudkamp NP, Niemeyer P. Autologous chondrocyte implantation for treatment of cartilage defects of the knee: what predicts the need for reintervention? Am J Sports Med. 2012;40:58–67.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Kraus VB, Blanco FJ, Englund M, Henrotin Y, Lohmander LS, Losina E, et al. OARSI Clinical Trials Recommendations: soluble biomarker assessments in clinical trials in osteoarthritis. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2015;23:686–97.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Kraus VB, Blanco FJ, Englund M, Henrotin Y, Lohmander LS, Losina E, et al. OARSI Clinical Trials Recommendations: soluble biomarker assessments in clinical trials in osteoarthritis. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2015;23:686–97.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Zurück zum Zitat De Ceuninck F, Berenbaum F. Proteomics: addressing the challenges of osteoarthritis. Drug Discov Today. 2009;14:661–7.CrossRefPubMed De Ceuninck F, Berenbaum F. Proteomics: addressing the challenges of osteoarthritis. Drug Discov Today. 2009;14:661–7.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Hsueh MF, Onnerfjord P, Kraus VB. Biomarkers and proteomic analysis of osteoarthritis. Matrix Biol. 2014;39:56–66.CrossRefPubMed Hsueh MF, Onnerfjord P, Kraus VB. Biomarkers and proteomic analysis of osteoarthritis. Matrix Biol. 2014;39:56–66.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Liao W, Li Z, Wang H, Wang J, Fu Y, Bai X. Proteomic analysis of synovial fluid: Insight into the pathogenesis of knee osteoarthritis. Int Orthop. 2013;37:1045–53.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Liao W, Li Z, Wang H, Wang J, Fu Y, Bai X. Proteomic analysis of synovial fluid: Insight into the pathogenesis of knee osteoarthritis. Int Orthop. 2013;37:1045–53.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Liao W, Li Z, Zhang H, Li J, Wang K, Yang Y. Proteomic analysis of synovial fluid as an analytical tool to detect candidate biomarkers for knee osteoarthritis. Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2015;8:9975–89.PubMedPubMedCentral Liao W, Li Z, Zhang H, Li J, Wang K, Yang Y. Proteomic analysis of synovial fluid as an analytical tool to detect candidate biomarkers for knee osteoarthritis. Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2015;8:9975–89.PubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Vasara AI, Konttinen YT, Peterson L, Lindahl A, Kiviranta I. Persisting high levels of synovial fluid markers after cartilage repair: a pilot study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:267–72.CrossRefPubMed Vasara AI, Konttinen YT, Peterson L, Lindahl A, Kiviranta I. Persisting high levels of synovial fluid markers after cartilage repair: a pilot study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:267–72.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Wasilko SM, Tourville TW, DeSarno MJ, Slauterbeck JR, Johnson RJ, Struglics A, et al. Relationship between synovial fluid biomarkers of articular cartilage metabolism and the patient’s perspective of outcome depends on the severity of articular cartilage damage following ACL trauma. J Orthop Res. 2016;34:820–7.CrossRefPubMed Wasilko SM, Tourville TW, DeSarno MJ, Slauterbeck JR, Johnson RJ, Struglics A, et al. Relationship between synovial fluid biomarkers of articular cartilage metabolism and the patient’s perspective of outcome depends on the severity of articular cartilage damage following ACL trauma. J Orthop Res. 2016;34:820–7.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Watt FE, Paterson E, Freidin A, Kenny M, Judge A, Saklatvala J, et al. Acute molecular changes in synovial fluid following human knee injury. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016;68:2129–40.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Watt FE, Paterson E, Freidin A, Kenny M, Judge A, Saklatvala J, et al. Acute molecular changes in synovial fluid following human knee injury. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016;68:2129–40.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Wright KT, Kuiper JH, Richardson JB, Gallacher P, Roberts S. The absence of detectable ADAMTS-4 (aggrecanase-1) activity in synovial fluid is a predictive indicator of autologous chondrocyte implantation success. Am J Sports Med. 2017. doi:10.1177/0363546517694027. Wright KT, Kuiper JH, Richardson JB, Gallacher P, Roberts S. The absence of detectable ADAMTS-4 (aggrecanase-1) activity in synovial fluid is a predictive indicator of autologous chondrocyte implantation success. Am J Sports Med. 2017. doi:10.​1177/​0363546517694027​.
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Gibson DS, Rooney ME. The human synovial fluid proteome: a key factor in the pathology of joint disease. Proteomics-Clinical Applications. 2007;1:889–99.CrossRefPubMed Gibson DS, Rooney ME. The human synovial fluid proteome: a key factor in the pathology of joint disease. Proteomics-Clinical Applications. 2007;1:889–99.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Peffers MJ, McDermott B, Clegg PD, Riggs CM. Comprehensive protein profiling of synovial fluid in osteoarthritis following protein equalization. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2015;23:1204–13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Peffers MJ, McDermott B, Clegg PD, Riggs CM. Comprehensive protein profiling of synovial fluid in osteoarthritis following protein equalization. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2015;23:1204–13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Hartwig S, Czibere A, Kotzka J, Passlack W, Haas R, Eckel J, et al. Combinatorial hexapeptide ligand libraries (ProteoMiner): an innovative fractionation tool for differential quantitative clinical proteomics. Arch Physiol Biochem. 2009;115:155–60.CrossRefPubMed Hartwig S, Czibere A, Kotzka J, Passlack W, Haas R, Eckel J, et al. Combinatorial hexapeptide ligand libraries (ProteoMiner): an innovative fractionation tool for differential quantitative clinical proteomics. Arch Physiol Biochem. 2009;115:155–60.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Freeby S, Walker J, Paulus A, Smith K, Liu N, Academia K. Enrichment of medium- and low-abundance proteins in sample types using ProteoMiner technology. 2010:1–6. Freeby S, Walker J, Paulus A, Smith K, Liu N, Academia K. Enrichment of medium- and low-abundance proteins in sample types using ProteoMiner technology. 2010:1–6.
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Roberts S, Evans H, Wright K, van Niekerk L, Caterson B, Richardson JB, et al. ADAMTS-4 activity in synovial fluid as a biomarker of inflammation and effusion. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2015;23:1622–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Roberts S, Evans H, Wright K, van Niekerk L, Caterson B, Richardson JB, et al. ADAMTS-4 activity in synovial fluid as a biomarker of inflammation and effusion. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2015;23:1622–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Kraus V, Stabler T, Kong S, Varjum G, McDaniel G. Measurement of synovial fluid volume using urea. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2007;15:e20. Kraus V, Stabler T, Kong S, Varjum G, McDaniel G. Measurement of synovial fluid volume using urea. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2007;15:e20.
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Ehrich E, Davies G, Watson D, Bolohnese J, Seidenberg B, Bellamy N. Minimal perceptible clinical improvement with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index questionnaire and global assessments in patients with osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol. 2000;27:2635–41.PubMed Ehrich E, Davies G, Watson D, Bolohnese J, Seidenberg B, Bellamy N. Minimal perceptible clinical improvement with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index questionnaire and global assessments in patients with osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol. 2000;27:2635–41.PubMed
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Roos E, Lohmander L. The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): from joint injury to osteoarthritis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:64.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Roos E, Lohmander L. The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): from joint injury to osteoarthritis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:64.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Saris D, Vanlauwe J, Victor J, Almqvist K, Verdonk R, Bellemans J, et al. Treatment of symptomatic cartilage defects in the knee: characterized chondrocyte implantation results in better clinical outcome at 36 months in a randomized trial compared to microfracture. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37 Suppl 1:10S–9S.CrossRefPubMed Saris D, Vanlauwe J, Victor J, Almqvist K, Verdonk R, Bellemans J, et al. Treatment of symptomatic cartilage defects in the knee: characterized chondrocyte implantation results in better clinical outcome at 36 months in a randomized trial compared to microfracture. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37 Suppl 1:10S–9S.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Smith H, Richardson J, Tennant A. Modification and validation of the Lysholm Knee Scale to assess articular cartilage damage. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2009;17:55–8.CrossRef Smith H, Richardson J, Tennant A. Modification and validation of the Lysholm Knee Scale to assess articular cartilage damage. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2009;17:55–8.CrossRef
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Mateos J, Lourido L, Fernández-Puente P, Calamia V, Fernández-López C, Oreiro N, Ruiz-Romero C, Blanco FJ. Differential protein profiling of synovial fluid from rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis patients using LC–MALDI TOF/TOF. J Proteomics. 2012;75:2869–78.CrossRefPubMed Mateos J, Lourido L, Fernández-Puente P, Calamia V, Fernández-López C, Oreiro N, Ruiz-Romero C, Blanco FJ. Differential protein profiling of synovial fluid from rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis patients using LC–MALDI TOF/TOF. J Proteomics. 2012;75:2869–78.CrossRefPubMed
31.
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Thorpe CT, Peffers MJ, Simpson D, Halliwell E, Screen HRC, Clegg PD. Anatomical heterogeneity of tendon: fascicular and interfascicular tendon compartments have distinct proteomic composition. Sci Rep. 2016;6:20455.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Thorpe CT, Peffers MJ, Simpson D, Halliwell E, Screen HRC, Clegg PD. Anatomical heterogeneity of tendon: fascicular and interfascicular tendon compartments have distinct proteomic composition. Sci Rep. 2016;6:20455.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Peffers MJ, Beynon RJ, Clegg PD. Absolute quantification of selected proteins in the human osteoarthritic secretome. Int J Mol Sci. 2013;14:20658–81.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Peffers MJ, Beynon RJ, Clegg PD. Absolute quantification of selected proteins in the human osteoarthritic secretome. Int J Mol Sci. 2013;14:20658–81.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Su Y, Zhang Y. Identification of biological processes and genes for gestational diabetes mellitus. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015;292:635–40.CrossRefPubMed Su Y, Zhang Y. Identification of biological processes and genes for gestational diabetes mellitus. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015;292:635–40.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Ingenuity Qiagen. Ingenuity Knowledge Base. 2014. Ingenuity Qiagen. Ingenuity Knowledge Base. 2014.
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Sherman BT, Huang DW, Tan Q, Guo Y, Bour S, Liu D, et al. DAVID Knowledgebase: a gene-centered database integrating heterogeneous gene annotation resources to facilitate high-throughput gene functional analysis. BMC Bioinformatics. 2007;8:426.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Sherman BT, Huang DW, Tan Q, Guo Y, Bour S, Liu D, et al. DAVID Knowledgebase: a gene-centered database integrating heterogeneous gene annotation resources to facilitate high-throughput gene functional analysis. BMC Bioinformatics. 2007;8:426.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Murphy G. Matrix metalloproteinases and their inhibitors. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl. 1995;266:55–60.PubMed Murphy G. Matrix metalloproteinases and their inhibitors. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl. 1995;266:55–60.PubMed
38.
Zurück zum Zitat Yammani RR. S100 proteins in cartilage: role in arthritis. Biochim Biophys Acta Mol Basis Dis. 1822;2012:600–6. Yammani RR. S100 proteins in cartilage: role in arthritis. Biochim Biophys Acta Mol Basis Dis. 1822;2012:600–6.
39.
Zurück zum Zitat Vizcaino JA, Csordas A, Del-Toro N, Dianes JA, Griss J, Lavidas I, et al. 2016 update of the PRIDE database and related tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44:D447–56.CrossRefPubMed Vizcaino JA, Csordas A, Del-Toro N, Dianes JA, Griss J, Lavidas I, et al. 2016 update of the PRIDE database and related tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44:D447–56.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Zurück zum Zitat Nganvongpanit K, Pothacharoen P, Chaochird P, Klunklin K, Warrit K, Settakorn J, et al. Prospective evaluation of serum biomarker levels and cartilage repair by autologous chondrocyte transplantation and subchondral drilling in a canine model. Arthritis Res Ther. 2009;11:R78.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Nganvongpanit K, Pothacharoen P, Chaochird P, Klunklin K, Warrit K, Settakorn J, et al. Prospective evaluation of serum biomarker levels and cartilage repair by autologous chondrocyte transplantation and subchondral drilling in a canine model. Arthritis Res Ther. 2009;11:R78.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
Zurück zum Zitat Yoshihara Y, Nakamura H, Obata K, Yamada H, Hayakawa T, Fujikawa K, et al. Matrix metalloproteinases and tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinases in synovial fluids from patients with rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2000;59:455–61.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Yoshihara Y, Nakamura H, Obata K, Yamada H, Hayakawa T, Fujikawa K, et al. Matrix metalloproteinases and tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinases in synovial fluids from patients with rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2000;59:455–61.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
42.
Zurück zum Zitat Tchetverikov I, Lohmander LS, Verzijl N, Huizinga TWJ, TeKoppele JM, Hanemaaijer R, et al. MMP protein and activity levels in synovial fluid from patients with joint injury, inflammatory arthritis, and osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2005;64:694–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Tchetverikov I, Lohmander LS, Verzijl N, Huizinga TWJ, TeKoppele JM, Hanemaaijer R, et al. MMP protein and activity levels in synovial fluid from patients with joint injury, inflammatory arthritis, and osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2005;64:694–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
43.
Zurück zum Zitat Wolff DA, Stevenson S, Goldberg VM. S-100 protein immunostaining identifies cells expressing a chondrocytic phenotype during articular cartilage repair. J Orthop Res. 1992;10:49–57.CrossRefPubMed Wolff DA, Stevenson S, Goldberg VM. S-100 protein immunostaining identifies cells expressing a chondrocytic phenotype during articular cartilage repair. J Orthop Res. 1992;10:49–57.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Zurück zum Zitat Balmain N, Moutahir F, Heizmann CW, Lieberherr M. Immunolocalization of S100A2 calcium-binding protein in cartilage and bone cells. Cell Mol Biol (Noisy-le-Grand). 2003;49:485–6. Balmain N, Moutahir F, Heizmann CW, Lieberherr M. Immunolocalization of S100A2 calcium-binding protein in cartilage and bone cells. Cell Mol Biol (Noisy-le-Grand). 2003;49:485–6.
45.
Zurück zum Zitat Hopwood B, Tsykin A, Findlay DM, Fazzalari NL. Microarray gene expression profiling of osteoarthritic bone suggests altered bone remodelling, WNT and transforming growth factor-beta/bone morphogenic protein signalling. Arthritis Res Ther. 2007;9:R100.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Hopwood B, Tsykin A, Findlay DM, Fazzalari NL. Microarray gene expression profiling of osteoarthritic bone suggests altered bone remodelling, WNT and transforming growth factor-beta/bone morphogenic protein signalling. Arthritis Res Ther. 2007;9:R100.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
46.
Zurück zum Zitat Zreiqat H, Howlett CR, Gronthos S, Hume D, Geczy CL. S100A8/S100A9 and their association with cartilage and bone. J Mol Histol. 2007;38:381–91.CrossRefPubMed Zreiqat H, Howlett CR, Gronthos S, Hume D, Geczy CL. S100A8/S100A9 and their association with cartilage and bone. J Mol Histol. 2007;38:381–91.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Zurück zum Zitat Cecil DL, Johnson K, Rediske J, Lotz M, Schmidt AM, Terkeltaub R. Inflammation-induced chondrocyte hypertrophy is driven by receptor for advanced glycation end products. J Immunol. 2005;175:8296–302.CrossRefPubMed Cecil DL, Johnson K, Rediske J, Lotz M, Schmidt AM, Terkeltaub R. Inflammation-induced chondrocyte hypertrophy is driven by receptor for advanced glycation end products. J Immunol. 2005;175:8296–302.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Zurück zum Zitat Jaiswal PK, Bentley G, Carrington RW, Skinner JA, Briggs TW. The adverse effect of elevated body mass index on outcome after autologous chondrocytes implantation. J Bone Jt Surg. 2012;94:1377–81.CrossRef Jaiswal PK, Bentley G, Carrington RW, Skinner JA, Briggs TW. The adverse effect of elevated body mass index on outcome after autologous chondrocytes implantation. J Bone Jt Surg. 2012;94:1377–81.CrossRef
49.
Zurück zum Zitat Pietschmann MF, Horng A, Niethammer T, Pagenstert I, Sievers B, Jansson V, et al. Cell quality affects clinical outcome after MACI procedure for cartilage injury of the knee. Knee Surg Sport Traumatol Arthrosc. 2009;17:1305–11.CrossRef Pietschmann MF, Horng A, Niethammer T, Pagenstert I, Sievers B, Jansson V, et al. Cell quality affects clinical outcome after MACI procedure for cartilage injury of the knee. Knee Surg Sport Traumatol Arthrosc. 2009;17:1305–11.CrossRef
50.
Zurück zum Zitat Niemeyer P, Pestka JM, Salzmann GM, Sudkamp NB, Schmal H. Influence of cell quality on clinical outcome after autologous chondrocyte implantation. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40:556–61.CrossRefPubMed Niemeyer P, Pestka JM, Salzmann GM, Sudkamp NB, Schmal H. Influence of cell quality on clinical outcome after autologous chondrocyte implantation. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40:556–61.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Zurück zum Zitat Ritter SY, Subbaiah R, Bebek G, Crish J, Scanzello CR, Krastins B, et al. Proteomic analysis of synovial fluid from the osteoarthritic knee: Comparison with transcriptome analyses of joint tissues. Arthritis Rheum. 2013;65:981–92.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Ritter SY, Subbaiah R, Bebek G, Crish J, Scanzello CR, Krastins B, et al. Proteomic analysis of synovial fluid from the osteoarthritic knee: Comparison with transcriptome analyses of joint tissues. Arthritis Rheum. 2013;65:981–92.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
52.
Zurück zum Zitat de Seny D, Cobraiville G, Charlier E, Neuville S, Esser N, Malaise D, et al. Acute-phase serum amyloid A in osteoarthritis: regulatory mechanism and proinflammatory properties. PLoS One. 2013;8(6):e6676. de Seny D, Cobraiville G, Charlier E, Neuville S, Esser N, Malaise D, et al. Acute-phase serum amyloid A in osteoarthritis: regulatory mechanism and proinflammatory properties. PLoS One. 2013;8(6):e6676.
54.
Zurück zum Zitat Yang X, Chen L, Xu X, Li C, Huang C, Deng CX. TGF-beta/Smad3 signals repress chondrocyte hypertrophic differentiation and are required for maintaining articular cartilage. J Cell Biol. 2001;153:35–46.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Yang X, Chen L, Xu X, Li C, Huang C, Deng CX. TGF-beta/Smad3 signals repress chondrocyte hypertrophic differentiation and are required for maintaining articular cartilage. J Cell Biol. 2001;153:35–46.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
55.
Zurück zum Zitat Serra R, Johnson M, Filvaroff EH, LaBorde J, Sheehan DM, Derynck R, et al. Expression of a truncated, kinase-defective TGF-beta type II receptor in mouse skeletal tissue promotes terminal chondrocyte differentiation and osteoarthritis. J Cell Biol. 1997;139:541–52.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Serra R, Johnson M, Filvaroff EH, LaBorde J, Sheehan DM, Derynck R, et al. Expression of a truncated, kinase-defective TGF-beta type II receptor in mouse skeletal tissue promotes terminal chondrocyte differentiation and osteoarthritis. J Cell Biol. 1997;139:541–52.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
56.
Zurück zum Zitat Germain P, Chambon P, Eichele G, Evans RM, Lazar MA, Leid M, et al. Retinoid X receptors. Pharmacol Rev. 2006;58:760–72.CrossRefPubMed Germain P, Chambon P, Eichele G, Evans RM, Lazar MA, Leid M, et al. Retinoid X receptors. Pharmacol Rev. 2006;58:760–72.CrossRefPubMed
57.
Zurück zum Zitat Wanner J, Subbaiah R, Skomorovska-Prokvolit Y, Shishani Y, Boilard E, Mohan S, et al. Proteomic profiling and functional characterization of early and late shoulder osteoarthritis. Arthritis Res Ther. 2013;15:R180.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Wanner J, Subbaiah R, Skomorovska-Prokvolit Y, Shishani Y, Boilard E, Mohan S, et al. Proteomic profiling and functional characterization of early and late shoulder osteoarthritis. Arthritis Res Ther. 2013;15:R180.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
58.
Zurück zum Zitat Collins-Racie LA, Yang Z, Arai M, Li N, Majumdar MK, Nagpal S, et al. Global analysis of nuclear receptor expression and dysregulation in human osteoarthritic articular cartilage. Reduced LXR signaling contributes to catabolic metabolism typical of osteoarthritis. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2009;17:939–49.CrossRef Collins-Racie LA, Yang Z, Arai M, Li N, Majumdar MK, Nagpal S, et al. Global analysis of nuclear receptor expression and dysregulation in human osteoarthritic articular cartilage. Reduced LXR signaling contributes to catabolic metabolism typical of osteoarthritis. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2009;17:939–49.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Autologous chondrocyte implantation-derived synovial fluids display distinct responder and non-responder proteomic profiles
verfasst von
Charlotte H. Hulme
Emma L. Wilson
Mandy J. Peffers
Sally Roberts
Deborah M. Simpson
James B. Richardson
Pete Gallacher
Karina T. Wright
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2017
Verlag
BioMed Central
Erschienen in
Arthritis Research & Therapy / Ausgabe 1/2017
Elektronische ISSN: 1478-6362
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13075-017-1336-7

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2017

Arthritis Research & Therapy 1/2017 Zur Ausgabe

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Mit medbee Pocketcards sicher entscheiden.

Seit 2022 gehört die medbee GmbH zum Springer Medizin Verlag

Update Innere Medizin

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.