4.4 Article

Induction of bone loss in DBA/1J mice immunized with citrullinated autologous mouse type II collagen in the absence of adjuvant

期刊

IMMUNOLOGIC RESEARCH
卷 58, 期 1, 页码 51-60

出版社

HUMANA PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1007/s12026-013-8479-7

关键词

Collagen-induced arthritis; Citrullination of proteins; Animal model; Bone loss; Cartilage loss

资金

  1. University of Nebraska Medical Center, Internal Medicine, and Division of Rheumatology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Joint damage in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is characterized by cartilage and bone loss resulting in pain, deformity, and loss of joint function. Anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA) has been implicated in RA pathogenesis and predicts radiographical joint damage and clinical severity. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess bone loss by micro-CT, histological joint damage, and ACPA levels using a mouse model of RA. Arthritis was induced by immunizing DBA/1 mice with autologous citrullinated type II mouse collagen (CIT-CII) weekly for 4 weeks. Mice immunized with autologous CII served as controls. At week 5, mice were killed, ACPA levels determined, and micro-CT performed to quantitatively analyze bone damage. Micro-CT analysis revealed significant loss of bone density, volume, and surface (p < 0.05) in bone peripheral to the inflamed joints of CIT-CII animals compared to CII controls. Histological staining demonstrated cartilage, proteoglycan, joint collagen, and bone collagen loss in the CIT-CII group compared to CII. Serum ACPA levels were increased (p = 0.03) in the CIT-CII group compared to CII, and these levels were inversely correlated with bone quantity and quality. In this study, we demonstrate that immunization with autologous CIT-CII initiates significant systemic bone and articular cartilage loss in the absence of adjuvant. Significant inverse correlations of circulating ACPA and bone quality/quantity were present. ACPA levels predict the adverse bone morphological changes in this model of early RA.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据