4.5 Article

Hyaluronic acid increases tendon derived cell viability and collagen type I expression in vitro: Comparative study of four different Hyaluronic acid preparations by molecular weight

期刊

BMC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS
卷 16, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-015-0735-7

关键词

Hyaluronic acid; Tendinopathy; Human tendon derived cells; Rotator cuff tendons; Shoulder

资金

  1. Fondazione PCFF ONLUS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Hyaluronic Acid (HA) has been already approved by Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for osteoarthritis (OA), while its use in the treatment of tendinopathy is still debated. The aim of this study was to evaluate in human rotator cuff tendon derived cells the effects of four different HA on cell viability, proliferation, apoptosis and the expression of collagen type I and collagen type III. Methods: An in vitro model was developed on human tendon derived cells from rotator cuff tears to study the effects of four different HA preparations (Ps) (sodium hyaluronate MW: 500-730 KDa - Hyalgan (R), 1000 kDa Artrosulfur HA (R), 1600 KDa Hyalubrix (R) and 2200 KDa Synolis-VA (R)) at various concentrations. Tendon derived cells morphology were evaluated after 0, 7 and 14 d of culture. Viability, proliferation, apoptosis were evaluated after 0, 24 and 48 h of culture. The expression and deposition of collagen type I and collagen type III were evaluated after 1, 7 and 14 d of culture. Results: All HAPs tested increased viability and proliferation, in dose dependent manner. HAPs already reduce apoptosis at 24 h compared to control cells (without HAPs). Furthermore, HAPs stimulated the synthesis of collagen type I in a dose dependent fashion over 14 d, without increase in collagen type III; moreover, in the presence of Synolis-VA (R) the expression and deposition of collagen type I was significantly higher as compare with the other HAPs. Conclusions: HAPs enhanced viability, proliferation and expression of collagen type I in tendon derived cells.

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

4.5
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