4.7 Article

Phenotypic Characterization of Immortalized Chondrocytes from a Desbuquois Dysplasia Type 1 Mouse Model: A Tool for Studying Defects in Glycosaminoglycan Biosynthesis

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms22179304

关键词

proteoglycan; collagen; cartilage; extracellular matrix; in vitro model; immortalization; skeletal dysplasia

资金

  1. MIUR

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study successfully immortalized primary chondrocytes from a Cant1 knock-out mouse, maintaining the disease phenotype and providing a validated in vitro model for studying proteoglycan biosynthesis defects. This approach could potentially be expanded to research on other cartilage disorders.
The complexity of skeletal pathologies makes use of in vivo models essential to elucidate the pathogenesis of the diseases; nevertheless, chondrocyte and osteoblast cell lines provide relevant information on the underlying disease mechanisms. Due to the limitations of primary chondrocytes, immortalized cells represent a unique tool to overcome this problem since they grow very easily for several passages. However, in the immortalization procedure the cells might lose the original phenotype; thus, these cell lines should be deeply characterized before their use. We immortalized primary chondrocytes from a Cant1 knock-out mouse, an animal model of Desbuquois dysplasia type 1, with a plasmid expressing the SV40 large and small T antigen. This cell line, based on morphological and biochemical parameters, showed preservation of the chondrocyte phenotype. In addition reduced proteoglycan synthesis and oversulfation of glycosaminoglycan chains were demonstrated, as already observed in primary chondrocytes from the Cant1 knock-out mouse. In conclusion, immortalized Cant1 knock-out chondrocytes maintained the disease phenotype observed in primary cells validating the in vitro model and providing an additional tool to further study the proteoglycan biosynthesis defect. The same approach might be extended to other cartilage disorders.

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

4.7
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