4.6 Article

Mechanisms of reducing joint stiffness by blocking collagen fibrillogenesis in a rabbit model of posttraumatic arthrofibrosis

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 16, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257147

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Defense [W81XWH-18-1-0554]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study demonstrated that targeting collagen fibrillogenesis to limit arthrofibrosis has no negative impact on the quality of healing joint tissues and can actually accelerate tissue remodeling and alter collagen fibrils.
Posttraumatic fibrotic scarring is a significant medical problem that alters the proper functioning of injured tissues. Current methods to reduce posttraumatic fibrosis rely on anti-inflammatory and anti-proliferative agents with broad intracellular targets. As a result, their use is not fully effective and may cause unwanted side effects. Our group previously demonstrated that extracellular collagen fibrillogenesis is a valid and specific target to reduce collagen-rich scar buildup. Our previous studies showed that a rationally designed antibody that binds the C-terminal telopeptide of the alpha 2(I) chain involved in the aggregation of collagen molecules limits fibril assembly in vitro and reduces scar formation in vivo. Here, we have utilized a clinically relevant arthrofibrosis model to study the broad mechanisms of the anti-scarring activity of this antibody. Moreover, we analyzed the effects of targeting collagen fibril formation on the quality of healed joint tissues, including the posterior capsule, patellar tendon, and subchondral bone. Our results show that blocking collagen fibrillogenesis not only reduces collagen content in the scar, but also accelerates the remodeling of healing tissues and changes the collagen fibrils' cross-linking. In total, this study demonstrated that targeting collagen fibrillogenesis to limit arthrofibrosis affects neither the quality of healing of the joint tissues nor disturbs vital tissues and organs.

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

4.6
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