4.2 Article

beta-Defensin-4 (HBD-4) is expressed in chondrocytes derived from normal and osteoarthritic cartilage encapsulated in PEGDA scaffold

期刊

ACTA HISTOCHEMICA
卷 114, 期 8, 页码 805-812

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.acthis.2012.02.001

关键词

Osteoarthritis; Knee; Chondrocytes; beta-Defensin-4; Hydrogels (PEGDA); Human

资金

  1. Medicine and Surgery Faculty of University of Catania

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Defensins are antibiotic peptides involved in host defense mechanisms, wound healing and tissue repair. Furthermore, they seem to play an important role in protection mechanisms in articular joints. The aim of this study was to investigate beta-defensin-4 expression in chondrocytes taken from articular cartilage of knees of patients with osteoarthritis (OA) compared to normal cartilage, in vivo in explanted tissue, and in vitro in chondrocytes encapsulated in construct PEGDA hydrogels. The present investigation was conducted to try and elucidate the possible use of beta-defensin-4 as a relevant marker for the eventual use of successive scaffold allografts, and to provide new insights for hydrogel PEGDA scaffold efficacy in re-differentiation or repair of OA chondrocytes in vitro. Articular cartilage specimens from OA cartilage and normal cartilage were assessed by histology, histochemistry, immunohistochemistry and Western blot analysis. The results showed strong beta-defensin-4 immunoexpression in explanted tissue from OA cartilage and weak beta-defensin-4 expression in control cartilage. The chondrocytes from OA cartilage after 4 weeks of culture in PEGDA hydrogels showed the formation of new hyaline cartilage and a decreased expression of beta-defensin-4 immunostaining comparable to that of control cartilage. Our results suggest the possibility of applying autologous cell transplantation in conjunction with scaffold materials for repair of cartilage lesions in patients with OA using beta-defensin-4 as a relevant: marker. (C) 2012 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

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

4.2
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