4.6 Article

The response of elderly human articular cartilage to mechanical stimuli in vitro

期刊

OSTEOARTHRITIS AND CARTILAGE
卷 13, 期 12, 页码 1084-1091

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2005.07.002

关键词

articular cartilage; matrix biosynthesis; mechanical stimulation; ageing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To investigate the biosynthetic response of elderly human femoral head articular cartilage to mechanical stimulation in vitro and its variation with site. Method. Full-depth cartilage biopsies of articular cartilage were removed from defined sites on 10 femoral heads from patients aged 68-95 years. Cartilage explants were subjected to either static or cyclic (2 s on/2 s off) loading in unconfined compression at a stress of 1 MPa for 24 h, or no load. Metabolic activity was assessed by adding medium containing S-35-sulphate and H-3-leucine during the last 4 h of loading and measuring the incorporated radioisotope. Matrix composition was measured in terms of the amounts of collagen, sulphated glycosaminoglycans (GAG) and water content. Results: Loading of elderly human articular cartilage at 1 MPa significantly inhibited incorporation of S-35-suulphate (P = 0.023) into cartilage explants. Pairwise comparisons showed that the difference in incorporation was only for static loading (43% decrease compared to unloaded) (P < 0.05). H-3-leucine incorporation appeared to follow the same trends but neither static nor cyclic load was significantly different from control (P = 0.31). Significant topographical variation was found for % GAG wet and GAG:collagen but not water content, % GAG dry or collagen. Isotope incorporation rates were in the order anterior > superior > posterior. Conclusion: Static loading inhibits matrix biosynthesis in elderly human cartilage, and cyclic loading is not stimulatory. This is in contrast to previous studies on young bovine tissue where cyclic loading is stimulatory. (c) 2005 OsteoArthritis Research Society International. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.6
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