4.5 Article

CDMP-2 induces bone or tendon-like tissue depending on mechanical stimulation

期刊

JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC RESEARCH
卷 20, 期 6, 页码 1170-1174

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1016/S0736-0266(02)00078-5

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cartilage derived morphogenetic proteins (CDMPs, also known as growth and differentiation factors, GDFs) are a subgroup of the bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) gene family. As most BMPs, they are known to induce cartilage or bone formation when implanted subcutaneously or intramuscularly on an appropriate carrier. However, similar implantation experiments with CDMPs have also reported the formation of a tendon-like tissue, without any cartilage or bone. A solution to this apparent contradiction might be offered by the mechanical tissue differentiation theory, suggesting that tissue differentiation depends on the mechanical environment. This study analyzes the response to CDMP-2 implants at different sites and under different loading conditions in the rat. Collagen sponges carrying CDMP-2 were implanted subcutaneously, intramuscularly or inside a freshly created defect in the achilles tendon. Large amounts of bone were induced subcutaneously, smaller amounts intramuscularly, and in the tendons, only small amounts of bone or cartilage were seen in few animals. Thus, the amount of bone appeared inversely related to the degree of mechanical stimulus. To confirm this, CDMP was also injected into tendon defects that were either loaded or partially unloaded. All the unloaded tendons showed bone induction after one CDMP-2 injection, whereas only 4 of 10 loaded ones showed any cartilage or bone (p = 0.0005). Single injections of a similar dose of CDMP-2 have previously been shown to augment tendon repair by increasing the size of the tendon callus. This study suggests that the response to CDMP-2 is dependent on the mechanical situation at the site where it is applied. (C) 2002 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Elsevier Science 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

4.5
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