4.4 Article

Organization of collagen bundles during tendon healing in rats treated with L-NAME

期刊

CELL AND TISSUE RESEARCH
卷 337, 期 2, 页码 235-242

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00441-009-0819-5

关键词

Biomechanics; Collagen; Tendon; L-NAME; Nitric oxide; Rat (Wistar, male)

资金

  1. CAPES
  2. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Achilles tendon can support high tension forces and may experience lesions. The damaged tissue does not regenerate completely, with the organization and mechanical properties of the repaired tendon being inferior to those of a healthy tendon. Nitric oxide (NO) plays an important role in wound repair. We have examined the structural reorganization and repair in Achilles tendon after injury in rats treated with the NO synthase inhibitor L-NAME. The right Achilles tendon of male Wistar rats was partially transected. One group of rats was treated with L-NAME (similar to 300 mg/kg per day, given in drinking water) for 4 days prior to tendon sectioning and throughout the post-operative period. Control rats received water without L-NAME. The tendons were excised at 7, 14, and 21 days post-injury and used to quantify hydroxyproline and for mechanical tests. Tendons were also processed for histomorphological analysis by polarized light microscopy, which showed that the collagen fibers were disorganized by day 7 in non-treated and L-NAME-treated rats. In non-treated rats, the organization of the extracellular matrix was more homogeneous by days 14 and 21 compared with day 7, although this homogeneity was less than that in normal tendon. In contrast, in injured tendons from L-NAME-treated rats, the collagen fibers were still disorganized on day 21. Tendons from treated rats had more hydroxyproline but lower mechanical properties compared with those from non-treated rats. Thus, NO modulates tendon healing, with a reduction in NO biosynthesis delaying reorganization of the extracellular matrix, especially collagen.

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

4.4
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