4.5 Article

Differences in type II collagen turnover of osteoarthritic human knee and ankle joints

Journal

INTERNATIONAL ORTHOPAEDICS
Volume 41, Issue 5, Pages 999-1005

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00264-017-3414-5

Keywords

Ankle; Cartilage Human; Knee; Metabolism; Osteoarthritis

Categories

Funding

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG [156/6-1]
  2. Deutsche Arthrosehilfe e. V. and the Interdisciplinary Center for Clinical Research (IZKF)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose We analysed hyaline cartilage of human knee and ankle joints for collagen and proteoglycan turnover in order to find differences in the metabolism and biochemical content of the extracellular matrix that could explain the higher prevalence of osteoarthritis (OA) in the knee joint, compared to the ankle joint. Methods Cartilage tissue from ankle and knee joints of OA patients were assessed for total collagen and proteoglycan content. For turnover, the aggrecan 846-epitope (CS 846), the type II collagen C-propeptide (CP2) and the collagenase-generated intrahelical cleavage neoepitope (C2C) were quantified. Results Molecular analyses showed that type II collagen turnover (CP2 and C2C) was significantly elevated in the ankle, whereas aggrecan turnover (CS 846), total proteoglycan and total collagen were comparable between both joints. Analysis of the inter-relationships in the components of cartilage matrix turnover showed a significant positive correlation of C2C vs CP2. Conclusions The data suggest an increased type II collagen turnover in ankle vs knee OA cartilage but a comparable aggrecan turnover and comparable contents of type II collagen and proteoglycan. These findings point towards a focused attempt in advanced OA cartilage to structurally repair the collagen network that was more pronounced in the ankle joint and may explain in part the higher prevalence of OA in the knee as compared to the ankle joint.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available