| Literature DB >> 26917487 |
Salem Hanhan1, Ayala Ejzenberg1, Koby Goren1, Faris Saba1, Yarden Suki1, Shay Sharon1, Dekel Shilo1, Jacob Waxman1, Elad Spitzer2, Ron Shahar3, Ayelet Atkins3, Meir Liebergall2, Anat Blumenfeld1, Dan Deutsch1, Amir Haze2.
Abstract
Injuries to ligaments are common, painful and debilitating, causing joint instability and impaired protective proprioception sensation around the joint. Healing of torn ligaments usually fails to take place, and surgical replacement or reconstruction is required. Previously, we showed that in vivo application of the recombinant human amelogenin protein (rHAM(+)) resulted in enhanced healing of the tooth-supporting tissues. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether amelogenin might also enhance repair of skeletal ligaments. The rat knee medial collateral ligament (MCL) was chosen to prove the concept. Full thickness tear was created and various concentrations of rHAM(+), dissolved in propylene glycol alginate (PGA) carrier, were applied to the transected MCL. 12 weeks after transection, the mechanical properties, structure and composition of transected ligaments treated with 0.5 μg/μl rHAM(+) were similar to the normal un-transected ligaments, and were much stronger, stiffer and organized than control ligaments, treated with PGA only. Furthermore, the proprioceptive free nerve endings, in the 0.5 μg/μl rHAM(+) treated group, were parallel to the collagen fibres similar to their arrangement in normal ligament, while in the control ligaments the free nerve endings were entrapped in the scar tissue at different directions, not parallel to the axis of the force. Four days after transection, treatment with 0.5 μg/μl rHAM(+) increased the amount of cells expressing mesenchymal stem cell markers at the injured site. In conclusion application of rHAM(+) dose dependently induced mechanical, structural and sensory healing of torn skeletal ligament. Initially the process involved recruitment and proliferation of cells expressing mesenchymal stem cell markers.Entities:
Keywords: amelogenin; mesenchymal stem cells; proprioception; regeneration; skeletal ligament; sport injuries
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26917487 PMCID: PMC4831364 DOI: 10.1111/jcmm.12762
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cell Mol Med ISSN: 1582-1838 Impact factor: 5.310
Figure 1Mechanical properties of healing MCL. (A) Intact MCL was elevated on forceps. (B) Transected MCL. The site of transection is marked by dotted circle, bar = 1 mm. (C) Bone‐ligament‐bone unit fastened in the clamping device which is placed within the materials testing machine. The arrow points to the MCL. (D) Force/displacement chart of normal MCL (un‐transected). Maximal force is the force at which the ligament was torn during stretching. Stiffness was calculated from the linear part of the graph. Higher slope represents stiffer ligament. (E) Maximal force at failure and (F) stiffness were compared between the transected MCL and the un‐transected MCL from the contra‐lateral leg of each rat, after application of 0.1, 0.5, 1, 2.5 μg/μl rHAM + dissolved in 2.25% PGA carrier (experimental), or 2.25% PGA carrier alone (control). N denotes the number of rats in each experimental/control group.
Figure 2Morphometric and composition analyses of the transected area 12 weeks after operation. (A) Haematoxylin and eosin staining, picrosirius red staining and immunohistochemistry using collagen I and III antibodies (brown staining) of un‐transected ligaments, transected area of experimental ligaments treated with 0.1, 0.5, 1 μg/μl rHAM + dissolved in PGA, and transected area of control ligaments treated with PGA carrier alone. (B) Scanning electron microscope pictures of ligaments 12 weeks after operation: left ‐ un‐transected ligament, middle – transection zone of a ligament treated with PGA carrier (control), right – transection zone of a ligament treated with 0.5 μg/μl rHAM + dissolved in PGA (experimental), magnification ×16,000.
Figure 3Immunohistochemistry using a mouse monoclonal antibody against rat neurofilaments (brown staining) of un‐transected ligaments (left), transected area 12 weeks after the operation of experimental ligament treated with 0.5 μg/μl rHAM + dissolved in PGA (right) and of control ligament treated with PGA carrier alone (middle).
Figure 4Expression of MSC markers CD105 (a–f) and STRO‐1 (g–i) in the arranging haematoma 4 days after transection: a–f) Immunohistochemistry showing the expression of CD015 (brown staining); a–c dotted yellow line marks the edges of the stumps of transected ligaments. The tissue filling the gap between ligament stumps was inflammatory tissue. d–f magnifications of the inflammatory tissues, marked by black squares, in a–c. (g–i) Immuo‐fluorescence analysis showing the expression of STRO‐1 (yellow). Cell nuclei were stained with DAPI (blue). (a, d and g) Negative control for the immunological reaction; ligaments treated with 0.5 μg/μl rHAM +, incubated with PBS instead of antibody against CD105 (a and d) or STRO‐1 (g). (b, e and h) Control – application of PGA carrier alone. (c, f and i) Experimental – application of 0.5 μg/μl rHAM +. (b) Immuo‐fluorescent evaluation of cell proliferation using Ki67 (green) in the arranging haematoma 4 days after transection. Cell nuclei were stained with DAPI (blue). (a and d) Negative control for the immuo‐fluorescence reaction; incubation with PBS instead of the Ki67 antibody. (b and e) Control ‐application of PGA carrier alone. (c and f) Experimental – application of 0.5 μg/μl rHAM +.