| Literature DB >> 30243295 |
Tai-Hua Yang1, Anne Gingery1, Andrew R Thoreson1, Dirk R Larson2, Chunfeng Zhao1, Peter C Amadio3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fibroblast behavior and cell-matrix interactions of cells from normal and idiopathic carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) subsynovial connective tissue (SSCT) with and without Triamcinolone Acetonide (TA) were compared in this study. A cell-seeded gel contraction model was applied to investigate the effect of steroid treatment on SSCT fibroblast gene expression and function.Entities:
Keywords: Carpal tunnel syndrome; Collagen gel contraction; Fibrosis; Subsynovial connective tissue; Triamcinolone Acetonide
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30243295 PMCID: PMC6151186 DOI: 10.1186/s12891-018-2260-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.362
Primers used in RT-PCR
| Gene | Reference | Forward | Reverse |
|---|---|---|---|
| TGF-β1 | NM_000660 | GTGGAAACCCACAACGAAAT | CGGAGCTCTGATGTGTTGAA |
| COL1A2 | NM_000089 | TCCAAAGGAGAGAGCGGTAA | CAGATCCAGCTTCCCCATTA |
| COL3A1 | NM_000090 | CCAGGAGCTAACGGTCTCAG | CAGGGTTTCCATCTCTTCCA |
| VEGFA | NM_003376 | AGGCCAGCACATAGGAGAGA | TTTCTTGCGCTTTCGTTTTT |
| TBP | NM_003194 | GGTTTGCTGCGGTAATCATGA | CTCCTGTGCACACCATTTTCC |
Fig. 1TA treatment resulted in poorly defined margin formation regardless of cell type. a control, b patient
Summary of the analysis of the main effects on mechanical testing
| Outcome | Factor | Level | Mean (SD) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Decay Time Constant (days-1) | Treatment Type | TA | 2.9 (1.0) | < 0.001* |
| No TA | 2.2 (0.7) | |||
| Cell Type | Cadaver (control) | 2.5 (1.1) | < 0.001* | |
| CTS patient | 2.6 (0.7) | |||
| Tensile Strength (mN) | Treatment Type | TA | 7.0 (1.2) | < 0.001* |
| No TA | 5.8 (1.3) | |||
| Cell Type | Cadaver (control) | 6.6 (1.4) | 0.921 | |
| CTS patient | 6.1 (1.3) | |||
| Stiffness (mN/mm) | Treatment Type | TA | 1.1 (0.4) | < 0.001* |
| No TA | 0.7 (0.3) | |||
| Cell Type | Cadaver (control) | 0.8 (0.3) | 0.004* | |
| CTS patient | 1.0 (0.4) |
* = Statistically significant
Summary of analysis of the effect of TA, separately by gel type
| Outcome | Cell Type | TA | Mean (SD) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Decay Time Constant (days−1) | Cadaver (control) | No TA | 1.9 (0.8) | < 0.001* |
| TA | 3.0(1.2) | |||
| CTS patient | No TA | 2.5 (0.6) | 0.225 | |
| TA | 2.7 (0.8) | |||
| Tensile Strength (mN) | Cadaver (control) | No TA | 5.8 (1.3) | < 0.001* |
| TA | 7.4 (1.0) | |||
| CTS patient | No TA | 5.8 (1.4) | 0.157 | |
| TA | 6.5 (1.2) | |||
| Stiffness (mN/mm) | Cadaver (control) | No TA | 0.6 (0.1) | < 0.001* |
| TA | 1.0 (0.3) | |||
| CTS patient | No TA | 0.9 (0.3) | 0.042* | |
| TA | 1.2 (0.4) |
Fig. 2a Decay time constant means, b Tensile strength means and c Stiffness means for the cell type and treatment type. Bars denote mean ± SD. Two-way ANOVA showed significant effects of cell type and treatment type. †p < 0.05, TA treatment overall compared with vehicle control; ‡p < 0.05, patient overall compared with control; *p < 0.05, significant difference between groups in individual factors
Fig. 3a Human fibrosis array and b Cell motility array relative fold change in genes from the patient group without TA treatment compared to the control group without TA treatment. (* indicates significant differences, p < 0.05)
Fig. 4a Human fibrosis array and b Cell motility array relative fold change in genes from the patient group with TA treatment compared to the patient group without TA treatment. (* indicates significant differences, p < 0.05)
Fig. 5Confirmation of the arrays’ gene expressions was analyzed by quantitative RT-PCR between a the untreated patient group (Cveh) and the untreated control group (Pveh) (results are normalized to the untreated control group); b the treated patient group (Pta) and the untreated patient group (results are normalized to the untreated patient group). (* indicates significant differences, p < 0.05)