| Literature DB >> 31355276 |
Azidah Abdul Kadir1,2, Arifah Abdul Kadir3, Roslida Abd Hamid4, Abdul Manan Mat Jais4,5, Julia Omar6, Abdul Nawfar Sadagatullah7, Salziyan Badrin2, Thin Thin Win8, K N S Sirajudeen6, Annas Salleh1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study is to evaluate the chondroprotective activity of Channa striatus (Channa) and glucosamine sulphate (glucosamine) on histomorphometric examinations, serum biomarker, and inflammatory mediators in experimental osteoarthritis (OA) rabbit model.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31355276 PMCID: PMC6636483 DOI: 10.1155/2019/6979585
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Schematic representation of typical histology specimen used for quantitative histology assessment.
Figure 2Macroscopic representative of the treatment groups. The control group ((a) and (b)) had more intense black patches on the articular surfaces indicating area of fissures or fibrillation compared to glucosamine ((c) and (d)) and Channa ((e) and (f)).
Macroscopic grading according to treatment groups.
| Group | lateral femur | medial femur | lateral tibia | medial tibia | total score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median (IQR) | |||||
| Channa striatus | 1.0 (0.0) | 1.0 (1.0) | 1.0 (0.0) | 1.0 (1.0) | 4.00 (2.0) |
| Glucosamine | 3.0 (2.0) | 2.0 (1.0)a | 2.0 (0.0) | 2.0 (2.0) | 9.00 (3.0) |
| Control | 3.0 (1.0) | 3.0 (1.0) | 2.0 (1.0) | 2.0 (1.0) | 10.00 (2.0) |
IQR- Interquartile range
p<0.05 compared with control group
p<0.05 compared with glucosamine group
Figure 3Sample histological sections of the treatment groups (magnification 10X). The control group ((a) and (b)) demonstrated higher severity grading of the structure component evidence by presence of erosion, fissures, and more chondrocyte loss compared to glucosamine ((c) and (d)) and Channa ((e) and (f)).
Figure 4Scores for histology semiquantitative grading in Channa, glucosamine, and control groups. Data are presented as mean ± SEM (n = 11 per group). Significant differences determined by one-Way ANOVA followed by Tukey's post hoc test. p<0.05 compared with the control group.
Figure 5Normalized cartilage roughness (RMS roughness/cartilage thickness) of the medial femoral condyles (μm) Note: results represent mean ± SEM. Significant differences determined by one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's post hoc test. p < 0.05 compared with control group, p < 0.05 compared with glucosamine group.
Figure 6Serum COMP, COX-2, and PGE2 among Channa, glucosamine, and control groups. Note: results represent mean ± SEM. Significant differences determined by one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnet's post hoc test. ∗ p < 0.05 compared with control group.
| 0 | normal |
| 1 | Surface irregularities |
| 2 | Fissures in < 50% surface |
| 3 | Fissures in ≥ 50% surface |
| 4 | Erosion 1/3 hyaline cartilage < 50% surface |
| 5 | Erosion 1/3 hyaline cartilage ≥ 50% surface |
| 6 | Erosion 2/3 hyaline cartilage < 50% surface |
| 7 | Erosion 2/3 hyaline cartilage ≥ 50% surface |
| 8 | Full depth erosion 2/3 hyaline cartilage < 50% surface |
| 9 | Full depth erosion 2/3 hyaline cartilage ≥ 50% surface |
| 10 | Full depth erosion hyaline cartilage and calcified cartilage to the subchondral bone < 50% |
| 11 | Full depth erosion hyaline cartilage and calcified cartilage to the subchondral bone ≥ 50% |
(b) Chondrocyte density
| 0 | No decrease in cells |
| 1 | Focal decrease in cells |
| 2 | Multifocal decrease in cells |
| 3 | Multifocal confluent decrease in cells |
| 4 | Diffuse decrease in cells |
(c) Cluster formation
| 0 | normal |
| 1 | < 4 clusters |
| 2 | ≥ 4 but < 8 clusters |
| 3 | ≥ 8 clusters |