| Literature DB >> 32062692 |
Hasmik Jasmine Samvelyan1, David Hughes1, Craig Stevens1, Katherine Ann Staines2.
Abstract
Osteoarthritis (OA) is a progressive and disabling musculoskeletal disease affecting millions of people and resulting in major healthcare costs worldwide. It is the most common form of arthritis, characterised by degradation of the articular cartilage, formation of osteophytes, subchondral sclerosis, synovial inflammation and ultimate loss of joint function. Understanding the pathogenesis of OA and its multifactorial aetiology will lead to the development of effective treatments, which are currently lacking. Two-dimensional (2D) in vitro tissue models of OA allow affordable, high-throughput analysis and stringent control over specific variables. However, they are linear in fashion and are not representative of physiological conditions. Recent in vitro studies have adopted three-dimensional (3D) tissue models of OA, which retain the advantages of 2D models and are able to mimic physiological conditions, thereby allowing investigation of additional variables including interactions between the cells and their surrounding extracellular matrix. Numerous spontaneous and induced animal models are used to reproduce the onset and monitor the progression of OA based on the aetiology under investigation. This therefore allows elucidation of the pathogenesis of OA and will ultimately enable the development of novel and specific therapeutic interventions. This review summarises the current understanding of in vitro and in vivo OA models in the context of disease pathophysiology, classification and relevance, thus providing new insights and directions for OA research.Entities:
Keywords: 3D cell culture; Ex vivo models; In vitro models; In vivo models; Osteoarthritis
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32062692 PMCID: PMC8403120 DOI: 10.1007/s00223-020-00670-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Calcif Tissue Int ISSN: 0171-967X Impact factor: 4.333
Advantages and disadvantages of in vitro models of osteoarthritis
| Model | Advantages | Disadvantages | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monolayer | Inexpensive, high throughput, exposes cells to equal volumes of nutrients and growth factors, allows for the preliminary investigation of the mechanisms underlying disease pathology, as well as assessment of the effects of specific compounds on cell phenotype | Can induce cell de-differentiation, alters cell morphology, cells can become polarised altering their phenotype, has limited potential for investigation into cell–cell and cell-ECM interactions, and has restricted capacity for investigation of loading on tissues | [ |
| Co-culture | Facilitates investigation into cell–cell and cell-ECM interactions, allows investigation of the effects of specific compounds on cell phenotypes and interactions, and facilitates investigation into loading regimens on the OA phenotype | Requires further refinement of culture conditions, can be costly, cells may de-differentiate depending on co-culture system (i.e. inclusion of a 2D component such as transwell plates) | [ |
| Explant | Considers tissues as a whole, facilitates investigation into cell–cell and cell-ECM interactions, and has potential for co-culture | Tissue sources are finite, explants are more financially costly than monolayer models, and cells at surgical edge of tissues may die and influence analysis | [ |
| Scaffold and scaffold-free systems | Maintains cell-differentiated phenotype. Can be highly modifiable. Allows investigation of the effects of stimulatory molecules such as cytokines on cells. May be included in a co-culture system, facilitates investigation into cell–cell and cell-ECM interactions under disease phenotype. Has potential to allow for investigating the effects of loading on cells in vitro | Can be costly, 3D culture is still in infancy, cell proliferation is decreased, a broad range of model systems and raw materials exist which can influence cell activity necessitating additional optimization for in vitro model development | [ |
Advantages and disadvantages of in vivo models of osteoarthritis
| Model | Advantages | Disadvantages | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Naturally occurring models | Spontaneous models, no need for intervention, used to study pathogenesis of naturally occurring OA, variable in OA manifestation such as in human OA | Time-consuming due to slow progression of OA, high cost | [ |
| Genetically modified models | Spontaneous models, easy to produce, used to study the contribution of specific genes in OA and develop disease-modifying treatments | High cost, production of additional cartilage abnormalities and potential lethal gene deletions | [ |
| Surgically induced models | Rapid progression of OA and therefore short study timeframe, reproducible, induces post-traumatic OA, allows the study of various lesions/stages of disease and assess therapeutic efficacy of agents for OA treatment | Inappropriate for studies of degenerative OA since generated by traumatic invasive intervention | [ |
| Chemically induced models | Most rapidly progressing OA, easy to implement, relatively less invasive than surgically induced models, reproducible, useful for short-term studies, allows the study of various lesions/stages of disease and assess therapeutic efficacy of pain-alleviating agents for OA treatment | Rapid and widespread changes generated by invasive intervention, poor correlation with the pathogenesis of human OA | [ |
| Non-invasive models | Non-invasive, severity of the lesions can be adjusted, low risk of infection, reproducible, allows the study of early OA changes after acute or chronic overuse injuries of joints and the effects of early therapeutic intervention | Equipment is not commonly available, several loading cycles and episodes are needed to induce severe OA changes, still in the early stages of understanding its application | [ |