| Literature DB >> 32155184 |
Franciele Dietrich-Zagonel1, Malin Hammerman1, Pernilla Eliasson1, Per Aspenberg1.
Abstract
We have previously shown that changes in the microbiome influence how the healing tendon responds to different treatments. The aim of this study was to investigate if changes in the microbiome influence the response to mechanical loading during tendon healing. 90 Sprague-Dawley rats were used. Specific Opportunist and Pathogen Free (SOPF) rats were co-housed with Specific Pathogen Free (SPF) rats, carrying Staphylococcus aureus and other opportunistic microbes. After 6 weeks of co-housing, the SOPF rats were contaminated which was confirmed by Staphylococcus aureus growth. Clean SOPF rats were used as controls. The rats were randomized to full loading or partial unloading by Botox injections in their calf muscles followed by complete Achilles tendon transection. Eight days later, the healing tendons were tested mechanically. The results were analysed by a 2-way ANOVA with interaction between loading and contamination on peak force as the primary outcome and there was an interaction for both peak force (p = 0.049) and stiffness (p = 0.033). Furthermore, partial unloading had a profound effect on most outcome variables. In conclusion, the response to mechanical loading during tendon healing is influenced by changes in the microbiome. Studies aiming for clinical relevance should therefore consider the microbiome of laboratory animals.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32155184 PMCID: PMC7064237 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229908
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Bacteria growing on CHROMagar Staph Chrom plates, from oral swabs of contaminate rats.
The pink colour means growth of S. aureus. The green colour means growth of other bacteria. Numbers mean: 3 dominant presence of S. aureus; 2 more than half; 1 means minimal; and 0 means no detected Staphyloccocus aureus. Only rats with growth grade 2 and 3 were used for data collection.
The gut bacterial flora of SOPF rats.
| 3100000 | < 100 | < 100 | 2800 | 100000000 | |
| 1500000 | < 100 | < 100 | 380 | 410000000 | |
| 920000 | < 100 | < 100 | 400 | 140000000 | |
| 5700000 | < 100 | < 100 | < 100 | 160000000 | |
| 110000 | < 100 | < 100 | 6200 | 470000000 | |
| 2266000 | Non detectable | Non detectable | 2445 | 256000000 | |
| 140000 | 36000 | 280000 | < 100 | 40000000 | |
| 160000 | 1600000 | 1600000 | < 100 | 42000000 | |
| 2000000 | 44000 | 320000 | < 100 | 40000000 | |
| 240000 | 460000 | 140000 | < 100 | 90000000 | |
| 3600000 | 28000 | 300000 | < 100 | 70000000 | |
| 1228000 | 433600 | 528000 | Non detectable | 56400000 |
Values are from SOPF clean (n = 5) and contaminated (n = 5) rats. Mean values are presented for each bacterial strain and the total amount of bacteria from faecal samples.
Mechanical results from clean and contaminated rats.
| Full loading X Botox | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Clean | Contaminated | ||
| Structural properties | Transverse area (mm2) | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Gap distance (mm) | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
| Peak force (N) | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
| Stiffness (N/mm) | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
| Energy uptake (N/mm) | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
| Material properties | |||
| Peak stress (Mpa) | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
| Estimate of E-modulus (Mpa) | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
Full loading vs Botox in SOPF animals.
| Clean | Contaminated | Full loading | Botox | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full loading | Botox | Full loading | Botox | p-value 2-way ANOVA Interaction | Ratio: Cont/clean | p-value t-test | Ratio: Cont/clean | p-value t-test | ||
| Mean - SD | Mean - SD | Mean - SD | Mean - SD | (Cont-Loading) | ||||||
| Transverse area (mm2) | 16.80 (4.0) | 10.68 (2.4) | 17.73 (3.6) | 10.83 (2.0) | 0.668 (0.563–0.001) | 1.06 | 0.51 | 1.01 | 0.88 | |
| Gap distance (mm) | 9.90 (0.8) | 3.52 (0.5) | 10.28 (1.2) | 3.96 (0.6) | 0.918 (0.097–0.001) | 1.04 | 0.32 | 1.13 | 0.06 | |
| Peak force (N) | 26.73 (3.7) | 9.68 (2.9) | 30.7 (6.7) | 8.51 (2.9) | 0.049 (0.278–0.001) | 1.15 | 0.06 | 0.87 | 0.35 | |
| Stiffness (N/mm) | 3.35 (0.9) | 2.18 (0.5) | 3.77 (0.7) | 1.71 (0.4) | 0.033 (0.908–0.001) | 1.12 | 0.18 | 0.78 | 0.04 | |
| Energy uptake (N/mm) | 70.26 (15.2) | 13.04 (4.4) | 72.45 (27.5) | 12.62 (5.7) | 0.789 (0.856–0.001) | 1.03 | 0.79 | 0.97 | 0.85 | |
| Peak stress (Mpa) | 1.65 (0.3) | 0.95 (0.4) | 1.78 (0.4) | 0.78 (0.2) | 0.149 (0.855–0.001) | 1.08 | 0.37 | 0.81 | 0.23 | |
| Estimate of E-modulus (Mpa) | 2.00 (0.5) | 0.76 (0.3) | 2.29 (0.8) | 0.64 (0.2) | 0.151 (0.571–0.001) | 1.15 | 0.22 | 0.84 | 0.27 | |
Clean animals: Full loading (n = 15), Botox (n = 15); Contaminated: Full loading (n = 14), Botox (n = 8). Values are mean and standard deviation (SD).
Fig 2Mechanical data for clean and contaminated rats.
Peak force and stiffness at 8 days after tendon transection with or without loading (Botox). Partial unloading by Botox reduced tendon force and stiffness in the clean and contaminated animals. Contamination decreased the stiffness on the partially unloaded animals. Boxes include median, interquartile range and total range (whiskers). (*) Means statistically significant difference (p<0.05).
Fig 3Experimental set-up.