| Literature DB >> 32751156 |
Yuchen He1, Zhong Li1, Peter G Alexander1,2, Brian D Ocasio-Nieves1, Lauren Yocum1, Hang Lin1,2,3, Rocky S Tuan1,2,3,4.
Abstract
As the most common chronic degenerative joint disease, osteoarthritis (OA) is the leading cause of pain and physical disability, affecting millions of people worldwide. Mainly characterized by articular cartilage degradation, osteophyte formation, subchondral bone remodeling, and synovial inflammation, OA is a heterogeneous disease that impacts all component tissues of the articular joint organ. Pathological changes, and thus symptoms, vary from person to person, underscoring the critical need of personalized therapies. However, there has only been limited progress towards the prevention and treatment of OA, and there are no approved effective disease-modifying osteoarthritis drugs (DMOADs). Conventional treatments, including non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and physical therapy, are still the major remedies to manage the symptoms until the need for total joint replacement. In this review, we provide an update of the known OA risk factors and relevant mechanisms of action. In addition, given that the lack of biologically relevant models to recapitulate human OA pathogenesis represents one of the major roadblocks in developing DMOADs, we discuss current in vivo and in vitro experimental OA models, with special emphasis on recent development and application potential of human cell-derived microphysiological tissue chip platforms.Entities:
Keywords: disease modifying osteoarthritis drugs; experimental model; microphysiological systems; osteoarthritis; pathogenesis
Year: 2020 PMID: 32751156 PMCID: PMC7464998 DOI: 10.3390/biology9080194
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biology (Basel) ISSN: 2079-7737
Figure 1Risk factors, structural alterations, and chondrocyte-specific changes in osteoarthritis (OA).
Regulatory pathways mediating chondrocyte functions.
| Pathway | Cells Studied | Effects | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wnt/β-catenin |
Mouse and human OA tissues |
Upregulates MMPs and aggrecanases | [ |
|
Mouse knee chondrocytes |
Suppresses cartilage degeneration | [ | |
| PI3K/Akt/mTOR |
Rat chondrocytes |
Suppresses PI3K/Akt/mTOR promotes cartilage repair and attenuates inflammatory response | [ |
| Notch |
Mouse knee chondrocytes |
Induces OA-associated genes and promote OA | [ |
|
Required for articular cartilage and joint maintenance | [ | ||
| SIRT1/AMPK |
Human and rat knee chondrocytes |
Prevents OA progression by attenuating apoptosis and mitochondrial dysfunction | [ |
| Hippo/YAP/TAZ |
Human and rat knee chondrocytes |
Alleviates chondrocyte senescence and reduces matrix-degrading enzyme and cartilage degradation | [ |
|
Rat knee chondrocytes and human MSCs |
Suppresses YAP, preserves collagen type II expression, promotes chondrogenic differentiation of MSCs, and ameliorates OA development | [ | |
| DOT1L |
Mouse and human knee joints and chondrocytes |
Prevents OA onset and progression | [ |
Figure 2Regulatory factors and pathways involved in OA pathogenesis.
Advantages and limitations of current animal models for studying OA.
| In Vivo Models | Advantages | Limitations | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aging-induced spontaneous OA models |
Simulate natural progression of OA in human Target one of the most important OA risk factors |
Need long duration to induce OA High cost due to prolonged housing of animals Sex- and strain-dependent OA incidence | [ |
| Trauma-induced OA models |
Fast OA initiation and development Noninvasive trauma-induced models can be created with precision and minimum infection risk |
More severe trauma usually applied than common human knee injuries Much faster and more severe OA induction than in human patients Rely on expertise of surgeon/technician | [ |
| Obesity-induced OA models |
Target a key OA risk factor Replicate both altered joint biomechanics and systemic inflammation seen in obese OA patients |
Variability caused by interactions of obesity with genetic and environmental factors | [ |
| Chemically induced OA models |
Ease of OA induction Precise control of chemical dose |
Pathogenesis not typical of human OA Low translatability | [ |
| OA models involving genetic manipulations |
Enable studies on the protective/destructive roles of specific genes Facilitate investigations into unknown signaling pathways in OA Can be combined with other models in mechanistic studies |
High cost Tend to oversimplify OA pathogenesis Limited clinical relevance of OA induction by a specific gene mutation Most reported genetic manipulations target only cartilage | [ |
Advantages and disadvantages of current in vitro models for OA research.
| Current In Vitro Models | Advantages | Limitations | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monolayer culture |
Support convenient, high-throughput tests High reproducibility |
Do not replicate in vivo tissue niche Chondrocytes undergo dedifferentiation | [ |
| 3D engineered cartilage tissues |
Create a 3D microenvironment enabling cell–cell and/or cell–matrix interactions Higher chondrogenic potential than 2D culture |
Varying biological relevance for different 3D systems Other joint tissues not considered | [ |
| Tissue explant models |
Cells reside in their native environment Study physiology of cartilage as a whole tissue |
Properties strongly depend on donor and tissue harvest site Cell death at tissue edges | [ |
| Microphysiological systems |
Support culture of multiple 3D joint tissues to allow their crosstalk Controlled cell culture microenvironment Enable real-time, on-chip analysis Dynamic medium supply supported by microfluidic flow Convenient application of insults and drugs/treatments |
Variable biological accuracy due to non-standardized protocols Limited material selection for chip manufacture | [ |
Figure 3Schematics of cartilage- and osteochondral tissue-on-a-chip microphysiological system (MPS). (A–C) A cartilage-on-a-chip (COC) system. (A) The top and bottom chambers are separated by a polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) membrane. (B) The COC top chamber has a central channel (hosting the 3D microtissues, in blue) and two side channels (for medium supplementation, in red) separated by two rows of T-shaped hanging posts (in white). (C) Confined hyperphysiological compression is exerted on the microtissues by pressurizing the bottom actuation compartment of the COC system. (D) Schematic of generating the osteochondral tissues-on-a-chip microphysiological system (MPS). After mesenchymal progenitor cells (iMPCs) are encapsulated into a hydrogel scaffold and placed into a dual flow bioreactor, chondrogenic medium (CM) and osteogenic medium (OM) are perfused through the top and bottom flow, respectively, to induce formation of the biphasic osteochondral tissue, with cartilage at the top and bone at the bottom (photographic image of the tissue shown on the right). (Reproduced with permission from Occhetta et al. [249] and Lin et al. [252].)
Figure 4Design of a microphysiological system that simulates the in vivo crosstalk among bone, cartilage, synovium, and infrapatellar fat pad tissues. Each engineered tissue is connected to other tissues through either microfluidics or diffusion, and can thus interact with one another in a real-time manner. The plug-and-play design allows assessment of the contribution of each joint component in the process of OA pathogenesis.