Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28666451›Full record

ArticleArthritis research & therapy2017

Autologous chondrocyte implantation-derived synovial fluids display distinct responder and non-responder proteomic profiles.

Charlotte H Hulme, Emma L Wilson, Mandy J Peffers, Sally Roberts, Deborah M Simpson, James B Richardson, Pete Gallacher, Karina T Wright

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Arthritis research & therapy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Charlotte H HulmeInstitute of Science and Technology in Medicine, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK.
Emma L WilsonRobert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic Hospital, Oswestry, Shropshire, UK.
Mandy J PeffersInstitute of Ageing and Chronic Disease, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Sally RobertsInstitute of Science and Technology in Medicine, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK.
Deborah M SimpsonCentre for Proteome Research, Institute of Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
James B RichardsonInstitute of Science and Technology in Medicine, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK.
Pete GallacherRobert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic Hospital, Oswestry, Shropshire, UK.
Karina T WrightInstitute of Science and Technology in Medicine, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK. Karina.Wright@rjah.nhs.uk.
Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic Hospital · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GB

Funding

Arthritis Research UK 19429Arthritis Research UK 20815Arthritis Research UK 21122Medical Research Council MR/K006312/1Medical Research Council MR/L010453/1Versus Arthritis 18480Versus Arthritis 19429Versus Arthritis 20815Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAutologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) can be used in the treatment of focal cartilage injuries to prevent the onset of osteoarthritis (OA). However, we are yet to understand fully why some individuals do not respond well to this intervention. Identification of a reliable and accurate biomarker panel that can predict which patients are likely to respond well to ACI is needed in order to assign the patient to the most appropriate therapy. This study aimed to compare the baseline and mid-treatment proteomic profiles of synovial fluids (SFs) obtained from responders and non-responders to ACI.

methodsSFs were derived from 14 ACI responders (mean Lysholm improvement of 33 (17-54)) and 13 non-responders (mean Lysholm decrease of 14 (4-46)) at the two stages of surgery (cartilage harvest and chondrocyte implantation). Label-free proteome profiling of dynamically compressed SFs was used to identify predictive markers of ACI success or failure and to investigate the biological pathways involved in the clinical response to ACI.

resultsOnly 1 protein displayed a ≥2.0-fold differential abundance in the preclinical SF of ACI responders versus non-responders. However, there is a marked difference between these two groups with regard to their proteome shift in response to cartilage harvest, with 24 and 92 proteins showing ≥2.0-fold differential abundance between Stages I and II in responders and non-responders, respectively. Proteomic data has been uploaded to ProteomeXchange (identifier: PXD005220). We have validated two biologically relevant protein changes associated with this response, demonstrating that matrix metalloproteinase 1 was prominently elevated and S100 calcium binding protein A13 was reduced in response to cartilage harvest in non-responders.

conclusionsThe differential proteomic response to cartilage harvest noted in responders versus non-responders is completely novel. Our analyses suggest several pathways which appear to be altered in non-responders that are worthy of further investigation to elucidate the mechanisms of ACI failure. These protein changes highlight many putative biomarkers that may have potential for prediction of ACI treatment success.

Indexed as

Lysholm Knee ScoreSynovial FluidAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCartilage DiseasesChondrocytesCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProtein Interaction MapsProteomicsTransplantation, AutologousAutologous chondrocyte implantationLabel-free proteomicsSynovial fluid

Identifiers

PMID28666451
PMCPMC5493128
OpenAlexW2728209706

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.