METHODS: Primary SFb isolated from knee synovium of OA obese (OA-ob:SFb), OA-pre-obese (OA-Pob:SFb), non-OA arthroscopic (scope:SFb), and non-OA arthroscopic with cartilage damage (scope-CD:SFb) were exposed to OA-conditioned media (OACM), derived from OA obese (OA-ob:CM), OA-pre-obese (OA-Pob:CM), and mechanical stretch at either 0 %, 6 % or 10 % for 24 h. Differences in the mRNA levels of genes involved in extracellular matrix production, inflammation and secretory activity were measured.
RESULTS: Despite the significant BMI differences between the OA-ob and OA-Pob groups, OA-Pob has more patients with underlying dyslipidaemia, and low-grade synovitis with higher levels of secreted proteins, CXCL8, COL4A1, CCL4, SPARC and FGF2 in OA-Pob:CM. All primary SFb exhibited anti-proliferative activity with both OA-CM. Mechanical stretch stimulated lubricin production in scope:SFb, higher TGFβ1 and COL1A1 expressions in scope-CD:SFb. OA-Pob:CM stimulated greater detrimental effects than the OA-ob:CM, with higher pro-inflammatory cytokines, IL1β, IL6, COX2 and proteases such as aggrecanases, ADAMTS4 and ADAMTS5, and lower ECM matrix, COL1A1 expressions in all SFb. OA-ob:SFb were unresponsive but expressed higher pro-inflammatory cytokines under OA-Pob:CM treatment.
CONCLUSION: Both mechanical and inflammatory stressors regulate SFb molecular functions with heterogeneity in responses that are dependent on their pathological tissue of origins. While mechanical stretch promotes a favorable effect with enhanced lubricin production in scope:SFb and TGFβ1 and COL1A1 in scope-CD:SFb, the presence of excessively high OA-associated inflammatory mediators in OA-Pob:CM, predominantly SPARC, CXCL8 and FGF2 drive all SFb regardless of pathology, towards greater pro-inflammatory activities.
METHODS: The decellularization was achieved using a developed closed sonication treatment system for 10 hrs, and continued with a washing process for 5 days. For the control, a simple immersion treatment was set as a benchmark to compare the decellularization efficiency. Histological and biochemical assays were conducted to investigate the cell removal and retention of the vital extracellular matrix. Surface ultrastructure of the prepared scaffolds was evaluated using scanning electron microscope at 5,000× magnification viewed from cross and longitudinal sections. In addition, the biomechanical properties were investigated through ball indentation testing to study the stiffness, residual forces and compression characteristics. Statistical significance between the samples was determined with p-value =0.05.
RESULTS: Histological and biochemical assays confirmed the elimination of antigenic cellular components with the retention of the vital extracellular matrix within the sonicated scaffolds. However, there was a significant removal of sulfated glycosaminoglycans. The surface histoarchitecture portrayed the preserved collagen fibril orientation and arrangement. However, there were minor disruptions on the structure, with few empty micropores formed which represented cell lacunae. The biomechanical properties of bioscaffolds showed the retention of viscoelastic behavior of the scaffolds which mimic native tissues. After immersion treatment, those scaffolds had poor results compared to the sonicated scaffolds due to the inefficiency of the treatment.
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, this study reported that the closed sonication treatment system had high capabilities to prepare ideal bioscaffolds with excellent removal of cellular components, and retained extracellular matrix and biomechanical properties.