Proteomic differences between native and tissue‐engineered tendon and ligament |
| |
| Authors: | Yalda A Kharaz Simon R Tew Mandy Peffers Elizabeth G Canty‐Laird Eithne Comerford |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Department of Musculoskeletal Biology, Institute of Ageing and Chronic Disease, University of Liverpool, Leahurst Campus, Neston, UK;2. The MRC‐Arthritis Research UK Centre for Integrated Research into Musculoskeletal Ageing (CIMA), Liverpool, UK |
| |
| Abstract: | Tendons and ligaments (T/Ls) play key roles in the musculoskeletal system, but they are susceptible to traumatic or age‐related rupture, leading to severe morbidity as well as increased susceptibility to degenerative joint diseases such as osteoarthritis. Tissue engineering represents an attractive therapeutic approach to treating T/L injury but it is hampered by our poor understanding of the defining characteristics of the two tissues. The present study aimed to determine differences in the proteomic profile between native T/Ls and tissue engineered (TE) T/L constructs. The canine long digital extensor tendon and anterior cruciate ligament were analyzed along with 3D TE fibrin‐based constructs created from their cells. Native tendon and ligament differed in their content of key structural proteins, with the ligament being more abundant in fibrocartilaginous proteins. 3D T/L TE constructs contained less extracellular matrix (ECM) proteins and had a greater proportion of cellular‐associated proteins than native tissue, corresponding to their low collagen and high DNA content. Constructs were able to recapitulate native T/L tissue characteristics particularly with regard to ECM proteins. However, 3D T/L TE constructs had similar ECM and cellular protein compositions indicating that cell source may not be an important factor for T/L tissue engineering. |
| |
| Keywords: | 3D tissue engineered ligament construct 3D tissue engineered tendon constructs Ligament Proteomics Tendon Technology |
|
|
