Can UVA-light-activated riboflavin-induced collagen crosslinking be transferred from ophthalmology to spine surgery? A feasibility study on bovine intervertebral disc.
Animals
Annulus Fibrosus
/ cytology
Cattle
Cell Survival
/ radiation effects
Collagen
/ chemistry
Feasibility Studies
Gene Expression
/ radiation effects
Intervertebral Disc
/ cytology
Mitochondria
/ metabolism
Proto-Oncogene Proteins c-fos
/ genetics
Riboflavin
/ chemistry
Tumor Suppressor Protein p53
/ genetics
Ultraviolet Rays
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
15
01
2021
accepted:
19
05
2021
entrez:
3
6
2021
pubmed:
4
6
2021
medline:
18
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Collagen cross-links contribute to the mechanical resilience of the intervertebral disc (IVD). UVA-light-activated riboflavin-induced collagen crosslinking (UVA-CXL) is a well-established and effective ophthalmological intervention that increases the mechanical rigidity of the collagen-rich corneal matrix in Keratoconus. This study explores the feasibility, safety and efficacy of translating this intervention in reinforcing the IVD. Annulus fibrosus (AF) cells were isolated from bovine IVDs and treated with different combinations of riboflavin (RF) concentrations (0.05-8 mM) and UVA light intensities (0.3-4 mW/cm2). Metabolic activity (resazurin assay), cell viability (TUNEL assay), and gene expression of apoptosis regulators C-FOS and PT5 were assessed immediately and 24 hours after treatment. Biomechanical effects of UVA-CXL on IVDs were measured by indentation analysis of changes in the instantaneous modulus and by peel-force delamination strength analysis of the AF prior and after treatment. Different intensities of UVA did not impair the metabolic activity of AF cells. However, RF affected metabolic activity (p < 0.001). PT53 expression was similar in all RF conditions tested while C-FOS expression decreased 24 hours after treatment. Twenty-four hours after treatment, no apoptotic cells were observed in any condition tested. Biomechanical characterizations showed a significant increase in the annular peel strength of the UVA-CXL group, when compared to controls of UVA and RF alone (p < 0.05). UVA-CXL treated IVDs showed up to 152% higher (p < 0.001) instantaneous modulus values compared to the untreated control. This is the first study on UVA-CXL treatment of IVD. It induced significantly increased delamination strength and instantaneous modulus indentation values in intact IVD samples in a structure-function relationship. RF concentrations and UVA intensities utilized in ophthalmological clinical protocols were well tolerated by the AF cells. Our findings suggest that UVA-CXL may be a promising tool to reinforce the IVD matrix.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Collagen cross-links contribute to the mechanical resilience of the intervertebral disc (IVD). UVA-light-activated riboflavin-induced collagen crosslinking (UVA-CXL) is a well-established and effective ophthalmological intervention that increases the mechanical rigidity of the collagen-rich corneal matrix in Keratoconus. This study explores the feasibility, safety and efficacy of translating this intervention in reinforcing the IVD.
METHODS
Annulus fibrosus (AF) cells were isolated from bovine IVDs and treated with different combinations of riboflavin (RF) concentrations (0.05-8 mM) and UVA light intensities (0.3-4 mW/cm2). Metabolic activity (resazurin assay), cell viability (TUNEL assay), and gene expression of apoptosis regulators C-FOS and PT5 were assessed immediately and 24 hours after treatment. Biomechanical effects of UVA-CXL on IVDs were measured by indentation analysis of changes in the instantaneous modulus and by peel-force delamination strength analysis of the AF prior and after treatment.
RESULTS
Different intensities of UVA did not impair the metabolic activity of AF cells. However, RF affected metabolic activity (p < 0.001). PT53 expression was similar in all RF conditions tested while C-FOS expression decreased 24 hours after treatment. Twenty-four hours after treatment, no apoptotic cells were observed in any condition tested. Biomechanical characterizations showed a significant increase in the annular peel strength of the UVA-CXL group, when compared to controls of UVA and RF alone (p < 0.05). UVA-CXL treated IVDs showed up to 152% higher (p < 0.001) instantaneous modulus values compared to the untreated control.
CONCLUSION
This is the first study on UVA-CXL treatment of IVD. It induced significantly increased delamination strength and instantaneous modulus indentation values in intact IVD samples in a structure-function relationship. RF concentrations and UVA intensities utilized in ophthalmological clinical protocols were well tolerated by the AF cells. Our findings suggest that UVA-CXL may be a promising tool to reinforce the IVD matrix.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34081754
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252672
pii: PONE-D-21-01556
pmc: PMC8174733
doi:
Substances chimiques
Proto-Oncogene Proteins c-fos
0
Tumor Suppressor Protein p53
0
Collagen
9007-34-5
Riboflavin
TLM2976OFR
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0252672Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Lancet. 2015 Aug 22;386(9995):743-800
pubmed: 26063472
Arthritis Res Ther. 2003;5(3):120-30
pubmed: 12723977
Exp Ther Med. 2019 Feb;17(2):1367-1373
pubmed: 30680015
Clin Ophthalmol. 2019 Apr 02;13:581-588
pubmed: 31040638
J Biomater Sci Polym Ed. 1999;10(1):63-78
pubmed: 10091923
Lancet. 2018 Jun 9;391(10137):2356-2367
pubmed: 29573870
Pain Pract. 2008 Jan-Feb;8(1):18-44
pubmed: 18211591
Cornea. 2018 May;37(5):560-566
pubmed: 29319598
Ophthalmologica. 2014;232(1):10-27
pubmed: 24751584
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2007 Jan;22(1):14-20
pubmed: 17005305
J Biophotonics. 2020 Oct;13(10):e202000110
pubmed: 32589779
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 Aug 15;31(18):2151-61
pubmed: 16915105
Clin Chem. 2009 Apr;55(4):611-22
pubmed: 19246619
Eur J Ophthalmol. 2020 Nov;30(6):1256-1260
pubmed: 31505958
J Orthop Res. 2017 Apr;35(4):858-867
pubmed: 27279435
Mol Cell Biol. 1999 Apr;19(4):2594-600
pubmed: 10082525
Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2014;77(2):100-3
pubmed: 24503625
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015 Oct 15;40(20):1572-7
pubmed: 26731702
Eur Cell Mater. 2012 Feb 16;23:103-19; discussion 119-20
pubmed: 22354461
Biomed Opt Express. 2017 Sep 29;8(10):4788-4797
pubmed: 29082102
Eur Spine J. 2012 Sep;21(9):1716-23
pubmed: 22547212
Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 2005 May;37(5):961-76
pubmed: 15743671
Ophthalmology. 2017 Sep;124(9):1259-1270
pubmed: 28495149
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2016 Nov;42(11):1660-1665
pubmed: 27956294
Eur Spine J. 2008 Sep;17(9):1131-48
pubmed: 18584218
Eur Spine J. 2019 May;28(5):922-933
pubmed: 30689044
J R Soc Interface. 2015 Mar 6;12(104):20141191
pubmed: 25673296
J Med Biol Eng. 2017;37(1):94-101
pubmed: 30416413
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2015 Dec;36(12):2394-9
pubmed: 26359154
Ophthalmology. 2019 Jul;126(7):935-945
pubmed: 30858022
Ophthalmology. 2017 Oct;124(10):1475-1484
pubmed: 28655538
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998 Aug 1;23(15):1645-8
pubmed: 9704370
J Anat. 2002 Aug;201(2):159-71
pubmed: 12220124
J Biomech. 1972 Sep;5(5):541-51
pubmed: 4667277
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998 Dec 1;23(23):2545-51
pubmed: 9854753
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010 Jan;51(1):129-38
pubmed: 19643975
J Biomech. 1995 Feb;28(2):231-5
pubmed: 7896866