Clinical Research on Foot & Ankle
Open Access

Chemokines; Receptors; Synovial TISSUE; Rheumatoid arthritis; Osteoarthritis; Reactive arthritis

Introduction

Arthritis is a group of inflammatory joint diseases that can significantly impact the quality of life [1]. The three primary types of arthritis examined in this study rheumatoid arthritis (RA), osteoarthritis (OA), and reactive arthritis (ReA) each present with distinct pathophysiological features and clinical manifestations. Understanding the molecular differences among these types is crucial for developing targeted therapeutic strategies. Rheumatoid Arthritis is characterized by chronic inflammation of the synovial membrane, leading to joint destruction and systemic symptoms. This inflammation is driven by a complex network of cytokines and chemokines, which attract and activate immune cells in the synovial tissue. Chemokines, such as CXCL8 and CCL2, and their receptors play pivotal roles in this inflammatory process, influencing disease progression and severity [2]. Osteoarthritis primarily involves degenerative changes in the joint cartilage, often accompanied by low-grade inflammation of the synovial membrane. The inflammatory response in OA is typically less intense than in RA but still involves specific chemokines and receptors associated with tissue remodeling and repair. Understanding the expression of these molecules in OA can provide insights into the disease's progression and potential therapeutic targets. Arthritis is an inflammatory condition that occurs in response to an infection elsewhere in the body, leading to acute inflammation of the joints. The synovial tissue in ReA exhibits a unique profile of chemokine expression related to acute inflammatory responses and infection-induced immune activation. This study aims to elucidate the differences in chemokine and receptor expression across synovial tissues from RA, OA, and ReA patients [3-6]. By comparing these profiles, we seek to identify distinctive molecular markers associated with each arthritis type and gain a better understanding of their respective inflammatory mechanisms. This knowledge is essential for improving diagnostic precision and developing targeted therapies for each arthritis subtype.

Materials and Methods

The study included synovial tissue samples from number patients, categorized into three groups: rheumatoid arthritis (RA), osteoarthritis (OA), and reactive arthritis (ReA). All participants provided informed consent, and the study was approved. Patients were selected based on clinical diagnosis and confirmed by radiological or serological tests [7]. Exclusion criteria included recent joint surgery or other systemic inflammatory diseases. Synovial tissue samples were obtained from patients undergoing arthroscopic surgery or joint biopsy. Tissue samples were immediately frozen in liquid nitrogen or fixed in formalin for subsequent analysis. The samples were stored at -80°C until processed. Fixed tissue samples were embedded in paraffin and sectioned at 5 µm. Sections were deparaffinized, rehydrated, and subjected to antigen retrieval. Incubation with primary antibodies against chemokines (e.g., CXCL8, CCL2) and their receptors (e.g., CXCR1, CCR2) was followed by appropriate secondary antibodies and detection using an avidin-biotin complex method. Negative controls included sections treated with non-specific IgG. Positive controls included tissues known to express the target molecules. Immunostaining intensity and distribution were assessed using light microscopy and analyzed with image analysis software.

Total RNA was extracted from frozen tissue samples using specific RNA extraction kit [8]. cDNA was synthesized from RNA using a reverse transcription kit. qPCR was performed with specific primers for chemokines and their receptors. Relative expression levels were normalized to housekeeping genes (e.g., GAPDH) [9]. PCR reactions included no-template controls and samples without reverse transcriptase to check for contamination. The intensity of staining and percentage of positively stained cells were quantified using image analysis software and compared across RA, OA, and ReA groups. Statistical significance was determined using ANOVA with post-hoc tests for multiple comparisons (e.g., Tukey's test). Relative gene expression levels were calculated using the CT method. Statistical comparisons between groups were performed using t-tests or ANOVA, with a significance level set at p < 0.05. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved. Informed consent was obtained from all participants [10]. Potential limitations of this study include the variability in sample sizes across groups and the cross-sectional nature of the data, which may limit the ability to infer causation.

Conclusion

This study provides a comprehensive analysis of chemokine and receptor expression in synovial tissues from patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), osteoarthritis (OA), and reactive arthritis (ReA). The findings reveal distinct expression profiles associated with each type of arthritis, highlighting the unique inflammatory and immune responses in these conditions. Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) exhibited elevated levels of pro-inflammatory chemokines and their receptors, such as CXCL8 and CXCR1, reflecting the intense and chronic inflammation characteristic of this disease. This elevated expression underscores the role of these molecules in driving the persistent inflammatory response and joint damage observed in RA. Osteoarthritis (OA) showed increased expression of chemokines associated with tissue remodeling and repair, indicating a different inflammatory and degenerative process compared to RA. The findings suggest that while inflammation is present, it is more chronic and less acute, focusing on joint degeneration rather than acute immune activation. Arthritis (ReA) displayed a unique profile with heightened levels of chemokines related to acute inflammation, such as CCL2. This expression pattern aligns with the acute, infection-driven inflammatory response typical of ReA, highlighting the rapid and intense immune activation in response to external triggers. These results enhance our understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying each type of arthritis and emphasize the potential for targeting specific chemokines and receptors in treatment strategies. The distinct profiles observed suggest that tailored therapeutic approaches could be more effective, addressing the specific inflammatory pathways active in each type of arthritis. Future research should explore the functional roles of these chemokines and receptors in arthritis pathogenesis and their potential as biomarkers for disease progression or response to therapy. Additionally, longitudinal studies could provide further insights into how these expression profiles change over time and influence treatment outcomes. In summary, this study underscores the importance of understanding the molecular differences in synovial tissue expression across various arthritis types, which could inform the development of targeted therapies and improve patient management strategies.

Acknowledgement

None

Conflict of Interest

None

1. Schmale GA, Conrad EU, Raskind WH (1994) the natural history of hereditary multiple exostoses. J Bone Jt Surg 76: 986-992.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

2. Le Merrer M, Legeai-Mallet L, Jeannin PM, Horsthemke B, Schinzel A, et al. (1994) A gene for hereditary multiple exostoses maps to chromosome 19p. Hum Mol Genet 3: 717–722.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

3. Tomlin JL, Sturgeon C, Pead MJ, Muir P (2000) Use of the bisphosphonate drug alendronate for palliative management of osteosarcoma in two dogs. Vet Rec 147: 129-32.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

4. Choi H, Charnsangavej C, Faria SC (2007) Correlation of computed tomography and positron emission tomography in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor treated at a single institution with imatinib mesylate: proposal of new computed tomography response criteria. J Clin Oncol 25: 1753-1759.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

5. Taniguchi S, Ryu J, Seki M (2012) Long-term oral administration of glucosamine or chondroitin sulfate reduces destruction of cartilage and up-regulation of MMP-3 mRNA in a model of spontaneous osteoarthritis in Hartley guinea pigs. J Orthop Res 30: 673-678.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

6. Leffler CT, Philippi AF, Leffler SG, Mosure JC, Kim PD, et al. (1999) Glucosamine, chondroitin, and manganese ascorbate for degenerative joint disease of the knee or low back: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study. Mil Med 164: 85-91.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

7. Joseph C (1910) Benign Bone Cysts, Ostitis Fibrosa, Giant-Cell Sarcoma and Bone Aneurism of the Long Pipe Bones. Annals of Surgery 52: 145-185.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

8. Kivioja A, Ervasti H, Kinnunen J, Kaitila I, Wolf M, et al. (2000) Chondrosarcoma in a family with multiple hereditary exostoses. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British Volume 82: 261-266.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

9. Sinusas K (2012) Osteoarthritis: diagnosis and treatment. Am Fam Physician 1: 49-56.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

10. Liu-Bryan R(2013) Synovium and the innate inflammatory network in osteoarthritis progression.Curr Rheumatol Rep15: 323-356.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref