Article

Urinary glycosaminoglycans in horse osteoarthritis. Effects of chondroitin sulfate and glucosamine

Departamento de Clínica Médica, Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia, Universidade de São Paulo, USP, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Research in Veterinary Science (Impact Factor: 1.51). 09/2011; 93(1):88-96. DOI: 10.1016/j.rvsc.2011.08.009
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Our objectives were to characterize the urinary excretion of glycosaminoglycans (GAGs) in horse osteoarthritis, and to investigate the effects of chondroitin sulfate (CS) and glucosamine (GlcN) upon the disease. Urinary GAGs were measured in 47 athletic horses, 20 healthy and 27 with osteoarthritis. The effects of CS and GlcN were investigated in mild osteoarthritis. In comparison to normal, urinary GAGs were increased in osteoarthritis, including mild osteoarthritis affecting only one joint. Treatment with CS+GlcN led to a long lasting increase in the urinary CS and keratan sulfate (KS), and significant improvement in flexion test of tarsocrural and metacarpophalangeal joints was observed. In conclusion, urinary CS and KS seems to reflect the turnover rates of cartilage matrix proteoglycans, and the measurement of these compounds could provide objective means of evaluating and monitoring joint diseases.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Raquel Y A Baccarin, Apr 22, 2015
1 Follower
 · 
176 Views
  • Source
    • "This disease is mainly characterized by primary degeneration of the articular cartilage and may affect one or several joints at the same time, affecting both young and adult animals (Weaver 1997). DJD is highly prevalent in humans (Brooks 2002) and in animals, especially in dogs (Biasi et al. 2005) and horses (Frisbie et al. 2008, Baccarin et al. 2012). DJD is also commonly reported in cattle (Persson et al. 2007, Heinola et al. 2013), but to date, descriptions of DJD in buffaloes and mini cattle have not been found in the literature. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A retrospective study of the epidemiological and clinic-pathological aspects of cattle and buffaloes with degenerative joint disease (DJD) was conducted in the state of Pará, Brazil. From 1999 to 2014, eleven cattle and 24 buffaloes were evaluated. All the treated animals with suspected DJD underwent a clinical examination of the musculoskeletal system. In seven cattle and eight buffaloes with clinical signs of the disease postmortem examination was performed. The common clinical signs observed in both species were chronic lameness, stiff gait, postural changes, audible crackles in the affected limb, prolonged recumbency, difficulty in getting up and progressive weight loss. The lesions observed at necropsy were: irregular articular surfaces, erosion of the articular cartilage and the underlying bone tissue, and proliferation of the periarticular bone tissue with formation of osteophytes. The most affected joints in cattle and buffaloes wereof the hind limb. In buffaloes, the main predisposing factor to the onset of DJD was phosphorus deficiency. In cattle, defects of the anatomical conformation of the hind limbs, chronic trauma due to the activities performed, such as semen collection, and advanced age possibly contributed to the emergence of the disease.
    Pesquisa Veterinária Brasileira 09/2014; 34(9):845-850. · 0.44 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The objective of osteoarthritis (OA) treatment is not only control of symptoms (i.e. reducing pain and improving function) but also to preserve joint structure and maintain quality of life. OA management remains challenging. Glucosamine and chondroitin are two compounds available for treatment of OA patients. Taken alone or in combination, they have a good safety profile and a variety of effects. In-vitro and in-vivo experiments have revealed that both compounds induced key intermediates in the OA pathophysiological process. Clinical trials, although providing conflicting and questionable results, report symptomatic and structure-modifying effects for both pharmaceutical-grade compounds. This review will discuss all these subjects and emphasize the importance of the quality of tested compounds for achieving high quality clinical trials.
    Current Rheumatology Reports 10/2013; 15(10):361. DOI:10.1007/s11926-013-0361-z · 2.45 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The finding of excess urinary glycosaminoglycans (GAG) is the first step in the laboratory diagnosis of mucopolysaccharidosis (MPS). Urinary screening tests are based upon the binding of GAG to dimethylmethylene blue. Alternatively, paper spot tests using toluidine blue are used in human and veterinary laboratory medicine. Positive samples undergo GAG isolation for subsequent characterization. Here, we describe a 3-year-old English Cocker Spaniel with a positive urinary GAG test, but without other clinical signs of MPS. Urine samples were strongly positive with the dimethylmethylene blue test, and isolated GAG subjected to electrophoresis on cellulose acetate revealed a band co-migrating with dermatan sulfate. However, the isolated GAG were resistant to digestion with chondroitinase ABC, suggesting that the band did not represent dermatan sulfate. This was confirmed by mobility of the isolated GAG different from dermatan sulfate on agarose gel electrophoresis. MPS types VI and VII were excluded by enzyme assay. To test the hypothesis of a nutritional source, a healthy control dog was fed the same dog food as the index case. His urine showed a comparable abnormal GAG screening test and electrophoretic pattern. In addition, the analysis of an algal supplement present in the administered dog food showed a similar electrophoretic GAG pattern. The Cocker Spaniel was not available for further testing after withdrawal of the supplement. Algae contain highly sulfated fucans and galactans, and it appears that commercial dog food containing such algal, and possibly other, supplements can give rise to false-positive urinary MPS screening tests.
    Veterinary Clinical Pathology 12/2013; 42(4):504-7. DOI:10.1111/vcp.12096 · 1.21 Impact Factor
Show more