Protein modification by deamidation indicates variations in joint extracellular matrix turnover.

Departments of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 27710, USA.
Journal of Biological Chemistry (Impact Factor: 4.6). 12/2011; 287(7):4640-51. DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M111.249649
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT As extracellular proteins age, they undergo and accumulate nonenzymatic post-translational modifications that cannot be repaired. We hypothesized that these could be used to systemically monitor loss of extracellular matrix due to chronic arthritic diseases such as osteoarthritis (OA). To test this, we predicted sites of deamidation in cartilage oligomeric matrix protein (COMP) and confirmed, by mass spectroscopy, the presence of deamidated (Asp(64)) and native (Asn(64)) COMP epitopes (mean 0.95% deamidated COMP (D-COMP) relative to native COMP) in cartilage. An Asp(64), D-COMP-specific ELISA was developed using a newly created monoclonal antibody 6-1A12. In a joint replacement study, serum D-COMP (p = 0.017), but not total COMP (p = 0.5), declined significantly after replacement demonstrating a joint tissue source for D-COMP. In analyses of 450 participants from the Johnston County Osteoarthritis Project controlled for age, gender, and race, D-COMP was associated with radiographic hip (p < 0.0001) but not knee (p = 0.95) OA severity. In contrast, total COMP was associated with radiographic knee (p < 0.0001) but not hip (p = 0.47) OA severity. D-COMP was higher in soluble proteins extracted from hip cartilage proximal to OA lesions compared with remote from lesions (p = 0.007) or lesional and remote OA knee (p < 0.01) cartilage. Total COMP in cartilage did not vary by joint site or proximity to the lesion. This study demonstrates the presence of D-COMP in articular cartilage and the systemic circulation, and to our knowledge, it is the first biomarker to show specificity for a particular joint site. We believe that enrichment of deamidated epitope in hip OA cartilage indicates a lesser repair response of hip OA compared with knee OA cartilage.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The identification and clinical demonstration of efficacy and safety of osteo- and chondro-protective drugs are met with certain difficulties. During the last few decades, the pharmaceutical industry has, in the field of rheumatology, experienced disappointments associated with the development of disease modification. Today, the vast amount of patients suffering from serious, chronic joint diseases can only be offered treatments aimed at improving symptoms, such as pain and acute inflammation, and are not aimed at protecting the joint tissue. This huge, unmet medical need has been the driver behind the development of improved analytical techniques allowing better and more efficient clinical trial design, implementation and analysis. With this review, we aim to provide a brief and general overview of biochemical markers of joint tissue, with special focus on neoepitopes. Furthermore, we highlight recent studies applying biochemical markers in joint degenerative diseases. These disorders, including osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and spondyloarthropathies, are the most predominant disorders in Europe and the USA, and have enormous socioeconomical impact.
    Biomarkers in Medicine 06/2014; 8(5):713-31. DOI:10.2217/bmm.13.144 · 2.86 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Innovations in biologics offer great promise in the treatment of patients with orthopaedic conditions and in advancing our ability to monitor underlying disease pathophysiology. Our understanding of the pathophysiology of hip osteoarthritis (OA) has improved significantly in the last decade. Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and hip dysplasia are increasingly recognized and treated as forms of prearthritic hip disease, yet the inability of radiographic and MR imaging to identify patients before the onset of irreversible articular cartilage injury limits their use for early diagnosis and treatment of patients with these conditions. Molecular biomarkers, as objectively measureable indicators of the pathophysiology of hip OA, have the potential to improve diagnosis, disease staging, and prognosis of hip OA and prearthritic hip disease. Although research into molecular biomarkers of hip OA has been conducted, investigations in prearthritic hip disease have only recently begun. The purpose of our review was to assess the use of molecular biomarkers in the pathophysiology of hip OA, including (1) diagnosis; (2) disease staging; and (3) prognosis. We additionally aimed to summarize the available literature investigating the use of biomarkers in (4) prearthritic hip disease, including FAI and hip dysplasia. We conducted a systematic review of molecular biomarkers associated with hip OA or prearthritic hip disease by searching four major electronic databases for keywords "hip", "osteoarthritis", "biomarker", and all synonyms. The search terms "femoroacetabular impingement" and "hip dysplasia" were also included. The biologic source of biomarkers was limited to serum, plasma, urine, and synovial fluid. The literature search yielded a total of 2740 results. Forty studies met all criteria and were included in our review. Studies were categorized regarding their relevance to (1) diagnosis; (2) disease staging; (3) prognosis; and/or (4) prearthritic hip disease. Biomarker studies were characterized as relevant to diagnosis (16 studies), disease staging (15 studies), prognosis (11 studies), and prearthritic hip disease (three studies). Sixteen different biomarkers demonstrated associations relevant to the diagnosis of hip OA, 16 biomarkers demonstrated similar associations for disease staging, and six for prognosis. Six biomarkers seemed to be the most promising, demonstrating associations with hip OA in multiple studies, including: urinary level of type II collagen telopeptide (n = 5 studies), serum cartilage oligomeric protein (n = 4 studies), and serum C-reactive protein (n = 4 studies). Only three studies investigated the role of biomarkers in prearthritic hip disease, including two in FAI and one in unspecified etiology of pain. There were no studies about biomarkers in hip dysplasia. Molecular biomarkers are increasingly investigated for their use in evaluating the pathophysiology of hip OA, but less so for prearthritic hip disease. Several biomarkers have demonstrated significant associations with hip OA across multiple studies. Further validation of these biomarkers is needed to assess their clinical use and potential application to prearthritic hip disease.
    Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 01/2015; 473(5). DOI:10.1007/s11999-015-4148-6 · 2.88 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The objective of this work was to describe requirements for inclusion of soluble biomarkers in osteoarthritis (OA) clinical trials and progress toward OA-related biomarker qualification. The Guidelines for Biomarkers Working Group, representing experts in the field of OA biomarker research from both academia and industry, convened to discuss issues related to soluble biomarkers and to make recommendations for their use in OA clinical trials based on current knowledge and anticipated benefits. This document summarizes current guidance on use of biomarkers in OA clinical trials and their utility at five stages, including preclinical development and phase I to phase IV trials. As demonstrated by this summary, biomarkers can provide value at all stages of therapeutics development. When resources permit, we recommend collection of biospecimens in all OA clinical trials for a wide variety of reasons but in particular, to determine whether biomarkers are useful in identifying those individuals most likely to receive clinically important benefits from an intervention; and to determine whether biomarkers are useful for identifying individuals at earlier stages of OA in order to institute treatment at a time more amenable to disease modification. Copyright © 2015 Osteoarthritis Research Society International. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
    Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 05/2015; 23(5):686-697. DOI:10.1016/j.joca.2015.03.002 · 4.66 Impact Factor