26
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Therapeutic potential of growth differentiation factors in the treatment of degenerative disc diseases

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Intervertebral disc (IVD) degeneration is a major contributing factor to chronic low back pain and disability, leading to imbalance between anabolic and catabolic processes, altered extracellular matrix composition, loss of tissue hydration, inflammation, and impaired mechanical functionality. Current treatments aim to manage symptoms rather than treat underlying pathology. Therefore, IVD degeneration is a target for regenerative medicine strategies. Research has focused on understanding the molecular process of degeneration and the identification of various factors that may have the ability to halt and even reverse the degenerative process. One such family of growth factors, the growth differentiation factor (GDF) family, have shown particular promise for disc regeneration in in vitro and in vivo models of IVD degeneration. This review outlines our current understanding of IVD degeneration, and in this context, aims to discuss recent advancements in the use of GDF family members as anabolic factors for disc regeneration. An increasing body of evidence indicates that GDF family members are central to IVD homeostatic processes and are able to upregulate healthy nucleus pulposus cell marker genes in degenerative cells, induce mesenchymal stem cells to differentiate into nucleus pulposus cells and even act as chemotactic signals mobilizing resident cell populations during disc injury repair. The understanding of GDF signaling and its interplay with inflammatory and catabolic processes may be critical for the future development of effective IVD regeneration therapies.

          Related collections

          Most cited references163

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Role of cytokines in intervertebral disc degeneration: pain and disc content.

          Degeneration of the intervertebral discs (IVDs) is a major contributor to back, neck and radicular pain. IVD degeneration is characterized by increases in levels of the proinflammatory cytokines TNF, IL-1α, IL-1β, IL-6 and IL-17 secreted by the IVD cells; these cytokines promote extracellular matrix degradation, chemokine production and changes in IVD cell phenotype. The resulting imbalance in catabolic and anabolic responses leads to the degeneration of IVD tissues, as well as disc herniation and radicular pain. The release of chemokines from degenerating discs promotes the infiltration and activation of immune cells, further amplifying the inflammatory cascade. Leukocyte migration into the IVD is accompanied by the appearance of microvasculature tissue and nerve fibres. Furthermore, neurogenic factors, generated by both disc and immune cells, induce expression of pain-associated cation channels in the dorsal root ganglion. Depolarization of these ion channels is likely to promote discogenic and radicular pain, and reinforce the cytokine-mediated degenerative cascade. Taken together, an enhanced understanding of the contribution of cytokines and immune cells to these catabolic, angiogenic and nociceptive processes could provide new targets for the treatment of symptomatic disc disease. In this Review, the role of key inflammatory cytokines during each of the individual phases of degenerative disc disease, as well as the outcomes of major clinical studies aimed at blocking cytokine function, are discussed.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            What is intervertebral disc degeneration, and what causes it?

            Review and reinterpretation of existing literature. To suggest how intervertebral disc degeneration might be distinguished from the physiologic processes of growth, aging, healing, and adaptive remodeling. The research literature concerning disc degeneration is particularly diverse, and there are no accepted definitions to guide biomedical research, or medicolegal practice. The process of disc degeneration is an aberrant, cell-mediated response to progressive structural failure. A degenerate disc is one with structural failure combined with accelerated or advanced signs of aging. Early degenerative changes should refer to accelerated age-related changes in a structurally intact disc. Degenerative disc disease should be applied to a degenerate disc that is also painful. Structural defects such as endplate fracture, radial fissures, and herniation are easily detected, unambiguous markers of impaired disc function. They are not inevitable with age and are more closely related to pain than any other feature of aging discs. Structural failure is irreversible because adult discs have limited healing potential. It also progresses by physical and biologic mechanisms, and, therefore, is a suitable marker for a degenerative process. Biologic progression occurs because structural failure uncouples the local mechanical environment of disc cells from the overall loading of the disc, so that disc cell responses can be inappropriate or "aberrant." Animal models confirm that cell-mediated changes always follow structural failure caused by trauma. This definition of disc degeneration simplifies the issue of causality: excessive mechanical loading disrupts a disc's structure and precipitates a cascade of cell-mediated responses, leading to further disruption. Underlying causes of disc degeneration include genetic inheritance, age, inadequate metabolite transport, and loading history, all of which can weaken discs to such an extent that structural failure occurs during the activities of daily living. The other closely related definitions help to distinguish between degenerate and injured discs, and between discs that are and are not painful.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Expenditures and health status among adults with back and neck problems.

              Back and neck problems are among the symptoms most commonly encountered in clinical practice. However, few studies have examined national trends in expenditures for back and neck problems or related these trends to health status measures. To estimate inpatient, outpatient, emergency department, and pharmacy expenditures related to back and neck problems in the United States from 1997 through 2005 and to examine associated trends in health status. Age- and sex-adjusted analysis of the nationally representative Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) from 1997 to 2005 using complex survey regression methods. The MEPS is a household survey of medical expenditures weighted to represent national estimates. Respondents were US adults (> 17 years) who self-reported back and neck problems (referred to as "spine problems" based on MEPS descriptions and International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification definitions). Spine-related expenditures for health services (inflation-adjusted); annual surveys of self-reported health status. National estimates were based on annual samples of survey respondents with and without self-reported spine problems from 1997 through 2005. A total of 23 045 respondents were sampled in 1997, including 3139 who reported spine problems. In 2005, the sample included 22 258 respondents, including 3187 who reported spine problems. In 1997, the mean age- and sex-adjusted medical costs for respondents with spine problems was $4695 (95% confidence interval [CI], $4181-$5209), compared with $2731 (95% CI, $2557-$2904) among those without spine problems (inflation-adjusted to 2005 dollars). In 2005, the mean age- and sex- adjusted medical expenditure among respondents with spine problems was $6096 (95% CI, $5670-$6522), compared with $3516 (95% CI, $3266-$3765) among those without spine problems. Total estimated expenditures among respondents with spine problems increased 65% (adjusted for inflation) from 1997 to 2005, more rapidly than overall health expenditures. The estimated proportion of persons with back or neck problems who self-reported physical functioning limitations increased from 20.7% (95% CI, 19.9%-21.4%) to 24.7% (95% CI, 23.7%-25.6%) from 1997 to 2005. Age- and sex-adjusted self-reported measures of mental health, physical functioning, work or school limitations, and social limitations among adults with spine problems were worse in 2005 than in 1997. In this survey population, self-reported back and neck problems accounted for a large proportion of health care expenditures. These spine-related expenditures have increased substantially from 1997 to 2005, without evidence of corresponding improvement in self-assessed health status.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                judith.a.hoyland@manchester.ac.uk
                s.richardson@manchester.ac.uk
                Journal
                JOR Spine
                JOR Spine
                10.1002/(ISSN)2572-1143
                JSP2
                JOR Spine
                John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (Hoboken, USA )
                2572-1143
                08 March 2019
                March 2019
                : 2
                : 1 ( doiID: 10.1002/jsp2.2019.2.issue-1 )
                : e1045
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Division of Cell Matrix Biology and Regenerative Medicine, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre Manchester UK
                [ 2 ] Centre for the Cellular Microenvironment, Institute of Molecular, Cell and Systems Biology, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences University of Glasgow Glasgow UK
                [ 3 ] St. George Clinical School University of New South Wales Sydney New South Wales Australia
                [ 4 ] NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester University Foundation Trust Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre Manchester UK
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Judith A. Hoyland, Division of Cell Matrix Biology and Regenerative Medicine, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PT, UK.

                Email: judith.a.hoyland@ 123456manchester.ac.uk

                Stephen M. Richardson, Division of Cell Matrix Biology and Regenerative Medicine, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PT, UK.

                Email: s.richardson@ 123456manchester.ac.uk

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3242-1593
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1037-8421
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4876-5208
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7637-4135
                Article
                JSP21045
                10.1002/jsp2.1045
                6686806
                31463459
                f42cc369-fe31-444c-9c1a-7d1c1f89750b
                © 2019 The Authors. JOR Spine published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Orthopaedic Research Society

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 07 November 2018
                : 16 January 2019
                : 04 February 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 3, Pages: 15, Words: 14213
                Funding
                Funded by: BBSRC/EPSRC/MRC UK Regenerative Medicine Platform
                Award ID: MR/K026682/1
                Funded by: Medical Research Council
                Award ID: MC_PC_14112 v.2
                Funded by: National Institute for Health Research
                Award ID: Manchester Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Uni
                Funded by: Medical Research Council via a Confidence‐in‐Concept award to The University of Manchester
                Award ID: MC_PC_14112 v.2
                Funded by: Medical Research Council via the UK Regenerative Medicine Platform Hubs
                Award ID: MR/K026682/1
                Funded by: Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
                Funded by: Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
                Categories
                Review
                Reviews
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                jsp21045
                March 2019
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_NLMPMC version:5.6.7 mode:remove_FC converted:05.08.2019

                annulus fibrosus,bone morphogenetic protein,cartilage derived morphogenetic protein (cdmp),growth differentiation factor (gdf),intervertebral disc degeneration, nucleus pulposus,mesenchymal stem cell

                Comments

                Comment on this article