Widespread epigenomic, transcriptomic and proteomic differences between hip osteophytic and articular chondrocytes in osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To identify molecular differences between chondrocytes from osteophytic and articular cartilage tissue from OA patients. Methods: We investigated genes and pathways by combining genome-wide DNA methylation, RNA sequencing and quantitative proteomics in isolated primary chondrocytes from the cartilaginous layer of osteophytes and matched areas of low- and high-grade articular cartilage across nine patients with OA undergoing hip replacement surgery. Results: Chondrocytes from osteophytic cartilage showed widespread differences to low-grade articular cartilage chondrocytes. These differences were similar to, but more pronounced than, differences between chondrocytes from osteophytic and high-grade articular cartilage, and more pronounced than differences between high- and low-grade articular cartilage. We identified 56 genes with significant differences between osteophytic chondrocytes and low-grade articular cartilage chondrocytes on all three omics levels. Several of these genes have known roles in OA, including ALDH1A2 and cartilage oligomeric matrix protein, which have functional genetic variants associated with OA from genome-wide association studies. An integrative gene ontology enrichment analysis showed that differences between osteophytic and low-grade articular cartilage chondrocytes are associated with extracellular matrix organization, skeletal system development, platelet aggregation and regulation of ERK1 and ERK2 cascade. Conclusion: We present a first comprehensive view of the molecular landscape of chondrocytes from osteophytic cartilage as compared with articular cartilage chondrocytes from the same joints in OA. We found robust changes at genes relevant to chondrocyte function, providing insight into biological processes involved in osteophyte development and thus OA progression.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".