Skip to content
naulon
Get started

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 20, 2026.

Models of osteoarthritis: the good, the bad and the promising

P.J. Cope, K. Ourradi, Y. Li and 1 more

Osteoarthritis and Cartilage · 2019 · Review · CC BY

doi:10.1016/j.joca.2018.09.016

Abstract

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a chronic degenerative disease of diarthrodial joints most commonly affecting people over the age of forty. The causes of OA are still unknown and there is much debate in the literature as to the exact sequence of events that trigger the onset of the heterogeneous disease we recognise as OA. There is currently no consensus model for OA that naturally reflects human disease. Existing ex-vivo models do not incorporate the important inter-tissue communication between joint components required for disease progression and differences in size, anatomy, histology and biomechanics between different animal models makes translation to the human model very difficult. This narrative review highlights the advantages and disadvantages of the current models used to study OA. It discusses the challenges of producing a more reliable OA-model and proposes a direction for the development of a consensus model that reflects the natural environment of human OA. We suggest that a human osteochondral plug-based model may overcome many of the fundamental limitations associated with animal and in-vitro models based on isolated cells. Such a model will also provide a platform for the development and testing of targeted treatment and validation of novel OA markers directly on human tissues.

Full text

From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 20, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.

Introduction

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a chronic degenerative disease of diarthrodial joints, predominantly affecting the spine and peripheral joints of the body, particularly the hands, hips, knees and feet. OA most commonly affects people over the age of forty, with the risk of disease increasing with age. OA is a complex heterogeneous disease with different clinical and biochemical phenotypes.

The cause(s) of OA are unknown, and many studies have suggested that the pathobiology of OA is far more complex than a simple cartilaginous or bone disease. It is now acknowledged that OA affects many joint structures, including degeneration of cartilage, abnormal bone remodelling and synovial inflammation,. Also, studies have shown that there is a complex interplay between the different joint components, making understanding of the degradative sequence of events involved in OA pathogenesis very difficult to dissect,,.

The initial onset of OA disease is considered due to an imbalance between the cartilage degradation and repair process,. The exact sequence of events that trigger the onset of the disease is however widely debated throughout the literature. One hypothesis, suggests that secretion of pro-inflammatory cytokines into the synovial joint induces matrix metalloproteinases which cause the fragmentation and degradation of cartilage extracellular matrix leading to bone remodelling and synovitis,,. Contrary to this theory, some studies suggest that subchondral bone remodelling and synovitis precede articular degeneration in the early stages of OA,,. While other studies suggest that meniscal degeneration evolving through fibrillation of tissue and a decrease in the levels of type I and II collagen within the meniscus, act as a predisposing or contributing factor to OA progression,. In the later stages of OA, formation of subchondral cysts, subchondral sclerosis and osteophytes occur as a direct result of bone remodelling, cartilage degradation and synovitis,,.

Treatment of OA is largely symptomatic due to insufficient understanding of aetiopathogenesis hindering the development of suitable disease-modifying drugs. This makes targeted treatment of OA a distinct challenge. Human OA tissue samples are usually collected for research once end stages of the disease have been reached, for example during joint replacement, by which time destructive changes in the joint are well established. This makes studying the early disease process very challenging. OA pathology, particularly early OA, is therefore very difficult to study, and so researchers turn to in-vivo and ex-vivo preclinical animal models to investigate early pathological changes in OA. These models offer unique advantages as well as limitations for studying human OA. This article will review the different models used for investigation of OA, discuss their advantages and disadvantages, and propose development of a gold standard model for OA that closely reflects natural human disease.

Current models used in OA research

OA research models can be categorised into either ex-vivo or in-vivo models. Depending on the research question, different models can be used to address different aspects of OA development and progression. Each model has its advantages, yet it has become clear that no single model provides the opportunity to study the disease as a whole. The different models currently used in OA research are discussed below.

Ex-vivo models

Ex-vivo models can be categorised into monolayer culture, co-culture, three-dimensional (3D) culture and explant-based culture. Each model has its advantages and disadvantages and so can be used to answer different questions in OA research.

Ex-vivo models such as monolayer culture and co-culture are easier and cheaper to produce than 3D cell cultures and explant-based models. Monolayer cultures are also easy to produce on a large scale and avoid the challenges associated with culturing different cell types at different conditions. However, monolayer and co-cultures are limited in their use due to the fact that they isolate only one or two tissue components at a time. Many studies have shown that there is a strong interplaying network of communication between different joint components that help regulate and maintain a healthy joint, and so isolation of specific joint components hinders this communication,,. For example, healthy articular cartilage is dependent upon the release of soluble factors by subchondral bone, and interactions between chondrocytes and synovial fluid ensures the flow of growth factors, regulatory peptides and nutrients between them,. When injured cartilage is co-cultured with synovium, a protective effect is produced on the synoviocytes. Similarly, culture of subchondral bone and cartilage separately results in increased chondrocyte death and cartilage degradation as well as decreased protein content in culture media compared to when cultured together,,. Explant models and 3D cell cultures allow for this inter-tissue communication and so are arguably more useful models available to OA researchers to reproduce natural in-vivo environments. Despite this, these models are more difficult to produce in terms of tissue volume and maintaining cell viability over extended periods of time. Some of the advantages, disadvantages and applications of various ex-vivo models used in OA research are summarised in Table I.

In-vivo models

Many animal models in at least eighteen different species have been developed to study established pathological features of OA such as pain, synovitis, cartilage degeneration and bone remodelling. Animal models used in OA research (see Table II) can be categorised into either induced or spontaneous models. Induced models refer to models where OA disease (or OA like features) have been induced either chemically or surgically. On the other hand, spontaneous models are subcategorised into naturally occurring and genetically modified models that develop OA.

Smaller animal models of OA such as mice, rats, rabbits and guinea pigs are much easier, quicker, cheaper and more readily available than larger animal models such as horses, pigs and dogs,. Smaller animals can be handled and housed with greater ease than larger models, but due to their smaller size, tissue samples extracted are much smaller and therefore tend to differ to a greater extent in their anatomical and histological structure when compared to humans. Larger animal models therefore provide many advantages over the use of smaller animal models in terms of their greater anatomical similarity to the human model. A dog's articular cartilage for example is half the thickness of a humans, whereas that of a mouse is a minimum of 70 times thinner,. Additionally, a wider range of tests can be performed on larger animals, such as repeated synovial fluid collection and imaging. They also have a longer life span allowing for slower disease progression and time to end stage OA, as seen in humans. Whilst slow progressive models most accurately reflect human OA, they are however more expensive and time consuming to conduct. There are also greater ethical considerations around the use of larger animal models such as non-human primates and canines. Based on this, some animal models are therefore better suited to OA research than others, such as the canine, caprine, bovine and porcine models. Some of the advantages and disadvantages of various animal species used in OA research are summarised in Table III.

Challenges presented by current OA models

At present, there is no gold standard animal model used in OA research. Differences in size, anatomy, histology (specifically cartilage thickness) biomechanics and physiology makes translatability between animal models and human disease very difficult,. Challenges are posed by species-specific differences in disease pathology and progression, as well as normal joint homeostasis, specifically the repair processes that occur within the joint. Different OA induction methods used in certain animal species also sometimes results in differences in OA presentation. There is therefore a need to reduce experimental variability and increase the reliability of data interpretation. Furthermore, different animal models have been shown to represent different stages of the disease more effectively, making selection of an animal model that completely reflects natural human disease challenging. To add to this, it has become clear that there is much dispute as to what defines OA and which molecules are associated with the disease. This is in part hindered by the fact that current ex-vivo models do not allow for the important inter-tissue communication between different joint components required for natural OA disease processes to be studied. To gain a better understanding of the mechanisms of joint damage in OA, specifically the exact sequence of events and interactions between different joint components, it has been suggested that more focus should be placed on developing 3D cell cultures and explant-based models that allow for these important interactions, providing interesting opportunities for researchers to develop their understanding of OA.

In the ideal animal model, the disease must be induced reliably, with 100% penetrance, and within a suitable time frame, and yet still present with disease characteristics that are comparable to the human condition. Disease progression in the animal model should also allow for the examination of all stages of disease to ensure full detection of any therapeutic effects. The animal must be inexpensive, easy to house and manage but also be of large enough size to allow for a full range of analysis techniques to be performed. The animal must also be anatomically, biomechanically and histologically similar to humans. Some animal species, such as the canine, caprine, bovine and porcine models, are therefore better suited to OA research than others.

A promising model for OA

OA is a disease of the whole joint and therefore the gold standard model for human OA must allow for key communication between different tissues of the joint. An osteochondral (cartilage on bone) model may overcome many of the current challenges and limitations of the various models discussed above. The use of osteochondral plugs provides a model incorporating the key joint tissues affected in OA, maintaining the important interactions between these tissues as seen in human disease. There are a few studies that have used osteochondral plugs from bovine, equine and human samples as ex-vivo models of OA,,. These osteochondral plug-based models appear very promising and so further studies should be encouraged as the basis for developing a gold standard model for OA. In the model design, cytokines such as interleukin-1 beta (IL-1β) and tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) may be used as the best method for inducing OA (cartilage damage) and tissue responses that closely replicate the natural disease, as these cytokines are known to contribute to the inflammatory effect of the synovium in the model. However, OA is a complex disease and many cytokines and chemokines have been shown to be expressed in OA synovium and detected in synovial fluid. Therefore, in the model design, investigators should consider using synovial tissue and/or synovial fluid from patients with active disease to induce OA in the osteochondral plugs. Osteochondral plugs can be harvested from joint surfaces, such as the femoral condyle, tibial plateau and patella. Methods of plug extraction available for use include different sizes of graft harvester, biopsy punch, mosaicplasty osteotome, diamond tipped cylindrical cutter or surgical trephine burr. Plugs can be cultured in serum-free culture medium such as Dulbecco's Modified Eagle Medium F-12 (DMEMF-12, Invitrogen, USA) or α-Minimum Essential Medium (α-MEM, 22,561 Gibco, The Netherlands) for up to 57 days with significant cell viability. Indeed, an early study reported that >99% chondrocyte viability can be maintained in the untraumatized areas at the centre of the osteochondral plugs.

The availability of an osteochondral plug-based model, particularly a human tissue-based one, would be invaluable in screening of new disease-modifying osteoarthritis drugs (DMOADs). Currently, there are many DMOADs under different stages of development. Early studies of these drugs were in animal models, but the availability of this new model will provide an opportunity to directly test these drugs on human tissues. An osteochondral plug system like this may also be used for discovery of novel markers for OA.

Conclusion

It is clear that we are limited in our understanding of OA because we do not have a suitable model that accurately reflects natural human OA. Whilst animal models provide crucial information about disease mechanisms, none of the current models used in OA research recreate the natural in-vivo environment and allow the whole disease process to be studied. Differences in anatomy and biomechanics also makes translatability to the human model a distinct challenge. It is also important to consider the cost and ease of management of using animal models in research. Whilst smaller animal models provide many benefits in terms of availability, handling and management, larger animal models such as canines and pigs are not only more comparable to humans physiologically but also in their progression to disease. Their larger size also allows for performance of a broader range of analysis techniques and investigations.

The models currently used in OA research each have their advantages and disadvantages; however, it has become clear that there are consistent problems with all of these models that hinders our ability to understand the pathogenesis of OA. The only way to achieve greater understanding of the pathological processes that underpin OA is to produce a ‘gold standard’ model for OA. Development of a consensus model will provide greater understanding of the specific stages and interactions involved in OA pathogenesis, as well as a model that can be used to compare data findings between different research groups, test pre-clinical drugs and identify and test possible biomarker targets directly on OA joint tissue. An osteochondral plug-based model could be a “promising” new model for OA, able to provide a reliable throughput model for proof of concept and mechanistic studies, aiding the discovery of targeted OA therapy. The model would also provide an opportunity to reduce the financial, ethical and time restraints associated with using animals in research, shifting OA research to embody the principle of the 3Rs; replacement, reduction and refinement of animal use in research.

Author's contributions

Conception and design: MS, KO, YL.

Drafting of the article: PC, MS, KO.

Provision of study materials: PC, YL.

Final approval of the article: MS.

Competing interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding

Not applicable.

References 100

  1. 1.

    Bendele A.M. Animal models of osteoarthritis. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact. 2001;1(4):363-376.

    Not in our library

  2. 2.
    Animal models of osteoarthritis: classification, update, and measurement of outcomes · 2016
    No notice
  3. 3.

    Amin A.K., Huntley J.S., Simpson A.H., Hall A.C. Chondrocyte survival in articular cartilage: the influence of subchondral bone in a bovine model. J Bone Joint Surg. 2009;91(5):691-699.

    Not in our library10.1302/0301-620x.91b5.21544

  4. 4.

    Fell H.B., Jubb R.W. The effect of synovial tissue on the breakdown of articular cartilage in organ culture. Arthritis & Rheumatol. 1977;20(7):1359-1371.

    Not in our library10.1002/art.1780200710

  5. 5.

    Heinemann C., Heinemann S., Worch H., Hanke T. Development of an osteoblast/osteoclast co-culture derived by human bone marrow stromal cells and human monocytes for biomaterials testing. Eur Cell Mater. 2011;21:80-93.

    Not in our library10.22203/ecm.v021a07

  6. 6.

    Abramson S.B., Attur M. Developments in the scientific understanding of osteoarthritis. Arthritis Res Ther. 2009;11(3):227.

    Not in our library10.1186/ar2655

  7. 7.

    Goldring M.B., Marcu K.B. Cartilage homeostasis in health and rheumatic diseases. Arthritis Res Ther. 2009;11(3):224.

    Not in our library10.1186/ar2592

  8. 8.

    Martel-Pelletier J., Pelletier J.P. Is osteoarthritis a disease involving only cartilage or other articular tissues? Eklem Hastalik Cerrahisi. 2010;21(1):2-14.

    Not in our library

  9. 9.

    Helmtrud IS T. Bone and Osteoarthritis. 2007.

    Not in our library

  10. 10.
    Interplay between Cartilage and Subchondral Bone Contributing to Pathogenesis of Osteoarthritis · 2013
    No notice
  11. 11.

    Benito M.J., Veale D.J., FitzGerald O., van den Berg W.B., Bresnihan B. Synovial tissue inflammation in early and late osteoarthritis. ARD (Ann Rheum Dis). 2005;64(9):1263-1267.

    Not in our library10.1136/ard.2004.025270

  12. 12.

    Zamli Z., Robson-Brown K., Tarlton J., Adams M., Torlot G., Cartwright C. Subchondral bone plate thickening precedes chondrocyte apoptosis and cartilage degradation in spontaneous animal models of osteoarthritis. BioMed Res Int. 2014;2014(2014):606870.

    Not in our library10.1155/2014/606870

  13. 13.

    Sun Y., Mauerhan D.R., Kneisl J.S., James Norton H., Zinchenko N., Ingram J. Histological examination of collagen and proteoglycan changes in osteoarthritic menisci. Open Rheumatol J. 2012;6:24-32.

    Not in our library10.2174/1874312901206010024

  14. 14.

    Braun H.J., Gold G.E. Diagnosis of osteoarthritis: imaging. Bone. 2012;51(2):278-288.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.bone.2011.11.019

  15. 15.
    Osteoarthritis pathogenesis - a complex process that involves the entire joint. · 2014
    No notice
  16. 16.

    Burr D.B., Gallant M.A. Bone remodelling in osteoarthritis. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2012;8(11):665-673.

    Not in our library10.1038/nrrheum.2012.130

  17. 17.

    Cucchiarini M., de Girolamo L., Filardo G., Oliveira J.M., Orth P., Pape D. Basic science of osteoarthritis. J Exp Orthop. 2016;3(1).

    Not in our library10.1186/s40634-016-0060-6

  18. 18.

    McCoy A.M. Animal models of osteoarthritis: comparisons and key considerations. Vet Pathol. 2015;52(5):803-818.

    Not in our library10.1177/0300985815588611

  19. 19.

    Radin E.L., Rose R.M. Role of subchondral bone in the initiation and progression of cartilage damage. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986;(213):34-40.

    Not in our library

  20. 20.

    Sophia Fox A.J., Bedi A., Rodeo S.A. The basic science of articular cartilage: structure, composition, and function. Sport Health. 2009;1(6):461-468.

    Not in our library10.1177/1941738109350438

  21. 21.

    Lee C., Kisiday J., McIlwraith C., Grodzinsky A., Frisbie D. Synoviocytes protect cartilage from the effects of injury in vitro. BMC Muscoskel Disord. 2013;14(1):54.

    Not in our library10.1186/1471-2474-14-54

  22. 22.

    Malinin T., Ouellette E.A. Articular cartilage nutrition is mediated by subchondral bone: a long-term autograft study in baboons. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2000;8(6):483-491.

    Not in our library10.1053/joca.1999.0324

  23. 23.

    Johnson C., Argyle D., Clements D. In vitro models for the study of osteoarthritis. Vet J. 2016;209:40-49.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.tvjl.2015.07.011

  24. 24.

    Edmondson R., Broglie J.J., Adcock A.F., Yang L. Three-dimensional cell culture systems and their applications in drug discovery and cell-based biosensors. Assay Drug Dev Technol. 2014;12(4):207-218.

    Not in our library10.1089/adt.2014.573

  25. 25.

    Nicholson I.P., Gault E.A., Foote C.G., Nasir L., Bennett D. Human telomerase reverse transcriptase (hTERT) extends the lifespan of canine chondrocytes in vitro without inducing neoplastic transformation. Vet J. 2007;174(3):570-576.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.tvjl.2007.07.009

  26. 26.

    Zien A., Aigner T., Zimmer R., Lengauer T. Centralization: a new method for the normalization of gene expression data. Bioinformatics. 2001;17(Suppl 1):S323-S331.

    Not in our library10.1093/bioinformatics/17.suppl_1.s323

  27. 27.

    Hendriks J., Riesle J., van Blitterswijk C.A. Co-culture in cartilage tissue engineering. J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2007;1(3):170-178.

    Not in our library10.1002/term.19

  28. 28.
    Targets, models and challenges in osteoarthritis research · 2015
    No notice
  29. 29.

    Spalazzi J., Dionisio K., Jiang J., Lu H. Osteoblast and chondrocyte interactions during co-culture on scaffolds examining matrix and substrate-dependent effects on the formation of functional bone-cartilage interfaces. Eng Med Biol Mag. 2003;22(5):27-34.

    Not in our library10.1109/memb.2003.1256269

  30. 30.

    Jiang J., Nicoll S.B., Lu H.H. Co-culture of osteoblasts and chondrocytes modulates cellular differentiation in vitro. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2005;338(2):762-770.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.bbrc.2005.10.025

  31. 31.

    Sanchez C., Deberg M.A., Piccardi N., Msika P., Reginster J.Y., Henrotin Y.E. Subchondral bone osteoblasts induce phenotypic changes in human osteoarthritic chondrocytes. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2005;13(11):988-997.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.joca.2005.07.012

  32. 32.

    Prasadam I., Crawford R., Xiao Y. Aggravation of ADAMTS and matrix metalloproteinase production and role of ERK1/2 pathway in the interaction of osteoarthritic subchondral bone osteoblasts and articular cartilage chondrocytes -- possible pathogenic role in osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol. 2012;39(3):621-634.

    Not in our library10.3899/jrheum.110777

  33. 33.

    Chitcholtan K., Sykes P.H., Evans J.J. The resistance of intracellular mediators to doxorubicin and cisplatin are distinct in 3D and 2D endometrial cancer. J Transl Med. 2012;10:38.

    Not in our library10.1186/1479-5876-10-38

  34. 34.

    Lampropoulou-Adamidou K., Lelovas P., Karadimas E.V., Liakou C., Triantafillopoulos I.K., Dontas I. Useful animal models for the research of osteoarthritis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2014;24(3):263-271.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00590-013-1205-2

  35. 35.

    Vincent T.L., Williams R.O., Maciewicz R., Silman A., Garside P. Mapping pathogenesis of arthritis through small animal models. Rheumatology. 2012;51(11):1931-1941.

    Not in our library10.1093/rheumatology/kes035

  36. 36.

    Fang H., Beier F. Mouse models of osteoarthritis: modelling risk factors and assessing outcomes. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2014;10(7):413-421.

    Not in our library10.1038/nrrheum.2014.46

  37. 37.

    Blair-Levy J.M., Watts C.E., Fiorentino N.M., Dimitriadis E.K., Marini J.C., Lipsky P.E. A type I collagen defect leads to rapidly progressive osteoarthritis in a mouse model. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;58(4):1096-1106.

    Not in our library10.1002/art.23277

  38. 38.

    Glasson S.S. In vivo osteoarthritis target validation utilizing genetically-modified mice. Curr Drug Targets. 2007;8(2):367-376.

    Not in our library10.2174/138945007779940061

  39. 39.

    Longo U.G., Loppini M., Fumo C., Rizzello G., Khan W.S., Maffulli N. Osteoarthritis: new insights in animal models. Open Orthop J. 2012;6:558-563.

    Not in our library10.2174/1874325001206010558

  40. 40.

    Little C., Smith M. Animal models of osteoarthritis. Curr Rheumatol Rev. 2008;4(3).

    Not in our library

  41. 41.

    Teeple E., Jay G.D., Elsaid K.A., Fleming B.C. Animal models of osteoarthritis: challenges of model selection and analysis. AAPS J. 2013;15(2):438-446.

    Not in our library10.1208/s12248-013-9454-x

  42. 42.

    Kamekura S., Hoshi K., Shimoaka T., Chung U., Chikuda H., Yamada T. Osteoarthritis development in novel experimental mouse models induced by knee joint instability. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2005;13(7):632-641.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.joca.2005.03.004

  43. 43.

    Lorenz J., Grassel S. Experimental osteoarthritis models in mice. Methods Mol Biol. 2014;1194:401-419.

    Not in our library10.1007/978-1-4939-1215-5_23

  44. 44.

    Xu L., Polur I., Lim C., Servais J.M., Dobeck J., Li Y. Early-onset osteoarthritis of mouse temporomandibular joint induced by partial discectomy. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2009;17(7):917-922.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.joca.2009.01.002

  45. 45.
    A Review of Translational Animal Models for Knee Osteoarthritis · 2012
    No notice
  46. 46.

    Pickarski M., Hayami T., Zhuo Y., Duong L.T. Molecular changes in articular cartilage and subchondral bone in the rat anterior cruciate ligament transection and meniscectomized models of osteoarthritis. BMC Muscoskel Disord. 2011;12:197.

    Not in our library10.1186/1471-2474-12-197

  47. 47.

    Maerz T., Kurdziel M.D., Davidson A.A., Baker K.C., Anderson K., Matthew H.W. Biomechanical characterization of a model of noninvasive, traumatic anterior cruciate ligament injury in the rat. Ann Biomed Eng. 2015;43(10):2467-2476.

    Not in our library10.1007/s10439-015-1292-9

  48. 48.

    Guzman R.E., Evans M.G., Bove S., Morenko B., Kilgore K. Mono-iodoacetate-induced histologic changes in subchondral bone and articular cartilage of rat femorotibial joints: an animal model of osteoarthritis. Toxicol Pathol. 2003;31(6):619-624.

    Not in our library10.1080/01926230390241800

  49. 49.

    Bendele A.M., Hulman J.F. Effects of body weight restriction on the development and progression of spontaneous osteoarthritis in Guinea pigs. Arthritis Rheum. 1991;34(9):1180-1184.

    Not in our library10.1002/art.1780340916

  50. 50.

    Pastoureau P., Leduc S., Chomel A., De Ceuninck F. Quantitative assessment of articular cartilage and subchondral bone histology in the meniscectomized Guinea pig model of osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2003;11(6):412-423.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1063-4584(03)00050-5

  51. 51.

    Huebner J.L., Kraus V.B. Assessment of the utility of biomarkers of osteoarthritis in the Guinea pig. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2006;14(9):923-930.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.joca.2006.03.007

  52. 52.

    Arzi B., Wisner E.R., Huey D.J., Kass P.H., Hu J., Athanasiou K.A. A proposed model of naturally occurring osteoarthritis in the domestic rabbit. Lab Anim (NY). 2011;41(1):20-25.

    Not in our library10.1038/laban0112-20

  53. 53.

    Ehrlich M.G., Mankin H.J., Jones H., Grossman A., Crispen C., Ancona D. Biochemical confirmation of an experimental osteoarthritis model. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1975;57(3):392-396.

    Not in our library

  54. 54.

    Yang F., Shi Z. A study on papain-induced osteoarthritis in rabbit temporomandibular joint. Hua xi kou qiang yi xue za zhi. 2002;20(5):330-332.

    Not in our library

  55. 55.

    Bentley G. Articular cartilage studies and osteoarthrosis. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1975;57(2):86-100.

    Not in our library

  56. 56.

    Evans C.H., Mazzocchi R.A., Nelson D.D., Rubash H.E. Experimental arthritis induced by intraarticular injection of allogenic cartilaginous particles into rabbit knees. Arthritis Rheum. 1984;27(2):200-207.

    Not in our library10.1002/art.1780270212

  57. 57.

    Moreau M., Pelletier J.P., Lussier B., d'Anjou M.A., Blond L., Pelletier J.M. A posteriori comparison of natural and surgical destabilization models of canine osteoarthritis. BioMed Res Int. 2013;2013:180453.

    Not in our library10.1155/2013/180453

  58. 58.

    Marijnissen A.C., van Roermund P.M., TeKoppele J.M., Bijlsma J.W., Lafeber F.P. The canine 'groove' model, compared with the ACLT model of osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2002;10(2):145-155.

    Not in our library10.1053/joca.2001.0491

  59. 59.

    Pelletier J.P., Boileau C., Brunet J., Boily M., Lajeunesse D., Reboul P. The inhibition of subchondral bone resorption in the early phase of experimental dog osteoarthritis by licofelone is associated with a reduction in the synthesis of MMP-13 and cathepsin K. Bone. 2004;34(3):527-538.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.bone.2003.11.021

  60. 60.

    Jovanovic D.V., Fernandes J.C., Martel-Pelletier J., Jolicoeur F.C., Reboul P., Laufer S. In vivo dual inhibition of cyclooxygenase and lipoxygenase by ML-3000 reduces the progression of experimental osteoarthritis: suppression of collagenase 1 and interleukin-1beta synthesis. Arthritis Rheum. 2001;44(10):2320-2330.

    Not in our library10.1002/1529-0131(200110)44:10<2320::aid-art394>3.0.co;2-p

  61. 61.

    Chrisman O.D., Fessel J.M., Southwick W.O. Experimental production of synovitis and marginal articular exostoses in the knee joints of dogs. Yale J Biol Med. 1965;37(5):409-412.

    Not in our library

  62. 62.

    Cake M.A., Read R.A., Corfield G., Daniel A., Burkhardt D., Smith M.M. Comparison of gait and pathology outcomes of three meniscal procedures for induction of knee osteoarthritis in sheep. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2013;21(1):226-236.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.joca.2012.10.001

  63. 63.

    Little C.B., Smith M.M., Cake M.A., Read R.A., Murphy M.J., Barry F.P. The OARSI histopathology initiative – recommendations for histological assessments of osteoarthritis in sheep and goats. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2010;18(Suppl 3):S80-S92.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.joca.2010.04.016

  64. 64.

    Proffen B.L., McElfresh M., Fleming B.C., Murray M.M. A comparative anatomical study of the human knee and six animal species. Knee. 2012;19(4):493-499.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.knee.2011.07.005

  65. 65.

    Bolam C.J., Hurtig M.B., Cruz A., McEwen B.J. Characterization of experimentally induced post-traumatic osteoarthritis in the medial femorotibial joint of horses. Am J Vet Res. 2006;67(3):433-447.

    Not in our library10.2460/ajvr.67.3.433

  66. 66.

    Boyce M.K., Trumble T.N., Carlson C.S., Groschen D.M., Merritt K.A., Brown M.P. Non-terminal animal model of post-traumatic osteoarthritis induced by acute joint injury. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2013;21(5):746-755.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.joca.2013.02.653

  67. 67.

    McIlwraith C.W., Van Sickle D.C. Experimentally induced arthritis of the equine carpus: histologic and histochemical changes in the articular cartilage. Am J Vet Res. 1981;42(2):209-217.

    Not in our library

  68. 68.

    de Grauw J.C., van de Lest C.H., Brama P.A., Rambags B.P., van Weeren P.R. In vivo effects of meloxicam on inflammatory mediators, MMP activity and cartilage biomarkers in equine joints with acute synovitis. Equine Vet J. 2009;41(7):693-699.

    Not in our library10.2746/042516409x436286

  69. 69.

    Peloso J.G., Stick J.A., Caron J.P., Peloso P.M., Soutas-Little R.W. Effects of hylan on amphotericin-induced carpal lameness in equids. Am J Vet Res. 1993;54(9):1527-1534.

    Not in our library

  70. 70.

    Cornelissen B.P., Rijkenhuizen A.B., van den Hoogen B.M., Rutten V.P., Barneveld A. Experimental model of synovitis/capsulitis in the equine metacarpophalangeal joint. Am J Vet Res. 1998;59(8):978-985.

    Not in our library

  71. 71.

    van der Kraan P.M. Relevance of zebrafish as an OA research model. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2013;21(2):261-262.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.joca.2012.12.012

  72. 72.

    Tochigi Y., Zhang P., Rudert M.J., Baer T.E., Martin J.A., Hillis S.L. A novel impaction technique to create experimental articular fractures in large animal joints. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2013;21(1):200-208.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.joca.2012.10.004

  73. 73.

    Cruz R., Ramírez C., Rojas O., Casas-Mejía O., Kouri J., Vega-López M. The pig as an osteoarthritis translational research model. J Osteoarthritis. 2016;1(1):1-2.

    Not in our library

  74. 74.

    Heinola T., Sukura A., Virkki L.M., Sillat T., Lekszycki T., Konttinen Y.T. Osteoarthritic cartilage lesions in the bovine patellar groove: a macroscopic, histological and immunohistological analysis. Vet J. 2014;200(1):88-95.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.tvjl.2014.01.026

  75. 75.

    Hargrave-Thomas E.J., Thambyah A., McGlashan S.R., Broom N.D. The bovine patella as a model of early osteoarthritis. J Anat. 2013;223(6):651-664.

    Not in our library10.1111/joa.12115

  76. 76.

    Plate J.F., Bates C.M., Mannava S., Smith T.L., Jorgensen M.J., Register T.C. Age-related degenerative functional, radiographic, and histological changes of the shoulder in nonhuman primates. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(8):1019-1029.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jse.2012.11.004

  77. 77.

    Carlson C.S., Loeser R.F., Jayo M.J., Weaver D.S., Adams M.R., Jerome C.P. Osteoarthritis in cynomolgus macaques: a primate model of naturally occurring disease. J Orthop Res. 1994;12(3):331-339.

    Not in our library10.1002/jor.1100120305

  78. 78.

    Grynpas M.D., Gahunia H.K., Yuan J., Pritzker K.P., Hartmann D., Tupy J.H. Analysis of collagens solubilized from cartilage of normal and spontaneously osteoarthritic rhesus monkeys. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 1994;2(4):227-234.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1063-4584(05)80074-3

  79. 79.

    Chateauvert J., Pritzker K.P., Kessler M.J., Grynpas M.D. Spontaneous osteoarthritis in rhesus macaques. I. Chemical and biochemical studies. J Rheumatol. 1989;16(8):1098-1104.

    Not in our library

  80. 80.

    Jiang L., Ma A., Song L., Hu Y., Dun H., Daloze P. Cartilage regeneration by selected chondrogenic clonal mesenchymal stem cells in the collagenase-induced monkey osteoarthritis model. J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2014;8(11):896-905.

    Not in our library10.1002/term.1676

  81. 81.

    McNulty M.A., Loeser R.F., Davey C., Callahan M.F., Ferguson C.M., Carlson C.S. Histopathology of naturally occurring and surgically induced osteoarthritis in mice. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2012;20(8):949-956.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.joca.2012.05.001

  82. 82.

    Silberberg M., Silberberg R. Age changes of bones and joints in various strains of mice. Dev Dynam. 1941;68(1):69-95.

    Not in our library

  83. 83.

    Cook J.L., Hung C.T., Kuroki K., Stoker A.M., Cook C.R., Pfeiffer F.M. Animal models of cartilage repair. Bone Jt Res. 2014;3(4):89-94.

    Not in our library10.1302/2046-3758.34.2000238

  84. 84.

    Kraus V.B., Huebner J.L., DeGroot J., Bendele A. The OARSI histopathology initiative - recommendations for histological assessments of osteoarthritis in the Guinea pig. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2010;18(Suppl 3):S35-S52.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.joca.2010.04.015

  85. 85.

    Guinea Pig Genome Project: Broad Institute. 2008.

    Not in our library

  86. 86.

    Rabbit Genome Project: Broad Institute. 2008.

    Not in our library

  87. 87.

    Poole R., Blake S., Buschmann M., Goldring S., Laverty S., Lockwood S. Recommendations for the use of preclinical models in the study and treatment of osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2010;18(Suppl 3):S10-S16.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.joca.2010.05.027

  88. 88.

    Pedersen D.R., Goetz J.E., Kurriger G.L., Martin J.A. Comparative digital cartilage histology for human and common osteoarthritis models. Orthop Res Rev. 2013;(5):13-20.

    Not in our library10.2147/orr.s38400

  89. 89.

    Chevrier A., Nelea M., Hurtig M.B., Hoemann C.D., Buschmann M.D. Meniscus structure in human, sheep, and rabbit for animal models of meniscus repair. J Orthop Res. 2009;27(9):1197-1203.

    Not in our library10.1002/jor.20869

  90. 90.

    Cook J.L., Kuroki K., Visco D., Pelletier J.P., Schulz L., Lafeber F.P. The OARSI histopathology initiative – recommendations for histological assessments of osteoarthritis in the dog. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2010;18(Suppl 3):S66-S79.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.joca.2010.04.017

  91. 91.

    Worley K. A golden goat genome. Nat Genet. 2017;49(4):485.

    Not in our library10.1038/ng.3824

  92. 92.

    Frisbie D.D., Cross M.W., McIlwraith C.W. A comparative study of articular cartilage thickness in the stifle of animal species used in human pre-clinical studies compared to articular cartilage thickness in the human knee. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol. 2006;19(3):142-146.

    Not in our library

  93. 93.

    Malda J., Benders K.E., Klein T.J., de Grauw J.C., Kik M.J., Hutmacher D.W. Comparative study of depth-dependent characteristics of equine and human osteochondral tissue from the medial and lateral femoral condyles. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2012;20(10):1147-1151.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.joca.2012.06.005

  94. 94.

    Strauss E.J., Goodrich L.R., Chen C.T., Hidaka C., Nixon A.J. Biochemical and biomechanical properties of lesion and adjacent articular cartilage after chondral defect repair in an equine model. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(11):1647-1653.

    Not in our library10.1177/0363546505275487

  95. 95.

    Sandmann H., Adamczyk C., Garcia E.G., Doebele S., Buettner A., Milz S. Biomechanical comparison of menisci from different species and artificial constructs. BMC Muscoskel Disord. 2013;14(1):324.

    Not in our library10.1186/1471-2474-14-324

  96. 96.
    A whole-genome assembly of the domestic cow, Bos taurus · 2009
    No notice
  97. 97.
    Signs of mood and anxiety disorders in chimpanzees. · 2011
    Not checked
  98. 98.

    Mouser V.H.M., Dautzenberg N.M.M., Levato R., van Rijen M.H.P., Dhert W.J.A., Malda J. Ex vivo model unravelling cell distribution effect in hydrogels for cartilage repair. ALTEX. 2018;35(1):65-76.

    Not in our library10.14573/altex.1704171

  99. 99.

    Bansal P.N., Stewart R.C., Entezari V., Snyder B.D., Grinstaff M.W. Contrast agent electrostatic attraction rather than repulsion to glycosaminoglycans affords a greater contrast uptake ratio and improved quantitative CT imaging in cartilage. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2011;19(8):970-976.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.joca.2011.04.004

  100. 100.

    Huntley J.S., Bush P.G., McBirnie J.M., Simpson A.H., Hall A.C. Chondrocyte death associated with human femoral osteochondral harvest as performed for mosaicplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(2):351-360.

    Not in our library10.2106/jbjs.d.02086

Cited by papers we hold 5

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.