Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/SVG/jax.js
Review

Mast cells: A dark horse in osteoarthritis treatment

  • Mast cells are best known for their involvement in the pathogenesis of allergic reactions and inflammation. Due to the wide variety of activation methods and the various mediators that mast cells can synthesize and store, they can regulate all stages of the inflammatory process. There are a large amount of data describing the role of mast cells in the development of autoimmune rheumatoid arthritis, but their role in the development of inflammatory traumatic osteoarthritis remains poorly described. However, non-autoimmune cartilage damage is the main reason for joint replacement surgeries. As important regulators of the inflammatory process, mast cells could be an interesting target for the treatment of osteoarthritis. Herein, we summarize the knowledge about the role of mast cells in the pathogenesis of osteoarthritis and outline various approaches that, to varying degrees, seem promising for the correction of the disease.

    Citation: Anastasiia D. Kurenkova, Peter S. Timashev. Mast cells: A dark horse in osteoarthritis treatment[J]. AIMS Allergy and Immunology, 2022, 6(4): 228-247. doi: 10.3934/Allergy.2022017

    Related Papers:

    [1] Fang Wang, Lianying Cao, Xiaoji Song . Mathematical modeling of mutated COVID-19 transmission with quarantine, isolation and vaccination. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(8): 8035-8056. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022376
    [2] Yangyang Yu, Yuan Liu, Shi Zhao, Daihai He . A simple model to estimate the transmissibility of the Beta, Delta, and Omicron variants of SARS-COV-2 in South Africa. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(10): 10361-10373. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022485
    [3] Julijana Gjorgjieva, Kelly Smith, Gerardo Chowell, Fabio Sánchez, Jessica Snyder, Carlos Castillo-Chavez . The Role of Vaccination in the Control of SARS. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2005, 2(4): 753-769. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2005.2.753
    [4] Sarafa A. Iyaniwura, Rabiu Musa, Jude D. Kong . A generalized distributed delay model of COVID-19: An endemic model with immunity waning. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(3): 5379-5412. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023249
    [5] Tahir Khan, Roman Ullah, Gul Zaman, Jehad Alzabut . A mathematical model for the dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 virus using the Caputo-Fabrizio operator. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(5): 6095-6116. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021305
    [6] Kai Wang, Zhenzhen Lu, Xiaomeng Wang, Hui Li, Huling Li, Dandan Lin, Yongli Cai, Xing Feng, Yateng Song, Zhiwei Feng, Weidong Ji, Xiaoyan Wang, Yi Yin, Lei Wang, Zhihang Peng . Current trends and future prediction of novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) epidemic in China: a dynamical modeling analysis. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(4): 3052-3061. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020173
    [7] Kimihito Ito, Chayada Piantham, Hiroshi Nishiura . Estimating relative generation times and reproduction numbers of Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 with respect to Delta variant in Denmark. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(9): 9005-9017. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022418
    [8] Chentong Li, Jinhu Xu, Jiawei Liu, Yicang Zhou . The within-host viral kinetics of SARS-CoV-2. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(4): 2853-2861. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020159
    [9] Salman Safdar, Calistus N. Ngonghala, Abba B. Gumel . Mathematical assessment of the role of waning and boosting immunity against the BA.1 Omicron variant in the United States. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(1): 179-212. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023009
    [10] Junyuan Yang, Guoqiang Wang, Shuo Zhang . Impact of household quarantine on SARS-Cov-2 infection in mainland China: A mean-field modelling approach. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(5): 4500-4512. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020248
  • Mast cells are best known for their involvement in the pathogenesis of allergic reactions and inflammation. Due to the wide variety of activation methods and the various mediators that mast cells can synthesize and store, they can regulate all stages of the inflammatory process. There are a large amount of data describing the role of mast cells in the development of autoimmune rheumatoid arthritis, but their role in the development of inflammatory traumatic osteoarthritis remains poorly described. However, non-autoimmune cartilage damage is the main reason for joint replacement surgeries. As important regulators of the inflammatory process, mast cells could be an interesting target for the treatment of osteoarthritis. Herein, we summarize the knowledge about the role of mast cells in the pathogenesis of osteoarthritis and outline various approaches that, to varying degrees, seem promising for the correction of the disease.



    The basic reproduction number, denoted by R0, is an index that represents the expected number of secondary cases from an infected individual during the entire period of infectiousness in a fully susceptible population [1]. This number plays a central role in measuring the transmissibility of infectious diseases and thus acts as the fundamental index for planning control strategies. During the COVID-19 epidemic, a new variant of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), the so-called Delta variant (B.1.617), was detected in Japan in March 2021. Estimating the relative reproduction number of the variant compared with the wild type of the virus then became an urgent task. In the early phase of the Delta variant epidemic, common methodologies to estimate R0, which includes models based on exponential growth rate and generation time distribution, were difficult to implement due to a limited number of observed cases and the progress of variant replacements from Alpha (B.1.1.7) to Delta. Moreover, the spread of the Delta variant occurred in the middle of the very first vaccination campaign, from spring to summer of 2021, making it even more challenging to calculate the variant's basic reproduction number and relative transmissibility. Common methods for estimating R0, as forementioned, rely on major outbreak datasets with an assumption that the population is fully susceptible.

    To overcome such problems, the present study focuses on the meticulous observation of secondary transmissions in Wakayama Prefecture of Japan to estimate R0. By applying the branching process model, which has been widely used to model minor outbreaks with non-negligible stochasticity, the study presents a method to efficiently estimate R0 from very limited data on minor outbreaks. The branching process is particularly useful in quantifying the probability of extinction, a property that is supported by quantifying the offspring distribution and final size, i.e., the cumulative incidence of an outbreak. For a realistic representation of the offspring distribution of directly transmitted infectious diseases, the distribution is frequently assumed to follow a negative binomial distribution with two parameters, R0 and the dispersion parameter k [2,3,4,5,6]. The distribution is highly dispersed for k<1, and a very small value of k implies the presence of a super-spreading event [2]. Geometric and Poisson distributions are special cases of the negative binomial distribution when k and k=1, respectively.

    The branching process model has already been employed to model COVID-19, especially in the early stages of the pandemic [6,7,8,9,10]. Published studies clearly indicate the presence of "over-dispersed" secondary transmission, where k is estimated to range from 0.1–0.3 for the wild type of the virus [9,11,12,13]. Preliminary research on the Delta variant has estimated the dispersion parameter to be k=0.23 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.18–0.30) [14], which is broadly consistent with that of the wild type, but published evidence remains scarce.

    Wakayama Prefecture of Japan is located 50 km south of Osaka, which is the third-largest prefecture in Japan by population. This prefecture continuously experienced epidemic "waves" of COVID-19, just as other prefectures in Japan did; a "wave" is conventionally recognized as a period of the epidemic with upward and downward trends with substantial and sustaining changes [15,16]. The present study focuses on the first and fifth waves caused, respectively, by the wild type and the Delta variant. Each wave is generally recognized as an epidemic around February to May 2020 [17,18] and July to October 2021, respectively. The COVID-19 epidemic was controlled early in Japan, involving 16,741 confirmed cases and 898 deaths until the end of May 2020; the indices are far fewer than in other industrialized countries that experienced population-level epidemics. Because of the low-impact setting, a thorough contact tracing practice, including retrospective (backward) tracing of contacts involving earlier generations, was possible and was continued over time. The practice yielded an empirically observed offspring distribution and the final size of minor outbreaks.

    The objective of the present study is to interpret the empirically collected epidemic data in a low-impact setting by jointly estimating (ⅰ) the relative transmissibility of the Delta variant compared with the wild type and (ⅱ) the relative transmissibility among vaccinated individuals compared with unvaccinated individuals. Contrary to common methods for estimating R0 that rely on large datasets from major outbreaks in a fully susceptible population, our study presents a method to efficiently estimate R0 from very limited data on minor outbreaks. This exercise estimates the basic reproduction number of the Delta variant.

    We used two datasets: (a) the epidemiological tracing results of secondary transmission during the first wave in 2020, caused by the wild type, and (b) the number of cases that produced at least one secondary transmission during the fifth wave in 2021, caused by the Delta variant. Other waves (the second, third, and fourth waves) were excluded from our scope since the focus of the present study was to estimate the basic reproduction number of the Delta variant, for which evidence is yet limited compared to other variants.

    The observations were made in Wakayama Prefecture, which has a population of 917,000. Despite the proximity to the metropolis of Osaka, the first wave within the prefecture was contained at a relatively low level, i.e., only 64 cumulative cases and 3 cumulative deaths were observed from the emergence of COVID-19 until June 30, 2020, compared with 1833 cases and 86 deaths in Osaka in the same period. In Wakayama, reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing was conducted intensively, and cluster interventions were handled through contact tracing (i.e., containment effort). The vaccination program in Japan started in the early part of 2021, after the end of the third wave in February 2021. Initially, health care workers were prioritized (starting on February 17), and then the elderly population (over 65 years old) began to be vaccinated starting from April 12. At the peak of the fifth wave, caused by the Delta variant in Japan (August 26, 2021), 41.63% of the entire population had received two doses of vaccine [19]. More than 99% of vaccines were mRNA vaccines, either BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna). Even during the fifth wave, cluster interventions were continued in parallel to vaccination. All cases were confirmed either via RT-PCR testing or antigen testing (including both a qualitative test based on immunochromatogaphy and a quantitative test based on the chemiluminescence enzyme immunoassay (CLEIA) method), and if positive, they were consistently notified to the government health authority (Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare) in accordance with the Infectious Disease Law.

    The first dataset from the first wave covered 25 clusters of COVID-19 infection, and each record included the total number of cases that stemmed from a single primary case. Since each cluster was from a minor outbreak contained at a low level, of which most were reported from households, we could assume that the data was not influenced by public health and social measures (PHSMs) and psychological factors. Minor and major outbreaks are types of epidemics in stochastic SIR models that Whittle characterized in 1955 [20]. Minor outbreaks are generally known to have a shorter duration and substantially fewer cases than major outbreaks [21], and hence we temporarily define the threshold of the final size between the minor and major to be 500 cases for convenience of the discussion. We emphasize that the dataset was from small settings where transmission was contained within each cluster and did not lead to major outbreaks where transmission is prevalent in wide community settings. Considering that the overall infections at the population level also contained at a low level and that the vaccination programs did not exist during the first wave, we can interpret our estimates as the approximation the basic reproduction number, capturing the intrinsic transmission dynamics in a completely susceptible population.

    The second dataset from the fifth wave contained the respective numbers of cases that did and did not produce secondary transmission. We assumed that we could ignore the effects of PHSMs since no such kinds of policies were implemented in the region during the period. Furthermore, since the contact tracing practices were continued in the same manner as in the first wave, our estimates can be interpreted as the basic reproduction number for the Delta variant, just as for the wild type. The data were categorized into two groups by vaccination status of the primary case: the "all" group included all cases, regardless of vaccination (i.e., either 0, 1, or 2 doses), whereas the "2 doses" group included cases of individuals who had received two vaccine doses. We obtained values for the "0 or 1 dose" group by subtracting the "2 doses" group from the "all" group. The proportions of those who produced secondary transmissions for each group are shown in Figure 1.

    Figure 1.  Proportion of cases with secondary transmission by vaccine status of primary case, during the fifth wave in Wakayama. Dataset originally included data for "all" and "2 dose" groups. Value for "0 or 1" dose group was calculated by subtracting "2 dose" group from "all" group.

    The goal of this study was to estimate R0 and k from limited observations of transmission in the first and fifth waves, where the wild type and Delta variant were respectively dominant. We estimated four parameters, i.e., R0 and k for the wild type, the relative transmissibility of the Delta variant to the wild type (γdelta), and the relative transmissibility among fully vaccinated individuals (post 2 doses of vaccination) compared with unvaccinated individuals (γvac). We used a negative binomial branching process model and estimated the parameters using maximum-likelihood estimation (MLE). The 95% CI for the estimated parameters was obtained from a parametric bootstrapping procedure.

    With the assumption of R0>1, because the virus caused a global pandemic, we modelled the final size distribution Z using the Galton–Watson (GW) process that involves a negative binomially distributed offspring distribution. Using the probability generating function (p.g.f.) for Z,

    GZ(s)=s(1+R0(1GZ(s))k)k (2.1)

    the probability of the final size being z is expressed as follows:

    Pr(Z=z;R0,k)=pz=1z!dzdszGZ(s)|s=0 (2.2)

    Specifically for z=1 and z2, the probabilities of the final size being z are the following [5,22].

    {p1=1(1+R0k)kpz=Πz2j=0(jk+z)z!(kR0+k)kz(R0kR0+k)z1 (2.3)

    Because the dataset consists of a series of minor outbreaks, we conditioned the final size distribution on extinction. Thus, under the assumption that the offspring distribution follows a negative binomial distribution with dispersion parameter k, the probability of the final size being z was normalized by the probability of extinction π [5].

    Pr(Z=z;minor outbreak)=pz=1πpz (2.4)
    π=1(1+R0(1π)k)k (2.5)

    The likelihood function for estimating the parameters R0 and k for the wild type, given j complete observations each with a final size of zi, is expressed as follows:

    L1(R0,k;zi)=ji=1pz1(1p1)=ji=1pziπ11(1π(1+R0k)k)=ji=1pzi(1+R0k)kπ(1+R0k)k1 (2.6)

    We excluded all observations of z=1, which are sporadic and terminal cases, to adjust for the under-ascertainment of such cases, i.e., compared with the presence of secondary transmission, sporadic primary cases may be far harder to ascertain, especially during the first wave [5,6]. We estimated k indirectly via its reciprocal α=1k, as numerous studies on the estimation of negative binomial parameters have shown that this is better than using k. The sampling distribution for α tends to be more symmetric than that for k, which ensures a faster approach to asymptotic normality [2,3].

    Given 14 data points of final size z from the first dataset, from which all observations of z=1 were excluded, we estimated parameters R0 and k. Using the Nelder-Mead method with intial values R0=1.5 and k=0.15, we obtained parameter estimates that maximizes the likelihood function (Eq (2.6)). The optimization was conducted using the R function "optim".

    We conducted parametric bootstrapping to obtain the 95% CI of R0 and k. Firstly, we derived the covariance matrix from the Hessian matrix that was returned as part of the optimization result in "optim" function. Using the covariance matrix, we generated 3000 pairs of multivariate normal distributions for R0 and k and calculated the 95% CI with the bootstrap percentile method.

    We let the reproduction numbers of the Delta variant in the "0 or 1 dose" group and the "2 doses" group to be:

    {R0delta=γdeltaR0,R0delta_vac=γvacγdeltaR0. (2.7)

    Here, γdelta expresses the relative transmissibility of the Delta variant compared with that of the wild type, and γvac represents the reduced transmissibility among fully vaccinated individuals compared with unvaccinated individuals. R0 is the basic reproduction number of the wild type. The vaccine effectiveness (VE), in terms of preventing secondary transmission, can be calculated as 100(1γvac)%. We note that γdelta and γvac are coefficients that represent relative changes in the number of secondary transmissions produced but not the risk of being infected.

    Under the assumption that the offspring distribution Y follows a negative binomial distribution, the p.g.f. for having y offspring is as follows.:

    GY(s)=(1+R0i(1s)k)k (2.8)

    Using such p.g.f., the probability of having no offspring (y=0) [22] is derived as:

    Pr(Y=0)=py=GY(0)=1(1+R0ik)k (2.9)

    where R0i represents R0delta or R0delta_vac for i=1 and 2, respectively.

    The likelihood function for estimating γdelta and γvac is as follows.:

    L2(γdelta,γvac;R0,k,ni,mi)=2i=1(nimi)pymii(1pyi)nimi+1=2i=1(nimi)(1(1+R0ik)k)mi(11(1+R0ik)k)nimi+1 (2.10)

    Here, i represents different groups based on vaccine status, where i=1 represents the group with 0 or 1 vaccine doses, and i=2 represents fully vaccinated individuals. ni refers to the total number of people in the category, and mi refers to number of those who had no offspring (y=0). For i=1 in the 0 or 1 dose vaccination group, n1 and m1 had values of 177 and 138, respectively. For i=2 in the fully vaccinated group, n2 and m2 were 726 and 344, respectively.

    Given the secondary transmission dataset from the fifth wave and 3000 bootstrap pairs of pre-estimated R0 and k, we estimated parameters γdelta and γvac that maximizes the likelihood function. Using the Nelder-Mead method with intial parameter values γdelta=3 and γvac=0.2, we obtained 3000 pairs of parameter estimates that maximizes the likelihood function. The optimization was conducted using the R function "optim". By the repeating parametric bootstrap for each pairs in the same manner as R0 and k, we obtained 95% CIs for γdelta and γvac.

    We assumed that the dispersion parameter k is consistent across SARS-CoV-2. Thus, we conducted a sensitivity analysis of the estimated reproduction number for the Delta variant with different values of the dispersion parameter k. We repeated the estimation for γdelta and γvac using different values of k, ranging between 0.05 and 1, which were minimum and maximum values found either as estimates or the bounds of the CI in prior research [6,7,10,11,12,23,24,25,26,27]. Although there is not yet much evidence for the dispersion parameter of the Delta variant, preliminary research estimates k=0.23 (95% CI: 0.18–0.30) [14], which is within the range of the dispersion parameter for the wild type.

    Reproduction numbers of the Delta variant in populations with different vaccination statues were calculated by substituting estimated γdelta and γvac into Eq (2.7). 95% CIs for reproduction numbers were also calculated with the bootstrap percentile method.

    All of the analysis in the present study was conducted using R, version 3.6.3 [28].

    The present study examined publicly available data that do not contain any personally identifiable information. As such, ethical approval was not required for the present study.

    For the wild type of COVID-19, R0 was estimated to be 3.78 (95% CI: 3.72–3.83). This value is higher than suggested by previous research, with meta-analysis and a systematic review concluding that R0 lies in the range from 2–3 [29,30]. The value of k for the wild type was estimated to be 0.236 (95% CI: 0.233–0.240), which is broadly consistent with prior findings [6,8,9,10,12,13,26]. The final size distribution given by the estimated R0 and k is shown in Figure 2, which compares observed data (line) and the fitted model (bars). While the model captures the overall trend of frequency, the frequencies for z=2 and z=3 are underestimated. The fit may be biased by a cluster observed at z=15.

    Figure 2.  Final size distribution of wild type. Observed data points are shown as dots on a line, and the estimates from the model are shown as bars. The value of z=15 in the model shows the total sum for z15. Due to the computational limitations, the upper limit contained in the total sum is z=120. The sample size was 25 reports. Data include reports before June 4, 2020. Note that the horizontal axis shows the number of secondary (and later) cases involved; primary cases and sporadic cases without any secondary transmission were discarded from the analysis.

    Using the estimated parameters of the wild type, we then estimated the relative transmissibility of the Delta variant and the relative transmissibility among fully vaccinated individuals. The relative transmissibility of the Delta variant to the wild type, γdelta, was estimated to be 1.42 (95% CI: 0.94–1.90). The relative effect on transmissibility from two-dose vaccination, γvac, was estimated to be 0.09 (95% CI: 0.03–0.14). This indicates that VE for preventing secondary transmission among a fully vaccinated population, compared with unvaccinated individuals, was 91% (95% CI: 85%–97%).

    By substituting the estimated parameters into Eq (2.7), the basic reproduction number of the Delta variant, R0delta, was calculated as 5.37 (95% CI: 3.55–7.21). This value is consistent with prior research findings, which indicate a mean value of 5.08 [31]. The reproduction number of the Delta variant among fully vaccinated individuals, R0delta_vac, was calculated to be 0.44 (95% CI: 0.20–0.69). This result highlights that the reproduction number in the fully vaccinated population was well below 1.

    The offspring distribution of the Delta variant was calculated using the mean of the estimated reproduction number for both the 0 or 1 dose population and the 2 doses population (Figure 3). The dispersion parameter k was assumed to be identical to the estimated value for the wild type (k=0.236). The left panel shows the result for the population with vaccination status of either 0 or 1 dose, while the right panel shows the result for 2 doses. The dotted horizontal line identifies the observed frequency of those who did not cause a secondary infection (y=0). For the 2 doses population, the estimated frequency from the model matches that of the observed data.

    Figure 3.  Estimated offspring distribution of the Delta variant according to vaccination status. The left panel shows the result for the population with a vaccination status of either 0 or 1 dose, while the right panel shows the result for the 2 doses population. The dispersion parameter k was assumed to be identical to the estimated value for the wild type (k=0.236). The dotted horizontal line identifies the observed frequency of those who did not cause any secondary transmission (y=0).

    The results of sensitivity analysis with various values of the dispersion parameter k are shown in Figure 4. Dotted vertical lines indicate the value of the dispersion parameter (k=0.23) estimated from the data for the wild type. At k=0.05, the Delta variant is estimated to have an R0 value of 2878.75 (95% CI 1248.96–4458.64), while at k=1.0, R0 is 1.11 (95% CI 0.95–1.28) (Panel C). As shown in Panel B, the relative transmissibility among fully vaccinated individuals is reduced at smaller k values, meaning that there is a greater reduction in the number of secondary transmissions. The reproduction number in fully vaccinated individuals was estimated to be less than 1 for all k values greater than 0.15.

    Figure 4.  Sensitivity analysis of estimates to variations in dispersion parameter k. Estimations of γdelta and γvac were repeated using different values of k. Panel A shows the relative transmissibility of Delta, γdelta. Panel B shows the relative transmissibility among the vaccinated population, γvac. Panels C and D show the reproduction number of the Delta variant for populations with a vaccination status of 0 or 1 doses and 2 doses, respectively. Reproduction numbers were calculated by substituting estimated γdelta and γvac into Eq (2.7). 95% CIs of each estimates were calculated with the bootstrap percentile method. The dotted lines identify the value of the dispersion parameter (k=0.23) used in the default setting, which was retrieved from the estimation of the wild type. Vertical axes of Panels A and C are in logarithmic scale.

    Using meticulously observed contact tracing data from Wakayama prefecture in early 2020 and mid-2021, we estimated the basic reproduction number R0 and the dispersion parameter k of the wild-type COVID-19, as well as the relative transmissibility of the Delta variant and relative transmissibility among fully vaccinated individuals. For the wild type, R0 was estimated to be 3.78, and k was estimated to be 0.24. For the Delta variant, we estimated that R0 is 5.37, which is in line with preliminary findings reporting a mean of 5.08 [31]. Our estimates also indicated that the number of secondary transmissions was reduced by 91% among fully vaccinated individuals. To the best of our knowledge, no previous research has quantified the R0 value of the COVID-19 Delta variant from minor outbreak data while accounting for the relative transmissibility among fully vaccinated individuals.

    The present study highlights that the basic reproduction numbers of variants can efficiently be estimated by applying the branching process model to the distribution of minor outbreak data. We emphasize that our method provides "relative transmissibility" of emerging variants on the basic reproduction number, not the effective reproduction number. This provides the basic reproduction numbers of new variants that work as fundamental indices for controlling pandemics (i.e., in planning strategies of vaccination programs). Our methods can be applied if epidemiological surveys are being conducted at a constant level, and the relative susceptibility within the population remains at a comparable level. Moreover, we emphasize that the data from minor outbreaks, which are a type of epidemic that has a small number of cases, can provide further insightful epidemiological estimates, including the dispersion parameter and VE in terms of preventing transmission. While the estimated R0 of the wild type was higher than the commonly agreed value, it was within the upper range of published CIs [29,30]. Furthermore, we have proved that VE in terms of preventing secondary transmission can also be estimated from limited observed data. Finally, the 95% CI for the estimated R0 of the Delta variant overlaps with values reported in existing studies [31,32].

    The strength of the present study lies in the successful estimation of the basic reproduction number R0 of the Delta variant from minimal observed data of minor outbreaks. Understanding R0 is essential in planning effective strategies to contain the spread of the virus, particularly when it is known to be growing with the emergence of new variants. Furthermore, estimations regarding the Delta variant were made possible by assuming that the dispersion parameter is equivalent to that of the wild type, which we estimated from another dataset collected in the same geographic region. We could have separately estimated the dispersion parameter if either the final size or offspring distribution had also been observed for the Delta variant.

    Our results imply that contact tracing is a critical factor that can enhance future data collection during the pandemic. Our findings prove that contact tracing data contribute to estimations of transmissibility and VE. To further understand the nature of the virus and its mechanisms of transmission, surveillance should be customized to include information as follows: vaccination status, number of secondary transmissions (not only whether they did or did not cause secondary transmission), detailed demographic and epidemiological attributes (i.e., sex and age group for each reported case). This information allows a more explicit and detailed analysis of the transmission dynamics specific to particular population groups and settings.

    We must address some limitations of our study. First, the data on secondary transmission were identified through epidemiological investigation, which relied on the local capacity of contact tracing and patient cooperation in the tracing practice. The tracing method means that there is always the possibility of recall bias, which may lead to the presence of unascertained cases. However, because backward tracing was combined with forward tracing in Japan, it is likely that most secondary transmission, including asymptomatic cases, was captured. More active testing strategies, including daily PCR testing, may capture more comprehensive transmission dynamics. Second, the sample size of the final size distribution was limited to only 25 clusters. While it is still very rare for data to be observed, the estimates for R0 and k could have been more consistent with existing research if more reports were available. A serological survey could have been conducted so that the actual final size could be determined without the possibility of any biases. Third, the fifth wave dataset lacked a detailed offspring distribution, but it instead included the respective frequencies of those who did or did not cause secondary transmissions. If the full distribution of secondary transmission per person was observed (e.g., y=1,2,3,), R0 and k for the Delta variant could have been separately estimated with greater precision. While modeling from a limited dataset is still possible under certain assumptions, a detailed offspring distribution is essential in understanding the full nature of the transmission dynamics of infectious diseases. Finally, the waning of vaccine-induced immunity was ignored. Because the fifth wave occurred amid the vaccination program, we believe it was not essential to meticulously measure the time since vaccination at an individual level.

    In conclusion, the present study has demonstrated a method to estimate the basic reproduction number of a new variant, denoted by the relative transmissibility from an existing type of virus, through the application of branching process models on very limited data. We emphasize that our method does not rely on exponential growth rate and generation time distribution models that require major outbreak datasets from fully susceptible populations. Using the final size and offspring distribution of minor outbreaks aggregated based on intensive contact tracing, we have estimated that the Delta variant is 1.42 times as transmissive as the wild type of COVID-19, which results in R0 of 5.37. The VE in the reduction in the number of secondary transmissions was estimated to be 91% among fully vaccinated individuals compared with unvaccinated individuals.

    The study has also presented the importance of collecting pieces of information on minor outbreaks, where transmissions are contained in small settings without spreading to a wide range of communities in the population. We emphasize that offspring and final size distributions accumulated based on intensive contact tracing practices or serological surveys can significantly contribute to determining the fundamental indices for understanding and controlling outbreaks.

    H. N. received funding from Health and Labour Sciences Research Grants (20CA2024, 20HA2007, 21HB1002 and 21HA2016), the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (JP20fk0108140, JP20fk0108535, and JP21fk0108612), the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI (21H03198), the Environment Research and Technology Development Fund (JPMEERF20S11804) of the Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency of Japan, and the Japan Science and Technology Agency SICORP program (JPMJSC20U3 and JPMJSC2105). We thank local governments, public health centers, and institutes for surveillance, laboratory testing, epidemiological investigations, and data collection. We thank Stuart Jenkinson, PhD, from Edanz (https://jp.edanz.com/ac) for editing a draft of this manuscript.

    The authors declare there is no conflict of interest.


    Acknowledgments



    This work was supported by the Russian Science Foundation (Grant No. 21-75-10082).

    Conflict of interest



    The authors declare no conflict of interest.

    Author contributions



    A.D.K.—original draft preparation; P.S.T—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

    [1] Moon TC, Befus AD, Kulka M (2014) Mast cell mediators: Their differential release and the secretory pathways involved. Front Immunol 5: 569. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2014.00569
    [2] Theoharides TC, Kempuraj D, Tagen M, et al. (2007) Differential release of mast cell mediators and the pathogenesis of inflammation. Immunol Rev 217: 65-78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-065X.2007.00519.x
    [3] Abraham SN, St John AL (2010) Mast cell-orchestrated immunity to pathogens. Nat Rev Immunol 10: 440-452. https://doi.org/10.1038/nri2782
    [4] He Y, Li Z, Alexander PG, et al. (2020) Pathogenesis of osteoarthritis: Risk factors, regulatory pathways in chondrocytes, and experimental models. Biology (Basel) 9: 1-32. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology9080194
    [5] Chow YY, Chin KY (2020) The role of inflammation in the pathogenesis of osteoarthritis. Mediators Inflamm 2020: 8293921. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8293921
    [6] Sokolove J, Lepus CM (2013) Role of inflammation in the pathogenesis of osteoarthritis: Latest findings and interpretations. Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis 5: 77-94. https://doi.org/10.1177/1759720X12467868
    [7] Dean G, Hoyland JA, Denton J, et al. (1993) Mast cells in the synovium and synovial fluid in osteoarthrhis. Rheumatology 32: 671-675. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/32.8.671
    [8] Wang Q, Lepus CM, Raghu H, et al. (2019) IgE-mediated mast cell activation promotes inflammation and cartilage destruction in osteoarthritis. Elife 8: e39905. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.39905
    [9] Dan J, Izumi M, Habuchi H, et al. (2021) A novel mice model of acute flares in osteoarthritis elicited by intra-articular injection of cultured mast cells. J Exp Orthop 8: 75. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40634-021-00391-6
    [10] Sellam J, Berenbaum F (2013) Is osteoarthritis a metabolic disease?. Joint Bone Spine 80: 568-573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbspin.2013.09.007
    [11] de Lange-Brokaar BJE, Kloppenburg M, Andersen SN, et al. (2016) Characterization of synovial mast cells in knee osteoarthritis: Association with clinical parameters. Osteoarthr Cartilage 24: 664-671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2015.11.011
    [12] Farinelli L, Aquili A, Mattioli-Belmonte M, et al. (2022) Synovial mast cells from knee and hip osteoarthritis: histological study and clinical correlations. J Exp Orthop 9: 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40634-022-00446-2
    [13] Ceponis A, Konttinen YT, Takagi M, et al. (1998) Expression of stem cell factor (SCF) and SCF receptor (c-kit) in synovial membrane in arthritis: correlation with synovial mast cell hyperplasia and inflammation. J Rheumatol 25: 2304-2314.
    [14] Dahlin JS, Hallgren J (2015) Mast cell progenitors: Origin, development and migration to tissues. Mol Immunol 63: 9-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molimm.2014.01.018
    [15] Gözel N, Çakirer M, Karataş A, et al. (2018) Sorafenib reveals anti-arthritic potentials in collagen induced experimental arthritis model. Arch Rheumatol 33: 309. https://doi.org/10.5606/ArchRheumatol.2018.6652
    [16] Kulkarni P, Harsulkar A, Märtson AG, et al. (2022) Mast cells differentiated in synovial fluid and resident in osteophytes exalt the inflammatory pathology of osteoarthritis. Int J Mol Sci 2022: 541. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23010541
    [17] Aquili A, Farinelli L, Bottegoni C, et al. (2017) The effect of anti-IgE therapy in knee osteoarthritis: a pilot observational study. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents 31: 1-5.
    [18] Theoharides TC, Alysandratos KD, Angelidou A, et al. (2012) Mast cells and inflammation. Biochim Biophys Acta Mol Cell Res 1822: 21-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbadis.2010.12.014
    [19] Bax HJ, Keeble AH, Gould HJ (2012) Cytokinergic IgE action in mast cell activation. Front Immunol 3: 229. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2012.00229
    [20] Park S, Choi NK (2020) Association between serum immunoglobulin E levels and knee osteoarthritis in Korean adults. Osteoarthr Cartilage 28: 462-467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2020.02.830
    [21] Nishioka M, Ioi H, Matsumoto R, et al. (2008) TMJ osteoarthritis/osteoarthrosis and immune system factors in a Japanese sample. Angle Orthod 78: 793-798. https://doi.org/10.2319/091407-438
    [22] Riegger J, Brenner RE (2020) Pathomechanisms of posttraumatic osteoarthritis: chondrocyte behavior and fate in a precarious environment. Int J Mol Sci 21: 1560. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21051560
    [23] Foell D, Wittkowski H, Roth J (2007) Mechanisms of disease: A ‘DAMP’ view of inflammatory arthritis. Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol 3: 382-390. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncprheum0531
    [24] Sandig H, Bulfone-Paus S (2012) TLR signaling in mast cells: common and unique features. Front Immunol 3: 185. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2012.00185
    [25] Gondokaryono SP, Ushio H, Niyonsaba F, et al. (2007) The extra domain A of fibronectin stimulates murine mast cells via Toll-like receptor 4. J Leukocyte Biol 82: 657-665. https://doi.org/10.1189/jlb.1206730
    [26] Park H, Hong J, Yin Y, et al. (2020) TAP2, a peptide antagonist of Toll-like receptor 4, attenuates pain and cartilage degradation in a monoiodoacetate-induced arthritis rat model. Sci Rep 10: 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-74544-5
    [27] Flannery CR, Zollner R, Corcoran C, et al. (2009) Prevention of cartilage degeneration in a rat model of osteoarthritis by intraarticular treatment with recombinant lubricin. Arthritis Rheum 60: 840-847. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.24304
    [28] Alquraini A, Garguilo S, D'Souza G, et al. (2015) The interaction of lubricin/proteoglycan 4 (PRG4) with Toll-like receptors 2 and 4: an anti-inflammatory role of PRG4 in synovial fluid. Arthritis Res Ther 17: 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13075-015-0877-x
    [29] Sick E, Brehin S, André P, et al. (2010) Advanced glycation end products (AGEs) activate mast cells. Brit J Pharmacol 161: 442-455. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-5381.2010.00905.x
    [30] Swanson KV, Deng M, Ting JPY (2019) The NLRP3 inflammasome: molecular activation and regulation to therapeutics. Nat Rev Immunol 2019 198 19: 477-489. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41577-019-0165-0
    [31] McAllister MJ, Chemaly M, Eakin AJ, et al. (2018) NLRP3 as a potentially novel biomarker for the management of osteoarthritis. Osteoarthr Cartilage 26: 612-619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2018.02.901
    [32] Guo X, Xu X, Li T, et al. (2021) NLRP3 inflammasome activation of mast cells by estrogen via the nuclear-initiated signaling pathway contributes to the development of endometriosis. Front Immunol 12: 3909. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2021.749979
    [33] Wang Q, Rozelle AL, Lepus CM, et al. (2011) Identification of a central role for complement in osteoarthritis. Nat Med 17: 1674. https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.2543
    [34] Gaudenzio N, Sibilano R, Marichal T, et al. (2016) Different activation signals induce distinct mast cell degranulation strategies. J Clin Invest 126: 3981. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI85538
    [35] Elieh Ali Komi D, Shafaghat F, Kovanen PT, et al. (2020) Mast cells and complement system: Ancient interactions between components of innate immunity. Allergy 75: 2818-2828. https://doi.org/10.1111/all.14413
    [36] Schäfer B, Piliponsky AM, Oka T, et al. (2013) Mast cell anaphylatoxin receptor expression can enhance IgE-dependent skin inflammation in mice. J Allergy Clin Immunol 131: 541-548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2012.05.009
    [37] Lubbers R, van Essen MF, van Kooten C, et al. (2017) Production of complement components by cells of the immune system. Clin Exp Immunol 188: 183-194. https://doi.org/10.1111/cei.12952
    [38] Bollmann M, Colombo F, Marco P, et al. (2018) Inhibition of the complement system component C5 as possible treatment in OA. Osteoarthr Cartilage 26: S108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2018.02.236
    [39] Yu C, Zang H, Yang C, et al. (2021) Study of chondroitin sulfate E oligosaccharide as a promising complement C5 inhibitor for osteoarthritis alleviation. Mat Sci Eng C-Bio S 127: 112234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2021.112234
    [40] Sousa-Valente J, Calvo L, Vacca V, et al. (2018) Role of TrkA signalling and mast cells in the initiation of osteoarthritis pain in the monoiodoacetate model. Osteoarthr Cartilage 26: 84-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2017.08.006
    [41] Obara I, Telezhkin V, Alrashdi I, et al. (2020) Histamine, histamine receptors, and neuropathic pain relief. Brit J Pharmacol 177: 580. https://doi.org/10.1111/bph.14696
    [42] Miller RE, Block JA, Malfait AM (2017) Nerve growth factor blockade for the management of osteoarthritis pain: what can we learn from clinical trials and preclinical models?. Curr Opin Rheumatol 29: 110-118. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOR.0000000000000354
    [43] Nwosu LN, Mapp PI, Chapman V, et al. (2016) Extended report: Blocking the tropomyosin receptor kinase A (TrkA) receptor inhibits pain behaviour in two rat models of osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 75: 1246. https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2014-207203
    [44] Okamura Y, Mishima S, Kashiwakura J, et al. (2017) The dual regulation of substance P-mediated inflammation via human synovial mast cells in rheumatoid arthritis. Allergol Int 66: S9-S20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alit.2017.03.002
    [45] Henry CH, Wolford LM (2001) Substance P and mast cells: Preliminary histologic analysis of the human temporomandibular joint. Oral Surg Oral Med O 92: 384-389. https://doi.org/10.1067/moe.2001.117811
    [46] Green DP, Limjunyawong N, Gour N, et al. (2019) A mast-cell-specific receptor mediates neurogenic inflammation and pain. Neuron 101: 412-420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2019.01.012
    [47] Ko KR, Lee H, Han SH, et al. (2022) Substance P, a promising therapeutic target in musculoskeletal disorders. Int J Mol Sci 23: 2583. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23052583
    [48] Ogasawara H, Noguchi M (2021) Therapeutic potential of MRGPRX2 inhibitors on mast cells. Cells 10: 2096. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells10112906
    [49] Thangam EB, Jemima EA, Singh H, et al. (2018) The role of histamine and histamine receptors in mast cell-mediated allergy and inflammation: The hunt for new therapeutic targets. Front Immunol 9: 1873. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2018.01873
    [50] Shirinsky I, Shirinsky V (2018) H1-antihistamines are associated with lower prevalence of radiographic knee osteoarthritis: a cross-sectional analysis of the Osteoarthritis Initiative data. Arthritis Res Ther 20: 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13075-018-1619-7
    [51] Bihlet AR, Miller CP, Byrjalsen I, et al. (2022) OP0230 antihistamine use and structural progression of knee OA: a post-hoc analysis of two phase III clinical trials. Ann Rheum Dis 81: 152. https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2022-eular.4425
    [52] Sommer C (2010) Serotonin in pain and pain control. Handbook of Behavioral Neuroscience . Amsterdam: Elsevier 457-471. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1569-7339(10)70096-5
    [53] Harbuz MS, Perveen-Gill Z, Lalies MD, et al. (1996) The role of endogenous serotonin in adjuvant-induced arthritis in the rat. Rheumatology 35: 112-116. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/35.2.112
    [54] Kopp S, Alstergren P (2002) Blood serotonin and joint pain in seropositive versus seronegative rheumatoid arthritis. Mediators Inflamm 11: 211. https://doi.org/10.1080/09629350290000069
    [55] Wan M, Ding L, Wang D, et al. (2020) Serotonin: A potent immune cell modulator in autoimmune diseases. Front Immunol 11: 186. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2020.00186
    [56] Seidel MF, Fiebich BL, Ulrich-Merzenich G, et al. (2008) Serotonin mediates PGE2 overexpression through 5-HT2A and 5-HT3 receptor subtypes in serum-free tissue culture of macrophage-like synovial cells. Rheumatol Int 28: 1017-1022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-008-0564-1
    [57] Stevens RL, Adachi R (2007) Protease-proteoglycan complexes of mouse and human mast cells and importance of their β-tryptase-heparin complexes in inflammation and innate immunity. Immunol Rev 217: 155-167. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-065X.2007.00525.x
    [58] So AK, Varisco PA, Kemkes-Matthes B, et al. (2003) Arthritis is linked to local and systemic activation of coagulation and fibrinolysis pathways. J Thromb Haemost 1: 2510-2515. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-7836.2003.00462.x
    [59] Chou PY, Su CM, Huang CY, et al. (2014) The characteristics of thrombin in osteoarthritic pathogenesis and treatment. Biomed Res Int 2014: 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/407518
    [60] Migliore A, Procopio S (2015) Effectiveness and utility of hyaluronic acid in osteoarthritis. Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab 12: 31. https://doi.org/10.11138/ccmbm/2015.12.1.031
    [61] Bishnoi M, Jain A, Hurkat P, et al. (2016) Chondroitin sulphate: a focus on osteoarthritis. Glycoconj J 33: 693-705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10719-016-9665-3
    [62] Takano H, Furuta K, Yamashita K, et al. (2012) Restriction of mast cell proliferation through hyaluronan synthesis by co-cultured fibroblasts. Biol Pharm Bull 35: 408-412. https://doi.org/10.1248/bpb.35.408
    [63] Theoharides TC, Patra P, Boucher W, et al. (2000) Chondroitin sulphate inhibits connective tissue mast cells. Brit J Pharmacol 131: 1039. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjp.0703672
    [64] Crivellato E, Beltrami CA, Mallardi F, et al. (2004) The mast cell: an active participant or an innocent bystander?. Histol Histopathol 19: 259-270.
    [65] Buckley MG, Gallagher PJ, Walls AF (1998) Mast cell subpopulations in the synovial tissue of patients with osteoarthritis: selective increase in numbers of tryptase-positive, chymase-negative mast cells. J Pathol 186: 67-74. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9896(199809)186:1<67::AID-PATH132>3.0.CO;2-D
    [66] Takata K, Uchida K, Mukai M, et al. (2020) Increase in tryptase and its role in the synovial membrane of overweight and obese patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes 13: 1491-1497. https://doi.org/10.2147/DMSO.S253147
    [67] Marquardt U, Zettl F, Huber R, et al. (2002) The crystal structure of human α1-tryptase reveals a blocked substrate-binding region. J Mol Biol 321: 491-502. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-2836(02)00625-3
    [68] Buckley MG, Walters C, Wong WM, et al. (1997) Mast cell activation in arthritis: Detection of α- and β-tryptase, histamine and eosinophil cationic protein in synovial fluid. Clin Sci 93: 363-370. https://doi.org/10.1042/cs0930363
    [69] Nakano S, Mishiro T, Takahara S, et al. (2007) Distinct expression of mast cell tryptase and protease activated receptor-2 in synovia of rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis. Clin Rheumatol 26: 1284-1292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-006-0495-8
    [70] Xiang Y, Masuko-Hongo K, Sekine T, et al. (2006) Expression of proteinase-activated receptors (PAR)-2 in articular chondrocytes is modulated by IL-1β, TNF-α and TGF-β. Osteoarthr Cartilage 14: 1163-1173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2006.04.015
    [71] Huang X, Ni B, Xi Y, et al. (2019) Protease-activated receptor 2 (PAR-2) antagonist AZ3451 as a novel therapeutic agent for osteoarthritis. Aging 11: 12532. https://doi.org/10.18632/aging.102586
    [72] Ferrell WR, Kelso EB, Lockhart JC, et al. (2010) Protease-activated receptor 2: a novel pathogenic pathway in a murine model of osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 69: 2051-2054. https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.2010.130336
    [73] Lucena F, McDougall JJ (2021) Protease activated receptors and arthritis. Int J Mol Sci 22: 9352. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22179352
    [74] Smith RL (1999) Degradative enzymes in osteoarthritis. Front Biosci 4: 704-712. https://doi.org/10.2741/A388
    [75] Meszaros E, Malemud CJ (2012) Prospects for treating osteoarthritis: enzyme–protein interactions regulating matrix metalloproteinase activity. Ther Adv Chronic Dis 3: 219. https://doi.org/10.1177/2040622312454157
    [76] Crofford LJ, Sano H, Karalis K, et al. (1993) Corticotropin-releasing hormone in synovial fluids and tissues of patients with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis. J Immunol 151: 1587-1596.
    [77] Zhao Z, Li E, Cao Q, et al. (2016) Endothelin-1 concentrations are correlated with the severity of knee osteoarthritis. J Invest Med 64: 872-874. https://doi.org/10.1136/jim-2015-000030
    [78] De Falco L, Fioravanti A, Galeazzi M, et al. (2013) Bradykinin and its role in osteoarthritis. Reumatismo 65: 97-104. https://doi.org/10.4081/reumatismo.2013.97
    [79] Roy-Beaudry M, Martel-Pelletier J, Pelletier JP, et al. (2003) Endothelin 1 promotes osteoarthritic cartilage degradation via matrix metalloprotease 1 and matrix metalloprotease 13 induction. Arthritis Rheum 48: 2855-2864. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.11247
    [80] Sin A, Tang W, Wen CY, et al. (2015) The emerging role of endothelin-1 in the pathogenesis of subchondral bone disturbance and osteoarthritis. Osteoarthr Cartilage 23: 516-524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2014.11.002
    [81] Khatib AM, Siegfried G, Messai H, et al. (2002) Mechanism of inhibition of endothelin-1-stimulated proteoglycan and collagen synthesis in rat articular chondrocytes. Cytokine 17: 254-261. https://doi.org/10.1006/cyto.2001.1001
    [82] Au M, Liu Z, Rong L, et al. (2020) Endothelin-1 induces chondrocyte senescence and cartilage damage via endothelin receptor type B in a post-traumatic osteoarthritis mouse model. Osteoarthr Cartilage 28: 1559-1571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2020.08.006
    [83] Tenti S, Pascarelli NA, Cheleschi S, et al. (2016) The emerging role of bradykinin in the pathogenesis of osteoarthritis and its possible clinical implications. Curr Rheumatol Rev 12: 177-184. https://doi.org/10.2174/1573397112666160331143305
    [84] Montjean R, Escaich S, Carelli C, et al. (2019) Chimeric peptide combining both growth hormone and somatostatin sequences (REG-O3) improves function and prevents cartilage degradation in rat model of osteoarthritis. Osteoarthr Cartilage 27: S428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2019.02.449
    [85] Silveri F, Morosini P, Brecciaroli D, et al. (1994) Intra-articular injection of somatostatin in knee osteoarthritis: clinical results and IGF-1 serum levels. Int J Clin Pharmacol Res 14: 79-85.
    [86] Intekhab-Alam NY, White OB, Getting SJ, et al. (2013) Urocortin protects chondrocytes from NO-induced apoptosis: a future therapy for osteoarthritis?. Cell Death Discov 4: e717. https://doi.org/10.1038/cddis.2013.231
    [87] Lawrence KM, Jones RC, Jackson TR, et al. (2017) Chondroprotection by urocortin involves blockade of the mechanosensitive ion channel Piezo1. Sci Rep 7: 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-04367-4
    [88] Jiang W, Wang H, Li YS, et al. (2016) Role of vasoactive intestinal peptide in osteoarthritis. J Biomed Sci 23: 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12929-016-0280-1
    [89] Caughey GH, Leidig F, Viro NF, et al. (1988) Substance P and vasoactive intestinal peptide degradation by mast cell tryptase and chymase. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 244: 133-137.
    [90] Vincent TL (2019) IL-1 in osteoarthritis: Time for a critical review of the literature. F1000Research 8: 1-8. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.18831.1
    [91] Florián AM (2011) IL-1 and its role in osteoarthritis. Open J Med 1: 1-6.
    [92] Li H, Xie S, Qi Y, et al. (2018) TNF-αincreases the expression of inflammatory factors in synovial fibroblasts by inhibiting the PI3K/AKT pathway in a rat model of monosodium iodoacetate-induced osteoarthritis. Exp Ther Med 16: 4737-4744. https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2018.6770
    [93] Hu G, Zhao X, Wang C, et al. (2017) MicroRNA-145 attenuates TNF-α-driven cartilage matrix degradation in osteoarthritis via direct suppression of MKK4. Cell Death Discov 8: e3140-e3140. https://doi.org/10.1038/cddis.2017.522
    [94] Chisari E, Yaghmour KM, Khan WS (2020) The effects of TNF-alpha inhibition on cartilage: a systematic review of preclinical studies. Osteoarthr Cartilage 28: 708-718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2019.09.008
    [95] Suurmond J, Dorjée AL, Boon MR, et al. (2011) Mast cells are the main interleukin 17-positive cells in anticitrullinated protein antibody-positive and -negative rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis synovium. Arthritis Res Ther 13: R150. https://doi.org/10.1186/ar3466
    [96] Mohamed SA, Neseem NO, Metwally SS, et al. (2018) IL-17 in primary knee osteoarthritis and its relation with severity of the disease. Int J Clin Rheumtol 13: 364-369. https://doi.org/10.4172/1758-4272.1000212
    [97] Na HS, Park JS, Cho KH, et al. (2020) Interleukin-1-interleukin-17 signaling axis induces cartilage destruction and promotes experimental osteoarthritis. Front Immunol 11: 730. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2020.00730
    [98] Liao Y, Ren Y, Luo X, et al. (2022) Interleukin-6 signaling mediates cartilage degradation and pain in posttraumatic osteoarthritis in a sex-specific manner. Sci Signal 15: eabn7082. https://doi.org/10.1126/scisignal.abn7082
    [99] Wiegertjes R, van de Loo FAJ, Davidson ENB (2020) A roadmap to target interleukin-6 in osteoarthritis. Rheumatology 59: 2681-2694. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/keaa248
    [100] Ahmad R, El Mabrouk M, Sylvester J, et al. (2009) Human osteoarthritic chondrocytes are impaired in matrix metalloproteinase-13 inhibition by IFN-γ due to reduced IFN-γ receptor levels. Osteoarthr Cartilage 17: 1049-1055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2009.02.008
    [101] Henrotin YE, Zheng SX, Labasse AH, et al. (2000) Modulation of human chondrocyte metabolism by recombinant human interferon. Osteoarthr Cartilage 8: 474-482. https://doi.org/10.1053/joca.1999.0323
    [102] Kour S, Garimella MG, Shiroor DA, et al. (2016) IL-3 decreases cartilage degeneration by downregulating matrix metalloproteinases and reduces joint destruction in osteoarthritic mice. J Immunol 196: 5024-5035. https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.1500907
    [103] van Helvoort EM, van der Heijden E, van Roon JAG, et al. (2022) The role of interleukin-4 and interleukin-10 in osteoarthritic joint disease: A systematic narrative review. Cartilage 13: 194760352210981. https://doi.org/10.1177/19476035221098167
    [104] Jovanovic D, Pelletier JP, Alaaeddine N, et al. (1998) Effect of IL-13 on cytokines, cytokine receptors and inhibitors on human osteoarthritis synovium and synovial fibroblasts. Osteoarthr Cartilage 6: 40-49. https://doi.org/10.1053/joca.1997.0091
    [105] Yang CY, Chanalaris A, Bonelli S, et al. (2020) Interleukin 13 (IL-13)-regulated expression of the chondroprotective metalloproteinase ADAM15 is reduced in aging cartilage. Osteoarthr Cartil Open 2: 100128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocarto.2020.100128
    [106] Cook AD, Pobjoy J, Steidl S, et al. (2012) Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor is a key mediator in experimental osteoarthritis pain and disease development. Arthritis Res Ther 14: 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/ar4037
    [107] Lee KMC, Prasad V, Achuthan A, et al. (2020) Targeting GM-CSF for collagenase-induced osteoarthritis pain and disease in mice. Osteoarthr Cartilage 28: 486-491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2020.01.012
    [108] Tewari D, Cook AD, Lee MC, et al. (2020) Granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor as an indirect mediator of nociceptor activation and pain. J Neurosci 40: 2189-2199. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2268-19.2020
    [109] Honsawek S, Yuktanandana P, Tanavalee A, et al. (2012) Correlation between plasma and synovial fluid basic fibroblast growth factor with radiographic severity in primary knee osteoarthritis. Int Orthop 36: 981. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-011-1435-z
    [110] Takata K, Uchida K, Takano S, et al. (2021) Possible regulation of bFGF expression by mast cells in osteoarthritis patients with obesity: A cross-sectional study. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes 14: 3291-3297. https://doi.org/10.2147/DMSO.S319537
    [111] El-Fetiany AE, Kassem EM, El-Barbary AM, et al. (2017) Evaluation of plasma basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF) in primary knee osteoarthritis patients. Egypt Rheumatol 39: 33-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejr.2016.03.006
    [112] Im HJ, Sharrocks AD, Lin X, et al. (2009) Basic fibroblast growth factor induces matrix metalloproteinase-13 via eRK MAP kinase-altered phosphorylation and sumoylation of Elk-1 in human adult articular chondrocytes. Open Access Rheumatol Res Rev 1: 151-161. https://doi.org/10.2147/OARRR.S7527
    [113] Li X, Su G, Wang J, et al. (2013) Exogenous bFGF promotes articular cartilage repair via up-regulation of multiple growth factors. Osteoarthr Cartilage 21: 1567-1575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2013.06.006
    [114] Chuma H, Mizuta H, Kudo S, et al. (2004) One day exposure to FGF-2 was sufficient for the regenerative repair of full-thickness defects of articular cartilage in rabbits. Osteoarthr Cartilage 12: 834-842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2004.07.003
    [115] Khan SN, Muhammad H, Scammahorn JJ, et al. (2018) Fibroblast growth factor 2 promotes regeneration of cartilage by attracting mesenchymal stem cells to the site of cartilage injury. Osteoarthr Cartilage 26: S37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2018.02.090
    [116] Vincent TL (2011) Fibroblast growth factor 2: Good or bad guy in the joint?. Arthritis Res Ther 13: 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1186/ar3447
    [117] Murata M, Yudoh K, Masuko K (2008) The potential role of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in cartilage: How the angiogenic factor could be involved in the pathogenesis of osteoarthritis?. Osteoarthr Cartilage 16: 279-286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2007.09.003
    [118] Hamilton JL, Nagao M, Levine BR, et al. (2016) Targeting VEGF and its receptors for the treatment of osteoarthritis and associated pain. J Bone Miner Res 31: 911-924. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.2828
    [119] Wang B, Wu L, Chen J, et al. (2021) Metabolism pathways of arachidonic acids: mechanisms and potential therapeutic targets. Signal Transduct Target Ther 6: 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41392-020-00443-w
    [120] Theoharides TC, Kalogeromitros D (2006) The critical role of mast cells in allergy and inflammation. Ann NY Acad Sci 1088: 78-99. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1366.025
    [121] Miyabe Y, Miyabe C, Luster AD (2017) LTB4 and BLT1 in inflammatory arthritis. Semin Immunol 33: 52-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smim.2017.09.009
    [122] Wittenberg RH, Willburger RE, Kleemeyer KS, et al. (1993) In vitro release of prostaglandins and leukotrienes from synovial tissue, cartilage, and bone in degenerative joint diseases. Arthritis Rheum 36: 1444-1450. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.1780361017
    [123] Hansen AK, Indrevik JT, Figenschau Y, et al. (2015) Human articular chondrocytes express functional leukotriene B4 receptors. J Anat 226: 268-277. https://doi.org/10.1111/joa.12275
    [124] He W, Pelletier JP, Martel-Pelletier J, et al. (2002) Synthesis of interleukin 1beta, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, and interstitial collagenase (MMP-1) is eicosanoid dependent in human osteoarthritis synovial membrane explants: interactions with antiinflammatory cytokines. J Rheumatol 29: 546-553.
    [125] Mishima S, Kashiwakura J, Toyoshima S, et al. (2021) Higher PGD2 production by synovial mast cells from rheumatoid arthritis patients compared with osteoarthritis patients via miR-199a-3p/prostaglandin synthetase 2 axis. Sci Rep 11: 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-84963-7
    [126] Zayed N, Chabane N, Elmansouri FE, et al. (2010) Prostaglandin D2 enhances interleukin-1β-induced cyclooxygenase-2 expression in osteoarthritic cartilage. J Transl Med 25: 945. https://doi.org/10.1096/fasebj.25.1_supplement.945.15
    [127] Zayed N, Afif H, Chabane N, et al. (2008) Prostaglandin D2 inhibits interleukin-1β-induced matrix metalloproteinase-1 and -13 production by human osteoarthritic chondrocytes. Arthritis Rheum 58: 3530. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.23958
    [128] Dave M, Amin AR (2013) Yin-Yang regulation of prostaglandins and nitric oxide by PGD2 in human arthritis: Reversal by celecoxib. Immunol Lett 152: 47-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imlet.2013.04.002
    [129] Fahmi H, Ouhaddi Y (2017) Deletion of the prostaglandin D2 receptor DP1 exacerbates aging-associated and instability-induced osteoarthritis. Osteoarthr Cartilage 25: S153-S154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2017.02.255
    [130] Timur UT, Caron MMJ, Jeuken RM, et al. (2020) Chondroprotective actions of selective COX-2 inhibitors in vivo: A systematic review. Int J Mol Sci 21: 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21186962
    [131] McCabe PS, Maricar N, Parkes MJ, et al. (2016) The efficacy of intra-articular steroids in hip osteoarthritis: a systematic review. Osteoarthr Cartilage 24: 1509-1517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2016.04.018
    [132] Pelletier JP, Lascau-Coman V, Jovanovic D, et al. (1999) Selective inhibition of inducible nitric oxide synthase in experimental osteoarthritis is associated with reduction in tissue levels of catabolic factors. J Rheumatol 26: 2002-2014.
    [133] Abramson SB (2008) Osteoarthritis and nitric oxide. Osteoarthr Cartilage 16: S15-S20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1063-4584(08)60008-4
    [134] Shang X, Wang Y, Cai D, et al. (2022) An inducible nitric oxide synthase dimerization inhibitor prevents the progression of osteoarthritis. Front Pharmacol 13: 2627. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2022.861183
    [135] Han Y, Yang J, Zhao W, et al. (2021) Biomimetic injectable hydrogel microspheres with enhanced lubrication and controllable drug release for the treatment of osteoarthritis. Bioact Mater 6: 3596-3607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioactmat.2021.03.022
    [136] Huang H, Lou Z, Zheng S, et al. (2022) Intra-articular drug delivery systems for osteoarthritis therapy: shifting from sustained release to enhancing penetration into cartilage. Drug Deliv 29: 767. https://doi.org/10.1080/10717544.2022.2048130
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Olusegun Michael Otunuga, Alexandra Yu, Vaccine breakthrough and rebound infections modeling: Analysis for the United States and the ten U.S. HHS regions, 2023, 8, 24680427, 717, 10.1016/j.idm.2023.05.010
    2. Tobhin Kim, Hyojung Lee, Sungchan Kim, Changhoon Kim, Hyunjin Son, Sunmi Lee, Improved time-varying reproduction numbers using the generation interval for COVID-19, 2023, 11, 2296-2565, 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1185854
    3. Andreas Baumann, Søren Wichmann, Lexical innovations are rarely passed on during one’s lifetime: Epidemiological perspectives on estimating the basic reproductive ratio of words, 2024, 19, 1932-6203, e0312336, 10.1371/journal.pone.0312336
    4. Xuan Li, Ling Yin, Kang Liu, Kemin Zhu, Yunduan Cui, Deep-reinforcement-learning-based optimization for intra-urban epidemic control considering spatiotemporal orderliness, 2024, 1365-8816, 1, 10.1080/13658816.2024.2431904
    5. Huaiyu Teng, Toshikazu Kuniya, The Optimal Vaccination Strategy to Control COVID‐19, 2025, 0170-4214, 10.1002/mma.10908
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2022 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(3492) PDF downloads(162) Cited by(1)

Figures and Tables

Figures(1)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog