Regenerative Therapy (Jun 2020)
Platelet-rich plasma promotes recruitment of macrophages in the process of tendon healing
Abstract
Introduction: Researchers have investigated the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapy. However, the mechanisms through which PRP affects tissue repair remain unclear. We hypothesize that PRP promotes tissue repair through not only via direct manner on the local cells but also via indirect manner that encourage the recruitment of reparative cells such as macrophages (MPs), and it depends on the quality of PRP including the concentration of leukocytes. The aim of this study is to elucidate the actions of the MPs in the mechanisms of PRP on tissue repair processes. Methods: Leukocyte-rich (LR) PRP and leukocyte-poor (LP) PRP were prepared from 12-week-old C57BL6 mice. Full-thickness defects were created in central third of patellar tendons of 12-week-old C57BL/6 mice for histologic analysis (n = 36) and 12-week-old B6.129P-Cx3cr1tm1Litt/J mice for flow cytometry analysis (n = 108). B6.129P-Cx3cr1tm1Litt/J mouse is GFP-positive only in the MP-linage cells thus MPs recruited to the repair tissue can be distinguished whether it had originated from administrated PRP or recruited from host mouse. Mice were treated either with LR-PRP, LP-PRP, or without PRP (control group). Histological analyses were performed to evaluate the tendon healing using Bonar score as semi-quantitative histological scoring system. Flow cytometric analyses were performed to count the number of GFP-positive cells around repaired patellar tendon. In addition, the ratio of pro-inflammatory MPs (M1)/anti-inflammatory MPs (M2) were analyzed in those GFP-positive cells. The statistical analysis was performed using GraphPad Prism ver6. P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: In LR-PRP and LP-PRP groups, all variables in Bonar score such as cell morphology, cellularity, vascularity, and collagen arrangement were significantly improved in comparison with control group, indicating that both PRPs promote tendon hearing. LP-PRP promoted the tendon healing significantly faster than that of LR-PRP on postoperative day 28 (P < 0.001). LR-PRP enhanced angiogenesis (vascularity: P < 0.001), while LP-PRP improved the collagen arrangement on postoperative day 28 (collagen arrangement: P < 0.01). In other variables such as cell morphology and cellularity score, there were no significant differences between LR-PRP and LP-PRP groups in any time points. Flow cytometric findings showed that recruitment of GFP-positive MPs in the LR and LP-PRP groups were significantly increased from postoperative day 4 compared with control group without PRP treatment (P < 0.001). The majority of GFP-positive MPs were M1 at the initiation of tendon healing phase, and M2 were gradually increased from postoperative day 4. The number of M1 was significantly high both in the LP- and LR-PRP groups (day 4 and 7, p < 0.001), but the number of M2 was high only in the LP-PRP group (day 7 and 14, P < 0.05) when it compared with control group. The M1/M2 ratio on postoperative day 7 was significantly lower in the LP-PRP group than those in the control group (P < 0.05). Conclusions: This study demonstrated that PRP enhanced the tendon healing and promoted the recruitment of MPs to the injured tissue. The subtypes of MPs were different depends on the types of PRPs, suggesting that leukocytes in PRP influence the effect of PRP therapy.
