Anand O Masson; Bryce Besler; W Brent Edwards; Roman J Krawetz
eLife 11:e74664.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.74664
8 citations · 5 en 2025–2026
Les titres, résumés et légendes des publications sont présentés en anglais.
Abstract
Characterizing the biomechanical properties of articular cartilage is crucial to understanding processes of tissue homeostasis vs. degeneration. In mouse models, however, limitations are imposed by their small joint size and thin cartilage surfaces. Here we present a three-dimensional (3D) automated surface mapping system and methodology that allows for mechanical characterization of mouse cartilage with high spatial resolution. We performed repeated indentation mappings, followed by cartilage thickness measurement via needle probing, at 31 predefined positions distributed over the medial and lateral femoral condyles of healthy mice. High-resolution 3D x-ray microscopy (XRM) imaging was used to validate tissue thickness measurements. The automated indentation mapping was reproducible, and needle probing yielded cartilage thicknesses comparable to XRM imaging. When comparing healthy vs. degenerated cartilage, topographical variations in biomechanics were identified, with altered thickness and stiffness (instantaneous modulus) across condyles and within anteroposterior sub-regions. This quantitative technique comprehensively characterized cartilage function in mice femoral condyle cartilage. Hence, it has the potential to improve our understanding of tissue structure-function interplay in mouse models of repair and disease.
Utilisation des équipements
Le Mach-1 cartographiait le cartilage de souris par indentation avec relaxation des contraintes selon la normale locale, en coordonnant ses trois axes.
Figures

Figure 1 — Show caption
Thickness mapping of murine articular cartilage. (A) Assessment of agreement between needle probing (NP) and x- ray microscopy (XRM) imaging cartilage thickness per position of measurement within right femoral condyles (n=10). (B) Representative normal force- displacement curve obtained during NP test depicting articular cartilage (AC) surface (1) and subchondral bone interface (2) positions and cartilage thickness calculated normal to the surface (red) using the surface angle orientation. (C) Mapping distributions of cartilage thickness values per position as measured by NP and XRM. (D) Correlation graph of cartilage thickness measured by NP vs. XRM, R=0.842, n=302, p<0.0001, and corresponding (E) Bland- Altman plot showing overall agreement between methods, with average difference of 6.8 μm in thickness. Dotted black lines show upper and lower 95% limit of agreement. (F) Pairwise assessment of mean cartilage thickness NP vs. XRM per position for the lateral and medial condyles (* p<0.05, ** p<0.01, two- way ANOVA). Symbols represent the means and error bars the standard deviation.
Anand O. Masson, Bryce A. Besler, W. Brent Edwards & Roman J Krawetz — Figure 2

Figure 2 — Show caption
Altered biomechanical properties in degenerated murine articular cartilage. (A–B) Heat maps and corresponding boxplots comparing (C–D) regions – lateral and medial – and their (E–F) sub- regions – Lat/Ant, Lat/ Post, Med/Ant, Med/Post – highlight spatial differences in biomechanical parameters on femoral cartilage surface between controls (C57Bl/6, n=10) and PRG4 knockout mice (Prg4−/−, n=6). Maps shown for six representative samples per genotype, as well as the corresponding averaged map of all samples. Parameters illustrated are thickness measured by needle probing (A, C, E) and instantaneous modulus as determined by Hayes et al., 1972 elastic model (B, D, F). Pairwise comparison between genotypes for mean values on the lateral and medial condyles and anteroposterior sub- regions (Mann- Whitney U with Bonferroni- Dunn correction, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001).
Anand O. Masson, Bryce A. Besler, W. Brent Edwards & Roman J Krawetz — Figure 4

Figure 3 — Show caption
Setup for needle probing thickness measurement, using a 30G × 1.4” hypodermic needle (TSK Laboratory, Japan) adapted to the 1-mm spherical indenter (Biomomentum Inc, Laval, QC).
Anand O. Masson, Bryce A. Besler, W. Brent Edwards & Roman J Krawetz — Figure 2—figure supplement 1
Matériaux (1)
