1. Identification of molecular markers for articular cartilage
T.N. Hissnauer, A. Baranowsky, J.M. Pestka, T. Streichert, K. Wiegandt, C. Goepfert, F.T. Beil, J. Albers, J. Schulze, P. Ueblacker, J.P. Petersen, T. Schinke, N.M. Meenen, R. Pörtner, M. Amling 
Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 
Volume 18, Issue 12, Pages (December 2010)
DOI: /j.joca
Copyright © 2010 Osteoarthritis Research Society International Terms and Conditions

2. Fig. 1
Strategy for the identification of AC-specific markers. (A) Gross appearance (left) of a bone-cartilage cylinder harvested from the knee joint of a 6 weeks old minipig (the dotted lines indicate AC and GP cartilage), and Safranin-O staining of non-decalcified sections (middle), showing red staining of cartilage. The right panels show the similar morphological appearance of articular and GP chondrocytes after 10 days of tissue culture. (B) Affymetrix signal intensities for COL2A1, ACAN and COMP showing expression in both types of cartilage, in vivo and in vitro. (C) Affymetrix signal intensities for ALPL, COL10A1 and PTH1R showing specific expression in GP chondrocytes. (D) Affymetrix signal intensities for ABI3BP, THBS4 and SIX1 showing specific expression articular chondrocytes. (B–D) For each sample cartilage was harvested from both knee joints of two individual animals and pooled before preparation.
Osteoarthritis and Cartilage  , DOI: ( /j.joca )
Copyright © 2010 Osteoarthritis Research Society International Terms and Conditions

3. Fig. 2
Tissue-specific expression of molecular cartilage markers. RT-PCR expression analysis for the indicated genes in various porcine tissues, including GP and AC. Note that the molecular markers listed in Table III display higher expression in AC compared to GP cartilage. To confirm the results of the Affymetrix Gene Chip hybridization cartilage was harvested from knee joints of two additional animals.
Osteoarthritis and Cartilage  , DOI: ( /j.joca )
Copyright © 2010 Osteoarthritis Research Society International Terms and Conditions

4. Fig. 3
Histological analysis of TE-cartilage. (A) Gross image of TE-cartilage grown without (−) or with (+) a HA-carrier. (B) Toluidine blue (top) and Safranin-0 (bottom) staining of TE-cartilage. (C) Immunohistochemistry with an antibody against type-II-collagen. (D) GAG content and biomechanical stability (Young’s Modulus) of TE-cartilage. Values are presented as means of three independent preparations. Error bars represent 95% confidence interval. No statistical differences were noted between the two types of TE-cartilage.
Osteoarthritis and Cartilage  , DOI: ( /j.joca )
Copyright © 2010 Osteoarthritis Research Society International Terms and Conditions

5. Fig. 4
Molecular analysis of TE-cartilage. (A) RT-PCR expression analysis of the indicated genes in native GP and AC, compared to four TE-cartilage preparations without (−) or with (+) carrier. (B) Quantitative RT-PCR expression analysis for the indicated genes in native GP and AC, compared to TE-cartilage grown with a HA-carrier (TE). Bars represent mean of three independent preparations for native AC and TE-cartilage (TE), and one preparation for native GP cartilage. Error bars show the 95% confidence interval about the mean position. There were no statistical differences detectable between samples isolated from AC and TE-cartilage with carrier.
Osteoarthritis and Cartilage  , DOI: ( /j.joca )
Copyright © 2010 Osteoarthritis Research Society International Terms and Conditions