Cited by 28Osteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsRheumatoid Arthritis Research and TherapiesProteoglycans and glycosaminoglycans research

Quantification of cartilage oligomeric matrix protein (COMP) and a COMP neoepitope in synovial fluid of patients with different joint disorders by novel automated assays

Open access
Lorenzo, P., Aspberg, A., Saxne, T., Önnerfjord, P.·2017·Osteoarthritis and Cartilage

Abstract

Objective To develop automated immunoassays for the quantification of Cartilage Oligomeric Matrix Protein (COMP) and a COMP neoepitope in synovial fluid and to investigate their diagnostic potential in different joint conditions. Methods Two sandwich immunoassays were developed for the quantification of COMP and a COMP neoepitope, using an automated analyser (IDS-iSYS, Immunodiagnostic Systems, Boldon, UK). Assay performance was evaluated in terms of sensitivity, recovery, linearity, and intra- and inter-assay precision. Clinical performance was evaluated by analysing synovial fluid from patients diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), reactive arthritis (ReA), osteoarthritis (OA) or acute trauma (AT). Results Both automated assays showed good performance for all parameters tested. Quantification of these biomarkers showed the highest median values for Total COMP in the OA group, followed by the AT group, the ReA group, and the RA group. For the COMP neoepitope the AT group showed the highest median value, followed by the ReA group, the OA group, and the RA group. The ratio COMP neoepitope/Total COMP showed distinct differences between the patients groups, as well as between RA patients with slow or rapid progression of joint damage. Conclusions The newly developed automated assays have a good technical performance, can reliably quantify different epitopes on the COMP molecule and show different levels of the two biomarkers in synovial fluid in patients with different joint diseases. The combination of these two assays, measuring their ratio, shows promise for early detection of patients with RA with different prognosis regarding progression of joint damage.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.joca.2017.04.004

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • CTX-II and COMP are helpful as diagnostic-prognostic biomarkers and are quantifiable by ELISA.

    “As diagnostic-prognostic biomarkers and quantifiable by enzyme-linked immunosorbent tests (ELISAs), they are particularly helpful [22].”

    From Biomarker-Guided Imaging and AI-Augmented Diagnosis of Degenerative Joint Disease (2025) · cites this paper as [22]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) describes COMP as a biomarker for identifying patients at risk of rapid joint destruction, and the Discussion (page unavailable) describes diagnostic and prognostic potential for the COMP assays. The paper does not address CTX-II. Its assay protocols describe automated chemiluminescent immunoassays, not ELISAs, so it does not support the claim about ELISA quantification. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Heinegård D. Proteoglycans and moreefrom molecules to biology. Int J Exp Pathol 2009;90:575e86.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lorenzo, P., Aspberg, A., Saxne, T., & Önnerfjord, P.
Affiliations
Lund University (SE)
Corresponding author
  • Lorenzo, P.
  • Aspberg, A.
  • Saxne, T.
  • Önnerfjord, P.
Venue
Osteoarthritis and Cartilage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-09
Volume
25
Issue
9
Pages
1436-1442
ISSN
1063-4584 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2610710323
Cited by
28
References
42
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1
FWCI
3.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Osteoarthritis and Cartilage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Swedish Research Council (2014-3303)
  • Lund University Medical Faculty
  • Greta & Johan Kock
  • Crafoord
  • Åke Wiberg
  • Alfred Österlund
  • Magnus Bergvall
  • Reumatikerförbundet
  • Gustav V 80-year
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Osteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Proteoglycans and glycosaminoglycans research
Keywords
cartilage oligomeric matrix protein, synovial fluid biomarkers, rheumatoid arthritis, reactive arthritis, osteoarthritis, acute trauma, joint damage progression, early diagnosis
MeSH terms
Prohibitins, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Epitopes, Arthritis, Arthritis, Rheumatoid, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Osteoarthritis, Prognosis, Sensitivity and Specificity, Synovial Fluid, Biomarkers, Young Adult, Cartilage Oligomeric Matrix Protein

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review