Hypoxia-inducible factor 1-alpha does not regulate osteoclastogenesis but enhances bone resorption activity via prolyl-4-hydroxylase 2
JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY
Authors: Hulley, Philippa A.; Bishop, Tammie; Vernet, Aude; Schneider, Jurgen E.; Edwards, James R.; Athanasou, Nick A.; Knowles, Helen J.
Abstract
Osteogenic-angiogenic coupling is promoted by the hypoxia-inducible factor 1-alpha (HIF-1 alpha) transcription factor, provoking interest in HIF activation as a therapeutic strategy to improve osteoblast mineralization and treat pathological osteolysis. However, HIF also enhances the bone-resorbing activity of mature osteoclasts. It is therefore essential to determine the full effect(s) of HIF on both the formation and the bone-resorbing function of osteoclasts in order to understand how they might respond to such a strategy. Expression of HIF-1 alpha mRNA and protein increased during osteoclast differentiation from CD14+ monocytic precursors, additionally inducing expression of the HIF-regulated glycolytic enzymes. However, HIF-1 alpha siRNA only moderately affected osteoclast differentiation, accelerating fusion of precursor cells. HIF induction by inhibition of the regulatory prolyl-4-hydroxylase (PHD) enzymes reduced osteoclastogenesis, but was confirmed to enhance bone resorption by mature osteoclasts. Phd2(+/-) murine osteoclasts also exhibited enhanced bone resorption, associated with increased expression of resorption-associated Acp5, in comparison with wild-type cells from littermate controls. Phd3(-/-) bone marrow precursors displayed accelerated early fusion, mirroring results with HIF-1 alpha siRNA. In vivo, Phd2(+/-) and Phd3(-/-) mice exhibited reduced trabecular bone mass, associated with reduced mineralization by Phd2(+/-) osteoblasts. These data indicate that HIF predominantly functions as a regulator of osteoclast-mediated bone resorption, with little effect on osteoclast differentiation. Inhibition of HIF might therefore represent an alternative strategy to treat diseases characterized by pathological levels of osteolysis. (C) 2017 The Authors. The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.
Comparison of two protocols of periosteal distraction osteogenesis in a rabbit calvaria model
JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL MATERIALS RESEARCH PART B-APPLIED BIOMATERIALS
Authors: Saulacic, Nikola; Nakahara, Ken; Iizuka, Tateyuki; Haga-Tsujimura, Maiko; Hofstetter, Willy; Scolozzi, Paolo
Abstract
The regenerative pathways during periosteal distraction osteogenesis may be influenced by the local environment composed by cells, growth factors, nutrition and mechanical load. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the influence of two protocols of periosteal distraction on bone formation. Custom made distraction devices were surgically fixed onto the calvariae of 60 rabbits. After an initial healing period of 7 days, two groups of animals were submitted to distraction rates of 0.25 and 0.5 mm/24 h for 10 days, respectively. Six animals per group were sacrificed 10 (mid-distraction), 17 (end-distraction), 24 (1-week consolidation), 31 (2-week consolidation) and 77 days (2-month consolidation) after surgery. Newly formed bone was assessed by means of micro-CT and histologically. Expression of transcripts encoding tissue-specific genes (BMP-2, RUNX2, ACP5, SPARC, collagen I 1, collagen II 1 and SOX9) was analyzed by quantitative PCR. Two patterns of bone formation were observed, originating from the old bone surface in Group I and from the periosteum in Group II. Bone volume (BV) and bone mineral density (BMD) significantly increased up to the 2-month consolidation period within the groups (p<0.05). Significantly more bone was observed in Group II compared to Group I at the 2-month consolidation period (p<0.001). Expression of transcripts encoding osteogenic genes in bone depended on the time-point of observation (p<0.05). Low level of transcripts reveals an indirect role of periosteum in the osteogenic process. Two protocols of periosteal distraction in the present model resulted in moderate differences in terms of bone formation. (c) 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater, 104B: 1121-1131, 2016.