4.6 Review

Stem cells and heterotopic ossification: Lessons from animal models

Journal

BONE
Volume 109, Issue -, Pages 178-186

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.bone.2018.01.029

Keywords

Animal models; Heterotopic ossification; Stem cells; Progenitor cells; Fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva; FOP; ACVR1; ALK2; Activin; BMP; Fibro/adipogenic progenitors; FAPs; Satellite cell; Endothelium; Skeletal muscle; Tendon; PDGFR alpha; TIE2; Scleraxis; Mx1

Funding

  1. NIH [R01AR057371, R01AR072052]
  2. Alexion Pharmaceuticals
  3. Connecticut Regenerative Medicine Research Fund [15-RMA-UCONN-04]
  4. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ARTHRITIS AND MUSCULOSKELETAL AND SKIN DISEASES [R01AR057371, R01AR072052] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Put most simply, heterotopic ossification (HO) is the abnormal formation of bone at extraskeletal sites. HO can be classified into two main subtypes, genetic and acquired. Acquired HO is a common complication of major connective tissue injury, traumatic central nervous system injury, and surgical interventions, where it can cause significant pain and postoperative disability. A particularly devastating form of HO is manifested in the rare genetic disorder, fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva (FOP), in which progressive heterotopic bone formation occurs throughout life, resulting in painful and disabling cumulative immobility. While the central role of stem/progenitor cell populations in HO is firmly established, the identity of the offending cell type(s) remains to be conclusively determined, and little is known of the mechanisms that direct these progenitor cells to initiate cartilage and bone formation. In this review, we summarize current knowledge of the cells responsible for acquired HO and FOP, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of animal models used to interrogate the cellular origins of HO. (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available