4.6 Article

Runx2 Expression in Smooth Muscle Cells Is Required for Arterial Medial Calcification in Mice

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY
Volume 185, Issue 7, Pages 1958-1969

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajpath.2015.03.020

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NIH [R01 HL081785, R01 HL62329, K01 DK075665]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Arterial medial calcification (AMC) is a hallmark of aging, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease. Smooth muscle cell (SMC) transition to an osteogenic phenotype is a common feature of AMC, and is preceded by expression of runt-related transcription factor 2 (Runx2), a master regulator of bone development. Whether SMC-specific Runx2 expression is required for osteogenic phenotype change and AMC remains unknown. We therefore created an improved targeting construct to generate mice with foxed Runx2 alleles (Runx2(f/f) that do not produce truncated Runx2 proteins after Cre recombination, thereby preventing potential off-target effects. SMC-specific deletion using SM22 recombinase transgenic allele mice (Runx2(Delta SM)) led to viable mice with normal bone and arterial morphology. After vitamin D overload, arterial SMCs in Runx2(f/f) mice expressed Runx2, underwent osteogenic phenotype change, and developed severe AMC. In contrast, vitamin D treated Runx2(Delta SM) mice had no Runx2 in blood vessels, maintained SMC phenotype, and did not develop AMC. Runx2 deletion did not affect serum calcium, phosphate, fibroblast growth factor-23, or alkaline phosphatase levels. In vitro, Runx2(f/f) SMCs calcified to a much greater extent than those derived from Runx2(Delta SM) mice. These data indicate a critical role of Runx2 in SMC osteogenic phenotype change and mineral deposition in a mouse model of AMC, suggesting that Runx2 and downstream osteogenic pathways in SMCs may be useful therapeutic targets for treating or preventing AMC in high-risk patients.

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