4.7 Article

Lenalidomide inhibits osteoclastogenesis, survival factors and bone-remodeling markers in multiple myeloma

期刊

LEUKEMIA
卷 22, 期 10, 页码 1925-1932

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/leu.2008.174

关键词

multiple myeloma; osteoclastogenesis; bone disease; lenalidomide; bortezomib

资金

  1. Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation
  2. National Foundation of Cancer Research
  3. NIH [CA50947, CA78373, CA10070]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Osteolytic bone disease in multiple myeloma (MM) is caused by enhanced osteoclast (OCL) activation and inhibition of osteoblast function. Lenalidomide and bortezomib have shown promising response rates in relapsed and newly diagnosed MM, and bortezomib has recently been reported to inhibit OCLs. We here investigated the effect of lenalidomide on OCL formation and osteoclastogenesis in comparison with bortezomib. Both drugs decreased alpha Vb3-integrin, tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase-positive cells and bone resorption on dentin disks. In addition, both agents decreased receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa B ligand (RANKL) secretion of bone marrow stromal cells (BMSCs) derived from MM patients. We identified PU.1 and pERK as major targets of lenalidomide, and nuclear factor of activated T cells of bortezomib, resulting in inhibition of osteoclastogenesis. Furthermore, downregulation of cathepsin K, essential for resorption of the bone collagen matrix, was observed. We demonstrated a significant decrease of growth and survival factors including macrophage inflammatory protein-alpha, B-cell activating factor and a proliferation-inducing ligand. Importantly, in serum from MM patients treated with lenalidomide, the essential bone-remodeling factor RANKL, as well as the RANKL/OPG ratio, were significantly reduced, whereas osteoprotegerin (OPG) was increased. We conclude that both agents specifically target key factors in osteoclastogenesis, and could directly affect the MM-OCL-BMSCs activation loop in osteolytic bone disease.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据