4.6 Article

Oncostatin M, an Inflammatory Cytokine Produced by Macrophages, Supports Intramembranous Bone Healing in a Mouse Model of Tibia Injury

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY
卷 185, 期 3, 页码 765-775

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajpath.2014.11.008

关键词

-

资金

  1. INSERM
  2. region Pays de la Loire (CIMATH2 project)
  3. French Agency for Biomedicine
  4. French Ministry of Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Different macrophage depletion strategies have demonstrated a vital role of macrophages in bone healing, but the underlying molecular mechanisms are poorly understood. Here, with the use of a mouse model of tibia injury, we found that the cytokine oncostatin M [OSM or murine (m)OSM] was overexpressed during the initial inflammatory phase and that depletion of macrophages repressed mOSM expression. In Osm(-/-) mice, by micro-computed tomography and histology we observed a significant reduction in the amount of new intramedullar woven bone formed at the injured site, reduced number of Osterix(+) osteoblastic cells, and reduced expression of the osteoblast markers runt-related transcription factor 2 and alkaline phosphatase. In contrast, osteoclasts were normal throughout the healing period. One day after bone injury, Stat3, the main transcription factor activated by mOSM, was found phosphorylated/activated in endosteal osteoblastic cells located at the hedge of the hematoma. Interestingly, we observed reduced activation of Stat3 in Osm(-/-) mice. In addition, mice deficient in the mOSM receptor (Osm(-/-)) also had reduced bone formation and osteoblast number within the injury site. These results suggest that mOSM, a product of macrophages, sustains intramembranous bone formation by signaling through Osmr and Stat3, acting on the recruitment, proliferation, and/or osteoblast differentiation of endosteal mesenchymal progenitor cells. Because bone resorption is Largely unaltered, OSM could represent a new anabolic treatment for unconsolidated bone fractures.

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

4.6
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