Although in vivo studies have shown that low-magnitude, high-frequency (LMHF) vibration (LM: < 1 ×g; HF: 20-90 Hz) exhibits anabolic effects on skeletal homeostasis, the underlying cellular/molecular regulation involved in bone adaptation to LMHF vibration is little known.In this report, we tested the effects of microvibration (magnitude: 0.3 ×g, frequency: 40 Hz, amplitude: ±50 μm, 30 min/12 h) on proliferation and osteodifferentiation of bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal cells (BMSCs) seeded on human bone-derived scaffolds. The scaffolds were prepared by partial demineralisation and deproteinisation. BMSCs were allowed to attach to the scaffolds for 3 days. Morphological study showed that spindle-shaped BMSCs almost completely covered the surface of bone-derived scaffold and these cells expressed higher ALP activity than those cultured on plates. After microvibration treatment, BMSC proliferation was decreased on day 7 and 10; however, numbers of genes and proteins expressed during osteogenesis, including Cbfa1, ALP, collagen I and osteocalcin were greatly increased. ERK1/2 activation was involved in microvibration-induced BMSC osteogenesis. Taken together, this study suggests that bone-derived scaffolds have good biocompatibility and show osteoinductive properties. By increasing the osteogenic lineage commitment of BMSCs and enhancing osteogenic gene expressions, microvibration promotes BMSC differentiation and increase bone formation of BMSCs seeded on bone-derived scaffolds. Moreover, ERK1/2 pathway plays an important role in microvibrationinduced osteogenesis in BMSC cellular scaffolds.Keywords: Bone-derived scaffold, bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal cells, microvibration, osteogenesis, ERK1/2. *Address for correspondence: Haiyang Yu West China Hospital of Stomatology Sichuan University Chengdu, 610041, P.R. China Telephone/FAX Number: 86-028-85502869 E-mail: yhyang6812@scu.edu.cn
IntroductionCurrent consensus for bone tissue engineering includes three essential elements, i.e., biomaterial scaffold, osteogenic cell lineage and bone inducing factors (e.g., mechanical stimulus, Ashammakhi and Ferretti, 2003; Khan et al., 2005;Mistry and Mikos, 2005). Scaffold materials should provide the support for cell attachment and have osteoinductive property (Langer and Vacanti, 1993;Ashammakhi and Ferretti, 2003). Due to the limited supply and donor-site morbidity of autogenous bone grafts, different physical structures and insuffi cient osteoinductive ability of synthetic materials (Ashammakhi and Ferretti, 2003;Silber et al., 2003), scaffolds derived from different individuals (allografts) and species (xenografts) provide a promising resource and approach to address the signifi cant drawbacks of existing scaffolds, because these scaffolds have similar structures to autogenous bone (Salkeld et al., 2001;Simion et al., 2004). Additionally, with the proper chemical and physical process on these bone materials, including demineralisation and deproteinisation (Tadjoedin et al., 2003;Xu et al., 2003...