Osteoblastic differentiation of periosteum‐derived cells is promoted by the physical contact with the bone matrix in vivo

Shimizu, Tetsuji; Sasano, Yasuyuki; Nakajo, Satoru; Kagayama, Manabu; Shimauchi, Hidetoshi

doi:10.1002/ar.1126

Cited by 32 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The periosteum covers most of the external surface of bone. Preservation of the periosteum is important for bone formation 13) because it contains stem cells as osteoprogenitors 14) and plays central roles in skeletal development and remodeling 15) . In addition, the periosteum promotes bone repair such as fracture healing 4,16) .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental Study of Bone Formation Ability with the Periosteum on Rat Calvaria

Takiguchi

Kuboyama

Kuyama

et al. 2009

J. Hard Tissue Biology.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the present study was to evaluate new bone formation around the periosteum within the space formed by a polytetrafluoroethylene tube on the surface of rat calvarial bone. The experimental model consisted of 40 rats divided into eight groups (five rats per group). Each group was divided into the experimental group and the control groups, and it divided on 1, 2, 6 and 8 weeks group respectively. For the experimental groups, a polytetrafluoroethylene tube was placed under a raised periosteal flap, and for the control groups, the periosteum was removed and a teflon tube was placed under the skin on the calvarial bone. All surgical sites were then sutured. We examined new bone formation using micro-computed tomography, histology by staining with hematoxylin and eosin, and immunochemistry by antibodies specific to bone morphogenetic protein-2 (BMP-2) and runt-related gene-2 (Runx2). The experimental and control groups were compared at 1, 2, 6, and 8 weeks after surgery. The histological analysis clearly demonstrated that specimens from the experimental groups showed some bone formation at 2, 6, and 8 weeks after surgery. In contrast, the control groups demonstrated new bone only at 6 and 8 weeks after surgery. New bone was produced only from the calvarial bone side; it was not observed from the periosteum side. Micro-computed tomography scan revealed that bone mineral content (BMC), bone mineral density (BMC), and bone volume/tissue volume ratio (BV/TV) all increased in a time-dependent manner in the experimental groups. In the control groups, the bone volume/tissue volume ratio, bone mineral content, and bone mineral density increased slightly from 6 to 8 weeks after surgery. In all experimental and control groups, BMP-2 positive and Runx2-positive cells appeared on the new bone. In conclusion, these results suggest that the periosteum plays a role in promoting new bone formation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental Study of Bone Formation Ability with the Periosteum on Rat Calvaria

Takiguchi

Kuboyama

Kuyama

et al. 2009

J. Hard Tissue Biology.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Digoxygenin (Dig)-or fl uorescein isothiocyanate (FITC)-labeled cRNA probes for rat cathepsin K, MMP-9, rat type I collagen (Col1 1), and bone sialoprotein (BSP) were prepared for ISH or double-labeling ISH, as partly described previously (Shimizu et al, 2001;Sasano et al, 2002). cRNA probes for each molecule were selected and transcribed from at least two different cDNA fragments.…”

Section: Preparations Of Riboprobesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of expression patterns of cathepsin K and MMP-9 in odontoclasts and osteoclasts in physiological root resorption in the rat molar

Tsuchiya

Akiba

Takahashi

et al. 2008

Arch. Histol. Cytol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary. Root resorption lacunae are principally formed by odontoclasts. While these cells develop from the same origin as osteoclasts, odontoclasts normally have fewer nuclei and a less clear zone compared with osteoclasts. We therefore, hypothesized that odontoclasts possess less differentiation in matrix resorption characteristics than osteoclasts. To test our hypothesis, we compared the TRAP-positive area and the expression patterns of two important proteolytic enzymes, cathepsin K and matrix metalloproteinase-9 (MMP-9), between odontoclasts and osteoclasts. We focused on physiological root resorption in the rat molar, which is a useful experimental model for estimating odontoclasts and osteoclasts. Observations showed the number of nuclei and the TRAP-positive area of odontoclasts to be significantly less compared with osteoclasts. Using in situ hybridization and double labeling fluorescence in situ hybridization showed the majority of odontoclasts to express both cathepsin K and MMP-9, especially 4 and 5 weeks of age, when physiological root resorption occurs actively. Moreover, putative precursor cells of odontoclasts, which typically appeared in the middle of the periodontal ligament at 3 weeks of age, expressed both enzymes. In contrast, the majority of matured osteoclasts expressed only cathepsin K but not MMP-9. We suggest that odontoclasts are comparable to osteoclasts with less differentiation with regard to the expression of proteolytic enzymes.

show abstract

“…[101][102][103] In the first study bone formation at the alveolar ridge was examined radiographically and histologically between 1 and 48 weeks after implantation. Osteogenesis was initiated from the bone surface near the implantation site and multinucleated giant cells appeared on the implanted octacalcium phosphate in week 1 and further apposition of new bone was observed on the implanted octacalcium phosphate at later time points.…”

Section: In Vivo Tissue Engineering By Using Scaffolds In Combinationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Periosteal Cells in Bone Tissue Engineering

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 1742, H.L. Duhamel published a report in which the osteogenic function of periosteum was described. In 1932 H.B. Fell was the first to successfully culture periosteum; Fell concluded that this tissue might have the capability to form mineralized tissue in vitro. In the 1990s the research group of A.L. Caplan pioneered work exploring the osteogenic potential of periosteal cells in the field of bone engineering. On the basis of these studies a number of research groups have developed hard tissue generation concepts that aim to repeat the clinical success of bone autografts by culturing cells from periosteum and seeding a sufficient quantity of those cells into scaffolds made of biomaterials of natural and synthetic origin. The highly porous matrices support the induction of bone regeneration by creating and maintaining a space that facilitates progenitor cell migration, proliferation, and differentiation as well as graft revascularization. In this way, a host tissue-scaffold cell interphase might be created that allows reproduction of the intrinsic properties of autogenous bone, including the ability to be incorporated into the surrounding host bone and to continue normal bone-remodeling processes. This review discusses the history and state of the art of bone tissue engineering from a periosteum and periosteal cell source point of view and attempts to indicate future research directions.

show abstract

Osteoblastic differentiation of periosteum‐derived cells is promoted by the physical contact with the bone matrix in vivo

Cited by 32 publications

References 51 publications

Experimental Study of Bone Formation Ability with the Periosteum on Rat Calvaria

Experimental Study of Bone Formation Ability with the Periosteum on Rat Calvaria

Comparison of expression patterns of cathepsin K and MMP-9 in odontoclasts and osteoclasts in physiological root resorption in the rat molar

Periosteal Cells in Bone Tissue Engineering

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About