32
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The effects of immunomodulation by macrophage subsets on osteogenesis in vitro

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Bone formation and remodeling are influenced by the inflammatory state of the local microenvironment. In this regard, macrophages are postulated to play a crucial role in modulating osteogenesis. However, the differential effects of macrophage subsets and their plasticity on bone formation are currently unknown.

          Methods

          Polarized primary murine macrophages and preosteoblastic MC3T3 cells were co-cultured to investigate the effect of non-activated M0, pro-inflammatory M1, and tissue-regenerative M2 macrophages on the osteogenic ability of MC3T3-E1 cells in vitro. Furthermore, to model the physiological transition from inflammation to tissue regeneration, M1-MC3T3 co-cultures were treated with interleukin-4 (IL-4) at different time points to modulate the M1 phenotype towards M2. Macrophage phenotypic markers were assessed by flow cytometry and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. A time course study of osteogenic markers at different time points was conducted: alkaline phosphatase (ALP) mRNA levels were evaluated at week 1, ALP activity and osteocalcin and osteopontin mRNA levels at week 2, and matrix mineralization and osteocalcin and osteopontin protein concentrations at week 3. Supernatant collected 72 hours after seeding or IL-4 treatment, whichever was later, was analyzed for oncostatin M, a cytokine released by macrophages that has been recognized to enhance osteogenesis. Unpaired t test or one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s or Dunnett’s post hoc tests were used for statistical comparison of the groups.

          Results

          Co-culture with any of the macrophage subtypes increased the osteogenic ability of MC3T3 cells as indicated by increases in ALP activity and matrix mineralization. Increased ALP activity, osteocalcin concentration, and matrix mineralization demonstrated that osteogenesis by M1-MC3T3 co-cultures was further enhanced by macrophage phenotype modulation to M2 via IL-4 treatment 72 hours after seeding. Increased oncostatin M protein concentration in untreated M1-MC3T3 co-cultures and M1-MC3T3 co-cultures treated with IL-4 at 72 hours correlated with greater ALP activity and matrix mineralization.

          Conclusions

          These results suggest that a transient inflammatory phase is crucial for enhanced bone formation. Macrophage plasticity may offer new strategies for modulating the local inflammatory microenvironment with the aim of potentially enhancing bone repair.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13287-016-0276-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Fracture healing under healthy and inflammatory conditions.

          Optimal fracture treatment requires knowledge of the complex physiological process of bone healing. The course of bone healing is mainly influenced by fracture fixation stability (biomechanics) and the blood supply to the healing site (revascularization after trauma). The repair process proceeds via a characteristic sequence of events, described as the inflammatory, repair and remodeling phases. An inflammatory reaction involving immune cells and molecular factors is activated immediately in response to tissue damage and is thought to initiate the repair cascade. Immune cells also have a major role in the repair phase, exhibiting important crosstalk with bone cells. After bony bridging of the fragments, a slow remodeling process eventually leads to the reconstitution of the original bone structure. Systemic inflammation, as observed in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes mellitus, multiple trauma or sepsis, can increase fracture healing time and the rate of complications, including non-unions. In addition, evidence suggests that insufficient biomechanical conditions within the fracture zone can influence early local inflammation and impair bone healing. In this Review, we discuss the main factors that influence fracture healing, with particular emphasis on the role of inflammation.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Sequential delivery of immunomodulatory cytokines to facilitate the M1-to-M2 transition of macrophages and enhance vascularization of bone scaffolds.

            In normal tissue repair, macrophages exhibit a pro-inflammatory phenotype (M1) at early stages and a pro-healing phenotype (M2) at later stages. We have previously shown that M1 macrophages initiate angiogenesis while M2 macrophages promote vessel maturation. Therefore, we reasoned that scaffolds that promote sequential M1 and M2 polarization of infiltrating macrophages should result in enhanced angiogenesis and healing. To this end, we first analyzed the in vitro kinetics of macrophage phenotype switch using flow cytometry, gene expression, and cytokine secretion analysis. Then, we designed scaffolds for bone regeneration based on modifications of decellularized bone for a short release of interferon-gamma (IFNg) to promote the M1 phenotype, followed by a more sustained release of interleukin-4 (IL4) to promote the M2 phenotype. To achieve this sequential release profile, IFNg was physically adsorbed onto the scaffolds, while IL4 was attached via biotin-streptavidin binding. Interestingly, despite the strong interactions between biotin and streptavidin, release studies showed that biotinylated IL4 was released over 6 days. These scaffolds promoted sequential M1 and M2 polarization of primary human macrophages as measured by gene expression of ten M1 and M2 markers and secretion of four cytokines, although the overlapping phases of IFNg and IL4 release tempered polarization to some extent. Murine subcutaneous implantation model showed increased vascularization in scaffolds releasing IFNg compared to controls. This study demonstrates that scaffolds for tissue engineering can be designed to harness the angiogenic behavior of host macrophages towards scaffold vascularization.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Coupling the activities of bone formation and resorption: a multitude of signals within the basic multicellular unit.

              Coupling between bone formation and bone resorption refers to the process within basic multicellular units in which resorption by osteoclasts is met by the generation of osteoblasts from precursors, and their bone-forming activity, which needs to be sufficient to replace the bone lost. There are many sources of activities that contribute to coupling at remodeling sites, including growth factors released from the matrix, soluble and membrane products of osteoclasts and their precursors, signals from osteocytes and from immune cells and signaling taking place within the osteoblast lineage. Coupling is therefore a process that involves the interaction of a wide range of cell types and control mechanisms. As bone remodeling occurs at many sites asynchronously throughout the skeleton, locally generated activities comprise very important control mechanisms. In this review, we explore the potential roles of a number of these factors, including sphingosine-1-phosphate, semaphorins, ephrins, interleukin-6 (IL-6) family cytokines and marrow-derived factors. Their interactions achieve the essential tight control of coupling within individual remodeling units that is required for control of skeletal mass.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                floi@stanford.edu
                lcordova@stanford.edu
                rzhang013@gmail.com
                jpajari@stanford.edu
                tzuhua@stanford.edu
                01-650-721-7662 , goodbone@stanford.edu
                01-650-725-6636 , zhenyuy@stanford.edu
                Journal
                Stem Cell Res Ther
                Stem Cell Res Ther
                Stem Cell Research & Therapy
                BioMed Central (London )
                1757-6512
                22 January 2016
                22 January 2016
                2016
                : 7
                : 15
                Affiliations
                [ ]Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, 300 Pasteur Drive, Edwards Building, Room R116, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
                [ ]Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Chile, Sergio Livingstone Polhammer 943, Independencia, 8380000 Santiago Chile
                [ ]Department of Bioengineering, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Drive, Edwards Building, Room R114, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
                Article
                276
                10.1186/s13287-016-0276-5
                4724110
                26801095
                4ea24577-cbbb-40f6-9125-14603d416a1f
                © Loi et al. 2016

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 14 September 2015
                : 22 November 2015
                : 6 January 2016
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000002, National Institutes of Health (US);
                Award ID: 2R01AR055650
                Award ID: 1R01AR063717
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100006521, Stanford University School of Medicine (US);
                Award ID: Ellenburg Chair in Surgery
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100005853, Universidad de Chile (CL);
                Award ID: CONICYT Becas Chile Award
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2016

                Molecular medicine
                osteoimmunology,immunomodulation,macrophage,preosteoblast,osteogenesis
                Molecular medicine
                osteoimmunology, immunomodulation, macrophage, preosteoblast, osteogenesis

                Comments

                Comment on this article