Embryonic origin and Hox status determine progenitor cell fate during adult bone regeneration
Author:
Leucht Philipp1, Kim Jae-Beom1, Amasha Raimy1, James Aaron W.1, Girod Sabine1, Helms Jill A.1
Affiliation:
1. Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery,Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
Abstract
The fetal skeleton arises from neural crest and from mesoderm. Here, we provide evidence that each lineage contributes a unique stem cell population to the regeneration of injured adult bones. Using Wnt1Cre::Z/EG mice we found that the neural crest-derived mandible heals with neural crest-derived skeletal stem cells, whereas the mesoderm-derived tibia heals with mesoderm-derived stem cells. We tested whether skeletal stem cells from each lineage were functionally interchangeable by grafting mesoderm-derived cells into mandibular defects, and vice versa. All of the grafting scenarios,except one, healed through the direct differentiation of skeletal stem cells into osteoblasts; when mesoderm-derived cells were transplanted into tibial defects they differentiated into osteoblasts but when transplanted into mandibular defects they differentiated into chondrocytes. A mismatch between the Hox gene expression status of the host and donor cells might be responsible for this aberration in bone repair. We found that initially,mandibular skeletal progenitor cells are Hox-negative but that they adopt a Hoxa11-positive profile when transplanted into a tibial defect. Conversely, tibial skeletal progenitor cells are Hox-positive and maintain this Hox status even when transplanted into a Hox-negative mandibular defect. Skeletal progenitor cells from the two lineages also show differences in osteogenic potential and proliferation, which translate into more robust in vivo bone regeneration by neural crest-derived cells. Thus, embryonic origin and Hox gene expression status distinguish neural crest-derived from mesoderm-derived skeletal progenitor cells, and both characteristics influence the process of adult bone regeneration.
Publisher
The Company of Biologists
Subject
Developmental Biology,Molecular Biology
Reference43 articles.
1. Abzhanov, A., Tzahor, E., Lassar, A. B. and Tabin, C. J.(2003). Dissimilar regulation of cell differentiation in mesencephalic (cranial) and sacral (trunk) neural crest cells in vitro. Development130,4567-4579. 2. Albrecht, U. E. G., Helms, J. A. and Lin, H.(1997). Visualization of gene expression patterns by in situ hybridization. In Molecular and Cellular Methods in Developmental Toxicology (ed. G. P. Daston), pp.23-48. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 3. Carter, D. R., Beaupré, G. S., Giori, N. J. and Helms, J. A. (1998). Mechanobiology of skeletal regeneration. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res.82,S41-S55. 4. Chai, Y., Jiang, X., Ito, Y., Bringas, P., Jr, Han, J., Rowitch,D. H., Soriano, P., McMahon, A. P. and Sucov, H. M. (2000). Fate of the mammalian cranial neural crest during tooth and mandibular morphogenesis. Development127,1671-1679. 5. Chang, H. Y., Chi, J. T., Dudoit, S., Bondre, C., van de Rijn,M., Botstein, D. and Brown, P. O. (2002). Diversity,topographic differentiation, and positional memory in human fibroblasts. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA99,12877-12882.
Cited by
280 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|