SUMMARY: We compared circulating levels of Wnt inhibitors among patients with high bone mass mutations in LRP5, unaffected kindred, and unrelated normal controls. Inhibitors were unchanged in affected and unaffected kindred. We saw no meaningful differences between controls and affected individuals. LRP5 signaling may not influence circulating levels of these inhibitors. INTRODUCTION: It is thought that gain-of-function mutations in LRP5 result in high bone mass syndromes because these allelic variants confer resistance to the actions of endogenous inhibitors of Wnt signaling. We therefore attempted to determine if circulating levels of Wnt inhibitors are altered in patients with gain-of-function mutations in LRP5. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study in a university research center. Serum was collected from consented volunteers known to have either the G171V or N198S gain-of-function mutations in LRP5, kindred members affected with either mutation, unrelated kindred, and unrelated normal age-matched controls. BMD was provided or measured on site. RESULTS: There were no significant differences found in the serum levels of sclerostin (SOST), Dickkopf-1 (Dkk-1), or secreted frizzled-related protein-4 (SFRP-4) in affected vs. unaffected individuals from different kindreds or when compared to age-matched unrelated normal individuals. Mean serum SOST values in affected and unaffected kindred members and unrelated normal controls were 52.7 ± 6.1, 36.5 ± 9.6, and 54.8 ± 5.4, respectively. For Dkk-1, the values were 25.9 ± 3.4, 25.7 ± 3.0, and 17.3 ± 2.3 and for SFRP-4, 38.1 ± 2.3, 39.8 ± 3.6, and 28.5 ± 1.7. Serum levels of RANKL and osteoprotegerin (OPG) were not different in the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: Circulating levels of endogenous Wnt inhibitors do not change in patients with gain-of-function mutations in LRP5 including Dkk1, which is suppressed by Wnt signaling. It may be that circulating levels of Wnt inhibitors do not reflect changes in target tissues. It is also possible that other mechanisms besides or in addition to resistance in Wnt inhibitors explains the skeletal effects of these mutations.
SUMMARY: We compared circulating levels of Wnt inhibitors among patients with high bone mass mutations in LRP5, unaffected kindred, and unrelated normal controls. Inhibitors were unchanged in affected and unaffected kindred. We saw no meaningful differences between controls and affected individuals. LRP5 signaling may not influence circulating levels of these inhibitors. INTRODUCTION: It is thought that gain-of-function mutations in LRP5 result in high bone mass syndromes because these allelic variants confer resistance to the actions of endogenous inhibitors of Wnt signaling. We therefore attempted to determine if circulating levels of Wnt inhibitors are altered in patients with gain-of-function mutations in LRP5. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study in a university research center. Serum was collected from consented volunteers known to have either the G171V or N198S gain-of-function mutations in LRP5, kindred members affected with either mutation, unrelated kindred, and unrelated normal age-matched controls. BMD was provided or measured on site. RESULTS: There were no significant differences found in the serum levels of sclerostin (SOST), Dickkopf-1 (Dkk-1), or secreted frizzled-related protein-4 (SFRP-4) in affected vs. unaffected individuals from different kindreds or when compared to age-matched unrelated normal individuals. Mean serum SOST values in affected and unaffected kindred members and unrelated normal controls were 52.7 ± 6.1, 36.5 ± 9.6, and 54.8 ± 5.4, respectively. For Dkk-1, the values were 25.9 ± 3.4, 25.7 ± 3.0, and 17.3 ± 2.3 and for SFRP-4, 38.1 ± 2.3, 39.8 ± 3.6, and 28.5 ± 1.7. Serum levels of RANKL and osteoprotegerin (OPG) were not different in the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: Circulating levels of endogenous Wnt inhibitors do not change in patients with gain-of-function mutations in LRP5 including Dkk1, which is suppressed by Wnt signaling. It may be that circulating levels of Wnt inhibitors do not reflect changes in target tissues. It is also possible that other mechanisms besides or in addition to resistance in Wnt inhibitors explains the skeletal effects of these mutations.
Authors: Victoria E Ahn; Matthew Ling-Hon Chu; Hee-Jung Choi; Denise Tran; Arie Abo; William I Weis Journal: Dev Cell Date: 2011-10-13 Impact factor: 12.270
Authors: Bheem M Bhat; Kristina M Allen; Wei Liu; James Graham; Art Morales; Anthony Anisowicz; Ho-Sun Lam; Catherine McCauley; Valerie Coleburn; Michael Cain; Eric Fortier; Ramesh A Bhat; Frederick J Bex; Paul J Yaworsky Journal: Gene Date: 2006-12-29 Impact factor: 3.688
Authors: Ji Li; Ildiko Sarosi; Russell C Cattley; James Pretorius; Frank Asuncion; Mario Grisanti; Sean Morony; Stephen Adamu; Zhaopo Geng; Wanrong Qiu; Paul Kostenuik; David L Lacey; W Scott Simonet; Brad Bolon; Xueming Qian; Victoria Shalhoub; Michael S Ominsky; Hua Zhu Ke; Xiaodong Li; William G Richards Journal: Bone Date: 2006-05-26 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: Morten Frost; Tom Andersen; Fatma Gossiel; Stinus Hansen; Jens Bollerslev; Wim van Hul; Richard Eastell; Moustapha Kassem; Kim Brixen Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: William J Moore; Jeffrey C Kern; Ramesh Bhat; Thomas J Commons; Shoichi Fukayama; Igor Goljer; Girija Krishnamurthy; Ronald L Magolda; Lisa Nogle; Keith Pitts; Barb Stauffer; Eugene J Trybulski; Gregory S Welmaker; Matthew Wilson; Peter V N Bodine Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2009-01-08 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: Jochen Schulze; Sebastian Seitz; Hiroaki Saito; Michael Schneebauer; Robert P Marshall; Anke Baranowsky; Bjoern Busse; Arndt F Schilling; Felix W Friedrich; Joachim Albers; Alexander S Spiro; Jozef Zustin; Thomas Streichert; Kristina Ellwanger; Christof Niehrs; Michael Amling; Roland Baron; Thorsten Schinke Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-04-27 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Peter V N Bodine; Barbara Stauffer; Helga Ponce-de-Leon; Ramesh A Bhat; Annamarie Mangine; Laura M Seestaller-Wehr; Robert A Moran; Julia Billiard; Shoichi Fukayama; Barry S Komm; Keith Pitts; Girija Krishnamurthy; Ariamala Gopalsamy; Mengxiao Shi; Jeffrey C Kern; Thomas J Commons; Richard P Woodworth; Matthew A Wilson; Gregory S Welmaker; Eugene J Trybulski; William J Moore Journal: Bone Date: 2009-02-27 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: Ulrike I Mödder; Kelley A Hoey; Shreyasee Amin; Louise K McCready; Sara J Achenbach; B Lawrence Riggs; L Joseph Melton; Sundeep Khosla Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Yajun Cui; Paul J Niziolek; Bryan T MacDonald; Cassandra R Zylstra; Natalia Alenina; Daniel R Robinson; Zhendong Zhong; Susann Matthes; Christina M Jacobsen; Ronald A Conlon; Robert Brommage; Qingyun Liu; Faika Mseeh; David R Powell; Qi M Yang; Brian Zambrowicz; Han Gerrits; Jan A Gossen; Xi He; Michael Bader; Bart O Williams; Matthew L Warman; Alexander G Robling Journal: Nat Med Date: 2011-05-22 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Núria Guañabens; Steven Mumm; Laia Gifre; Silvia Ruiz-Gaspà; Jennifer L Demertzis; Marina Stolina; Deborah V Novack; Michael P Whyte Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2016-05-09 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Michael M Hoffmann; Christian Werner; Michael Böhm; Ulrich Laufs; Karl Winkler Journal: Cardiovasc Diabetol Date: 2014-11-19 Impact factor: 9.951