Literature DB >> 27762665

Sutures Possess Strong Regenerative Capacity for Calvarial Bone Injury.

Shery Park1, Hu Zhao2, Mark Urata1, Yang Chai1.   

Abstract

Repair of calvarial bony defects remains challenging for craniofacial surgeons. Injury experiments on animal calvarial bones are widely used to study healing mechanisms and test tissue engineering approaches. Previously, we identified Gli1+ cells within the calvarial sutures as stem cells supporting calvarial bone turnover and injury repair. In this study, we tested the regenerative capacity of the suture region compared with other areas of calvarial bone. Injuries were made to mouse sagittal sutures or other areas of the calvarial bone at varying distances from the suture. Samples were collected at different time points after injury for evaluation. MicroCT and histological analyses were conducted. EdU incorporation analysis was performed to assay cell proliferation. Gli1-CreERT2;Tdtomatoflox mice were used to trace the fate of Gli1+ stem cells after injury. Calvarial sutures possess much stronger regeneration capability than the nonsuture bony areas of the calvaria. The healing rate of the calvarial bone is inversely proportional to the distance between the suture and injury site: injuries closer to the suture heal faster. After complete removal of the sagittal suture, regeneration and restoration of normal organization occur within 6 weeks. Gli1+ cells within the suture mesenchyme are the cellular source for injury repair and bone regeneration. These results demonstrate that calvarial bone healing is not an evenly distributed event on the calvarial surface. Sutures contain stem cells and are the origin of calvarial bone tissue regeneration. Therefore, current practice in calvarial surgery needs to be reevaluated and modified. These findings also necessitate the design of new approaches for repairing calvarial bony defects.

Entities:  

Keywords:  calvarial bone injury and repair; suture stem cells

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27762665      PMCID: PMC5124738          DOI: 10.1089/scd.2016.0211

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stem Cells Dev        ISSN: 1547-3287            Impact factor:   3.272


  24 in total

1.  Different endogenous threshold levels of Fibroblast Growth Factor-ligands determine the healing potential of frontal and parietal bones.

Authors:  Björn Behr; Nicholas J Panetta; Michael T Longaker; Natalina Quarto
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2010-05-21       Impact factor: 4.398

Review 2.  Periosteum: biology and applications in craniofacial bone regeneration.

Authors:  Z Lin; A Fateh; D M Salem; G Intini
Journal:  J Dent Res       Date:  2013-10-02       Impact factor: 6.116

Review 3.  Bone repair cells for craniofacial regeneration.

Authors:  G Pagni; D Kaigler; G Rasperini; G Avila-Ortiz; R Bartel; W V Giannobile
Journal:  Adv Drug Deliv Rev       Date:  2012-03-10       Impact factor: 15.470

4.  Cell replication in craniofacial periosteum: appositional vs. resorptive sites.

Authors:  Pannee Ochareon; Susan W Herring
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  2011-01-12       Impact factor: 2.610

5.  Activation of FGF signaling mediates proliferative and osteogenic differences between neural crest derived frontal and mesoderm parietal derived bone.

Authors:  Shuli Li; Natalina Quarto; Michael T Longaker
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-11-18       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Porous polymethylmethacrylate as bone substitute in the craniofacial area.

Authors:  Marco L Bruens; Herman Pieterman; Joost R de Wijn; J Michael Vaandrager
Journal:  J Craniofac Surg       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 1.046

7.  Osteogenesis in calvarial defects: contribution of the dura, the pericranium, and the surrounding bone in adult versus infant animals.

Authors:  Arun K Gosain; Timothy D Santoro; Lian-Sheng Song; Christopher C Capel; P V Sudhakar; Hani S Matloub
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 4.730

8.  Fate of the mammalian cranial neural crest during tooth and mandibular morphogenesis.

Authors:  Y Chai; X Jiang; Y Ito; P Bringas; J Han; D H Rowitch; P Soriano; A P McMahon; H M Sucov
Journal:  Development       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 6.868

9.  The suture provides a niche for mesenchymal stem cells of craniofacial bones.

Authors:  Hu Zhao; Jifan Feng; Thach-Vu Ho; Weston Grimes; Mark Urata; Yang Chai
Journal:  Nat Cell Biol       Date:  2015-03-23       Impact factor: 28.824

10.  Origin matters: differences in embryonic tissue origin and Wnt signaling determine the osteogenic potential and healing capacity of frontal and parietal calvarial bones.

Authors:  Natalina Quarto; Derrick C Wan; Matt D Kwan; Nicholas J Panetta; Shuli Li; Michael T Longaker
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 6.741

View more
  11 in total

Review 1.  Skeletal stem cells: insights into maintaining and regenerating the skeleton.

Authors:  Maxwell A Serowoky; Claire E Arata; J Gage Crump; Francesca V Mariani
Journal:  Development       Date:  2020-03-11       Impact factor: 6.868

2.  A dysmorphic mouse model reveals developmental interactions of chondrocranium and dermatocranium.

Authors:  Susan M Motch Perrine; M Kathleen Pitirri; Kazuhiko Kawasaki; Joan T Richtsmeier; Emily L Durham; Mizuho Kawasaki; Hao Zheng; Danny Z Chen
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2022-06-15       Impact factor: 8.713

Review 3.  Insights into skeletal stem cells.

Authors:  Qiwen Li; Ruoshi Xu; Kexin Lei; Quan Yuan
Journal:  Bone Res       Date:  2022-10-19       Impact factor: 13.362

4.  EphB3 as a potential mediator of developmental and reparative osteogenesis.

Authors:  Rajay A D Kamath; M Douglas Benson
Journal:  Cells Tissues Organs       Date:  2021-10-25       Impact factor: 2.208

5.  Role of Discoidin Domain Receptor 2 in Craniofacial Bone Regeneration.

Authors:  A Binrayes; C Ge; F F Mohamed; R T Franceschi
Journal:  J Dent Res       Date:  2021-04-24       Impact factor: 6.116

6.  Cranial Suture Regeneration Mitigates Skull and Neurocognitive Defects in Craniosynostosis.

Authors:  Mengfei Yu; Li Ma; Yuan Yuan; Xin Ye; Axel Montagne; Jinzhi He; Thach-Vu Ho; Yingxi Wu; Zhen Zhao; Naomi Sta Maria; Russell Jacobs; Mark Urata; Huiming Wang; Berislav V Zlokovic; Jian-Fu Chen; Yang Chai
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2021-01-07       Impact factor: 66.850

7.  Mesenchymal stem cells and three-dimensional-osteoconductive scaffold regenerate calvarial bone in critical size defects in swine.

Authors:  Zoe M Johnson; Yuan Yuan; Xiangjia Li; Tea Jashashvili; Michael Jamieson; Mark Urata; Yong Chen; Yang Chai
Journal:  Stem Cells Transl Med       Date:  2021-04-01       Impact factor: 6.940

8.  Network-Based Method for Identifying Co- Regeneration Genes in Bone, Dentin, Nerve and Vessel Tissues.

Authors:  Lei Chen; Hongying Pan; Yu-Hang Zhang; Kaiyan Feng; XiangYin Kong; Tao Huang; Yu-Dong Cai
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2017-10-02       Impact factor: 4.096

9.  BMP-IHH-mediated interplay between mesenchymal stem cells and osteoclasts supports calvarial bone homeostasis and repair.

Authors:  Yuxing Guo; Yuan Yuan; Ling Wu; Thach-Vu Ho; Junjun Jing; Hideki Sugii; Jingyuan Li; Xia Han; Jifan Feng; Chuanbin Guo; Yang Chai
Journal:  Bone Res       Date:  2018-10-17       Impact factor: 13.567

Review 10.  BMP Signaling in the Development and Regeneration of Cranium Bones and Maintenance of Calvarial Stem Cells.

Authors:  Guiqian Chen; Haodong Xu; Yifeng Yao; Tingting Xu; Mengting Yuan; Xingen Zhang; Zhengbing Lv; Mengrui Wu
Journal:  Front Cell Dev Biol       Date:  2020-03-10
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.