Natalie Ky Wee1, Natalie A Sims1,2, Roy Morello3,4,5. 1. Bone Cell Biology and Disease Unit, St Vincent's Institute of Medical Research, 9 Princes St, Fitzroy, 3065, Australia. 2. Department of Medicine, The University of Melbourne, St. Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, 3065, Australia. 3. Department of Physiology & Cell Biology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA. Rmorello@uams.edu. 4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA. Rmorello@uams.edu. 5. Division of Genetics, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA. Rmorello@uams.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW: Osteocytes are cells embedded within the bone matrix, but their function and specific patterns of gene expression remain only partially defined; this is beginning to change with recent studies using transcriptomics. This unbiased approach can generate large amounts of data and is now being used to identify novel genes and signalling pathways within osteocytes both at baseline conditions and in response to stimuli. This review outlines the methods used to isolate cell populations containing osteocytes, and key recent transcriptomic studies that used osteocyte-containing preparations from bone tissue. RECENT FINDINGS: Three common methods are used to prepare samples to examine osteocyte gene expression: digestion followed by sorting, laser capture microscopy, and the isolation of cortical bone shafts. All these methods present challenges in interpreting the data generated. Genes previously not known to be expressed by osteocytes have been identified and variations in osteocyte gene expression have been reported with age, sex, anatomical location, mechanical loading, and defects in bone strength. A substantial proportion of newly identified transcripts in osteocytes remain functionally undefined but several have been cross-referenced with functional data. Future work and improved methods (e.g. scRNAseq) likely provide useful resources for the study of osteocytes and important new information on the identity and functions of this unique cell type within the skeleton.
PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW: Osteocytes are cells embedded within the bone matrix, but their function and specific patterns of gene expression remain only partially defined; this is beginning to change with recent studies using transcriptomics. This unbiased approach can generate large amounts of data and is now being used to identify novel genes and signalling pathways within osteocytes both at baseline conditions and in response to stimuli. This review outlines the methods used to isolate cell populations containing osteocytes, and key recent transcriptomic studies that used osteocyte-containing preparations from bone tissue. RECENT FINDINGS: Three common methods are used to prepare samples to examine osteocyte gene expression: digestion followed by sorting, laser capture microscopy, and the isolation of cortical bone shafts. All these methods present challenges in interpreting the data generated. Genes previously not known to be expressed by osteocytes have been identified and variations in osteocyte gene expression have been reported with age, sex, anatomical location, mechanical loading, and defects in bone strength. A substantial proportion of newly identified transcripts in osteocytes remain functionally undefined but several have been cross-referenced with functional data. Future work and improved methods (e.g. scRNAseq) likely provide useful resources for the study of osteocytes and important new information on the identity and functions of this unique cell type within the skeleton.
Authors: Christopher J Chermside-Scabbo; Taylor L Harris; Michael D Brodt; Ingrid Braenne; Bo Zhang; Charles R Farber; Matthew J Silva Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: W Balemans; M Ebeling; N Patel; E Van Hul; P Olson; M Dioszegi; C Lacza; W Wuyts; J Van Den Ende; P Willems; A F Paes-Alves; S Hill; M Bueno; F J Ramos; P Tacconi; F G Dikkers; C Stratakis; K Lindpaintner; B Vickery; D Foernzler; W Van Hul Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 2001-03-01 Impact factor: 6.150
Authors: Igor Matic; Brya G Matthews; Xi Wang; Nathaniel A Dyment; Daniel L Worthley; David W Rowe; Danka Grcevic; Ivo Kalajzic Journal: Stem Cells Date: 2016-08-29 Impact factor: 6.277
Authors: Karen Staehling-Hampton; Sean Proll; Bryan W Paeper; Lei Zhao; Patrick Charmley; Analisa Brown; Jessica C Gardner; David Galas; Randall C Schatzman; Peter Beighton; Socrates Papapoulos; Herman Hamersma; Mary E Brunkow Journal: Am J Med Genet Date: 2002-06-15
Authors: Anika Grüneboom; Ibrahim Hawwari; Daniela Weidner; Stephan Culemann; Sylvia Müller; Sophie Henneberg; Alexandra Brenzel; Simon Merz; Lea Bornemann; Kristina Zec; Manuela Wuelling; Lasse Kling; Mike Hasenberg; Sylvia Voortmann; Stefanie Lang; Wolfgang Baum; Alexandra Ohs; Oliver Kraff; Harald H Quick; Marcus Jäger; Stefan Landgraeber; Marcel Dudda; Renzo Danuser; Jens V Stein; Manfred Rohde; Kolja Gelse; Annette I Garbe; Alexandra Adamczyk; Astrid M Westendorf; Daniel Hoffmann; Silke Christiansen; Daniel Robert Engel; Andrea Vortkamp; Gerhard Krönke; Martin Herrmann; Thomas Kamradt; Georg Schett; Anja Hasenberg; Matthias Gunzer Journal: Nat Metab Date: 2019-01-21
Authors: Shawon Debnath; Alisha R Yallowitz; Jason McCormick; Sarfaraz Lalani; Tuo Zhang; Ren Xu; Na Li; Yifang Liu; Yeon Suk Yang; Mark Eiseman; Jae-Hyuck Shim; Meera Hameed; John H Healey; Mathias P Bostrom; Dan Avi Landau; Matthew B Greenblatt Journal: Nature Date: 2018-09-24 Impact factor: 49.962