Literature DB >> 7602397

Immunolocalization and expression of bone morphogenetic proteins 2 and 4 in fracture healing.

M P Bostrom1, J M Lane, W S Berberian, A A Missri, E Tomin, A Weiland, S B Doty, D Glaser, V M Rosen.   

Abstract

Recently, it has become increasingly evident that fracture healing involves a complex interaction of many local and systemic regulatory factors. The roles of some of these growth factors have been described; however, little is understood about the presence of the bone morphogenetic proteins in fracture repair, despite the fact that they are the most potent osteoinductive proteins known. This study defines and characterizes the physiologic presence, localization, and chronology of the bone morphogenetic proteins in fracture healing with an established rat fracture healing model. With use of a recently developed monoclonal antibody against bone morphogenetic proteins 2 and 4 developed with standard avidin-biotin complex/immunoperoxidase protocols, frozen undecalcified fracture calluses were analyzed semiquantitatively for the percentage of various types of fracture cells staining positively. During the early stages of fracture healing, only a minimum number of primitive cells stained positively in the fracture callus. As the process of endochondral ossification proceeded, the presence of bone morphogenetic proteins 2 and 4 increased dramatically, especially in the primitive mesenchymal and chondrocytic cells. While the cartilaginous component of the callus matured with a concomitant decrease in the number of primitive cells, there was a concomitant decrease in both the intensity and the number of positively staining cells. As osteoblasts started to lay down woven bone on the chondroid matrix, these osteoblastic cells exhibited strong positive staining. The intensity of this staining decreased, however, as lamellar bone replaced the primitive woven bone. A similar observation was noted for the areas of the callus undergoing intramembranous ossification. Initially, within several days after the fracture, periosteal cells and osteoblasts exhibited intense staining for bone morphogenetic proteins 2 and 4. As the woven bone was replaced with mature lamellar bone, this staining decreased. These data, and the awareness of the strong osteoinductive capacities of bone morphogenetic protein, suggest that bone morphogenetic proteins 2 and 4 are important regulators of cell differentiation during fracture repair.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7602397     DOI: 10.1002/jor.1100130309

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orthop Res        ISSN: 0736-0266            Impact factor:   3.494


  49 in total

1.  [Injectable carrier system for growth factor application in minimally invasive stimulation of bone healing].

Authors:  H Windhagen; F Witte; F Thorey; C Hurschler; C J Wirth
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 2.  Where tendons and ligaments meet bone: attachment sites ('entheses') in relation to exercise and/or mechanical load.

Authors:  M Benjamin; H Toumi; J R Ralphs; G Bydder; T M Best; S Milz
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 2.610

Review 3.  Potential roles of bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs) in skeletal repair and regeneration.

Authors:  Takanobu Nakase; Hideki Yoshikawa
Journal:  J Bone Miner Metab       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 2.626

Review 4.  A perspective: engineering periosteum for structural bone graft healing.

Authors:  Xinping Zhang; Hani A Awad; Regis J O'Keefe; Robert E Guldberg; Edward M Schwarz
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-05-29       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  CCN3 protein participates in bone regeneration as an inhibitory factor.

Authors:  Yuki Matsushita; Kei Sakamoto; Yoshihiro Tamamura; Yasuaki Shibata; Tokutaro Minamizato; Tasuku Kihara; Masako Ito; Ken-ichi Katsube; Shuichi Hiraoka; Haruhiko Koseki; Kiyoshi Harada; Akira Yamaguchi
Journal:  J Biol Chem       Date:  2013-05-07       Impact factor: 5.157

6.  Emulating native periosteum cell population and subsequent paracrine factor production to promote tissue engineered periosteum-mediated allograft healing.

Authors:  Michael D Hoffman; Danielle S W Benoit
Journal:  Biomaterials       Date:  2015-03-18       Impact factor: 12.479

Review 7.  In situ tissue regeneration: chemoattractants for endogenous stem cell recruitment.

Authors:  Wendy S Vanden Berg-Foels
Journal:  Tissue Eng Part B Rev       Date:  2013-07-11       Impact factor: 6.389

8.  Healing of non-displaced fractures produced by fatigue loading of the mouse ulna.

Authors:  Mario D Martinez; Gregory J Schmid; Jennifer A McKenzie; David M Ornitz; Matthew J Silva
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2010-03-06       Impact factor: 4.398

Review 9.  A review of computational models of bone fracture healing.

Authors:  Monan Wang; Ning Yang; Xinyu Wang
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2017-08-08       Impact factor: 2.602

10.  Stress fracture healing: fatigue loading of the rat ulna induces upregulation in expression of osteogenic and angiogenic genes that mimic the intramembranous portion of fracture repair.

Authors:  Gregory R Wohl; Dwight A Towler; Matthew J Silva
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2008-10-07       Impact factor: 4.398

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.