Secondary ossification center induces and protects growth plate structure

  1. Meng Xie
  2. Pavel Gol'din
  3. Anna Nele Herdina
  4. Jordi Estefa
  5. Ekaterina V Medvedeva
  6. Lei Li
  7. Phillip T Newton
  8. Svetlana Kotova
  9. Boris Shavkuta
  10. Aditya Saxena
  11. Lauren T Shumate
  12. Brian D Metscher
  13. Karl Großschmidt
  14. Shigeki Nishimori
  15. Anastasia Akovantseva
  16. Anna P Usanova
  17. Anastasiia D Kurenkova
  18. Anoop Kumar
  19. Irene Linares Arregui
  20. Paul Tafforeau
  21. Kaj Fried
  22. Mattias Carlström
  23. András Simon
  24. Christian Gasser
  25. Henry M Kronenberg
  26. Murat Bastepe
  27. Kimberly L Cooper
  28. Peter Timashev
  29. Sophie Sanchez
  30. Igor Adameyko
  31. Anders Eriksson
  32. Andrei S Chagin  Is a corresponding author
  1. Karolinska Institutet, Sweden
  2. Schmalhausen Institute of Zoology of NAS of Ukraine, Ukraine
  3. Uppsala University, Evolutionary Biology Centre, Sweden
  4. Sechenov University, Russian Federation
  5. University of California San Diego, United States
  6. Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, United States
  7. University of Vienna, Austria
  8. Medical University of Vienna, Austria
  9. KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden
  10. European Synchrotron Radiation Facility, France
  11. Univeristy of California, San Diego, United States

Abstract

Growth plate and articular cartilage constitute a single anatomical entity early in development, but later separate into two distinct structures by the secondary ossification center (SOC). The reason for such separation remains unknown. We found that evolutionarily SOC appears in animals conquering the land - amniotes. Analysis of ossification pattern in mammals with specialized extremities (whales, bats, jerboa) revealed that SOC development correlates with the extent of mechanical loads. Mathematical modelling revealed that SOC reduces mechanical stress within the growth plate. Functional experiments revealed high vulnerability of hypertrophic chondrocytes to mechanical stress and showed that SOC protects these cells from apoptosis caused by extensive loading. Atomic force microscopy showed that hypertrophic chondrocytes are the least mechanically stiff cells within the growth plate. Altogether, these findings suggest that SOC has evolved to protect the hypertrophic chondrocytes from the high mechanical stress encountered in the terrestrial environment.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Meng Xie

    Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Pavel Gol'din

    Department of Evolutionary Morphology, Schmalhausen Institute of Zoology of NAS of Ukraine, Kiev, Ukraine
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6118-1384
  3. Anna Nele Herdina

    Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Jordi Estefa

    Organismal Biology, Uppsala University, Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Ekaterina V Medvedeva

    Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russian Federation
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Lei Li

    Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Phillip T Newton

    Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Svetlana Kotova

    Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russian Federation
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Boris Shavkuta

    Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russian Federation
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Aditya Saxena

    Division of Biological Sciences, University of California San Diego, San Diego, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Lauren T Shumate

    Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Brian D Metscher

    Department of Theoretical Biology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6514-4406
  13. Karl Großschmidt

    Center for Anatomy and Cell Biology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Shigeki Nishimori

    Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Anastasia Akovantseva

    Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russian Federation
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Anna P Usanova

    Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russian Federation
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Anastasiia D Kurenkova

    Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russian Federation
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Anoop Kumar

    Department of Cell and Molecular Biology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Irene Linares Arregui

    Department of Solid Mechanics, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  20. Paul Tafforeau

    SoM, European Synchrotron Radiation Facility, Grenoble, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5962-1683
  21. Kaj Fried

    Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  22. Mattias Carlström

    Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  23. András Simon

    Department of Cell and Molecular Biology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1018-1891
  24. Christian Gasser

    Department of Solid Mechanics, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  25. Henry M Kronenberg

    Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  26. Murat Bastepe

    Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  27. Kimberly L Cooper

    Division of Biological Sciences, Section of Cellular and Developmental Biology, Univeristy of California, San Diego, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5892-8838
  28. Peter Timashev

    Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russian Federation
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  29. Sophie Sanchez

    Organismal Biology, Uppsala University, Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3611-6836
  30. Igor Adameyko

    Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5471-0356
  31. Anders Eriksson

    Department of Mechanics, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  32. Andrei S Chagin

    Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden
    For correspondence
    andrei.chagin@ki.se
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2696-5850

Funding

EMBO

  • Meng Xie
  • Igor Adameyko

Svenska Forskningsrådet Formas

  • Sophie Sanchez
  • Igor Adameyko
  • Andrei S Chagin

Russian Science Foundation

  • Peter Timashev

Stiftelsen Frimurare Barnhuset i Stockholm

  • Meng Xie
  • Phillip T Newton

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Xu Cao, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: all animal experiments were pre-approved by the Ethical Committee on Animal Experiments (N5/16, N187/15, 9091-2018, Stockholm North Committee/ Norra Djurförsöksetiska Nämnden), the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of the Massachusetts General Hospital (Protocols #: 2005N000094 and 2004N000176) or the University of California San Diego (D16-00020) and conducted in accordance with the provisions and guidelines for animal experimentation formulated by the Swedish Animal Agency. Animal experiments involving limb unloading, AFM and nanoindentation were pre-approved by the Ethics Committee of the Sechenov First State Moscow Medical University (No. 07-17 from 13.09.2017, Moscow, Russia).

Version history

  1. Received: January 16, 2020
  2. Accepted: October 9, 2020
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: October 16, 2020 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: October 22, 2020 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2020, Xie et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 5,288
    views
  • 371
    downloads
  • 29
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Meng Xie
  2. Pavel Gol'din
  3. Anna Nele Herdina
  4. Jordi Estefa
  5. Ekaterina V Medvedeva
  6. Lei Li
  7. Phillip T Newton
  8. Svetlana Kotova
  9. Boris Shavkuta
  10. Aditya Saxena
  11. Lauren T Shumate
  12. Brian D Metscher
  13. Karl Großschmidt
  14. Shigeki Nishimori
  15. Anastasia Akovantseva
  16. Anna P Usanova
  17. Anastasiia D Kurenkova
  18. Anoop Kumar
  19. Irene Linares Arregui
  20. Paul Tafforeau
  21. Kaj Fried
  22. Mattias Carlström
  23. András Simon
  24. Christian Gasser
  25. Henry M Kronenberg
  26. Murat Bastepe
  27. Kimberly L Cooper
  28. Peter Timashev
  29. Sophie Sanchez
  30. Igor Adameyko
  31. Anders Eriksson
  32. Andrei S Chagin
(2020)
Secondary ossification center induces and protects growth plate structure
eLife 9:e55212.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.55212

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.55212

Further reading

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Immunology and Inflammation
    Tobias Weinberger, Messerer Denise ... Christian Schulz
    Research Article

    Cardiac macrophages are heterogenous in phenotype and functions, which has been associated with differences in their ontogeny. Despite extensive research, our understanding of the precise role of different subsets of macrophages in ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) injury remains incomplete. We here investigated macrophage lineages and ablated tissue macrophages in homeostasis and after I/R injury in a CSF1R-dependent manner. Genomic deletion of a fms-intronic regulatory element (FIRE) in the Csf1r locus resulted in specific absence of resident homeostatic and antigen-presenting macrophages, without affecting the recruitment of monocyte-derived macrophages to the infarcted heart. Specific absence of homeostatic, monocyte-independent macrophages altered the immune cell crosstalk in response to injury and induced proinflammatory neutrophil polarization, resulting in impaired cardiac remodeling without influencing infarct size. In contrast, continuous CSF1R inhibition led to depletion of both resident and recruited macrophage populations. This augmented adverse remodeling after I/R and led to an increased infarct size and deterioration of cardiac function. In summary, resident macrophages orchestrate inflammatory responses improving cardiac remodeling, while recruited macrophages determine infarct size after I/R injury. These findings attribute distinct beneficial effects to different macrophage populations in the context of myocardial infarction.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Developmental Biology
    Corey D Holman, Alexander P Sakers ... Patrick Seale
    Research Article

    The energy-burning capability of beige adipose tissue is a potential therapeutic tool for reducing obesity and metabolic disease, but this capacity is decreased by aging. Here, we evaluate the impact of aging on the profile and activity of adipocyte stem and progenitor cells (ASPCs) and adipocytes during the beiging process in mice. We found that aging increases the expression of Cd9 and other fibro-inflammatory genes in fibroblastic ASPCs and blocks their differentiation into beige adipocytes. Fibroblastic ASPC populations from young and aged mice were equally competent for beige differentiation in vitro, suggesting that environmental factors suppress adipogenesis in vivo. Examination of adipocytes by single nucleus RNA-sequencing identified compositional and transcriptional differences in adipocyte populations with aging and cold exposure. Notably, cold exposure induced an adipocyte population expressing high levels of de novo lipogenesis (DNL) genes, and this response was severely blunted in aged animals. We further identified Npr3, which encodes the natriuretic peptide clearance receptor, as a marker gene for a subset of white adipocytes and an aging-upregulated gene in adipocytes. In summary, this study indicates that aging blocks beige adipogenesis and dysregulates adipocyte responses to cold exposure and provides a resource for identifying cold and aging-regulated pathways in adipose tissue.