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

  • 5,217
    views
  • 367
    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
    Edgar M Pera, Josefine Nilsson-De Moura ... Ivana Milas
    Research Article

    We previously showed that SerpinE2 and the serine protease HtrA1 modulate fibroblast growth factor (FGF) signaling in germ layer specification and head-to-tail development of Xenopus embryos. Here, we present an extracellular proteolytic mechanism involving this serpin-protease system in the developing neural crest (NC). Knockdown of SerpinE2 by injected antisense morpholino oligonucleotides did not affect the specification of NC progenitors but instead inhibited the migration of NC cells, causing defects in dorsal fin, melanocyte, and craniofacial cartilage formation. Similarly, overexpression of the HtrA1 protease impaired NC cell migration and the formation of NC-derived structures. The phenotype of SerpinE2 knockdown was overcome by concomitant downregulation of HtrA1, indicating that SerpinE2 stimulates NC migration by inhibiting endogenous HtrA1 activity. SerpinE2 binds to HtrA1, and the HtrA1 protease triggers degradation of the cell surface proteoglycan Syndecan-4 (Sdc4). Microinjection of Sdc4 mRNA partially rescued NC migration defects induced by both HtrA1 upregulation and SerpinE2 downregulation. These epistatic experiments suggest a proteolytic pathway by a double inhibition mechanism:

    SerpinE2 ┤HtrA1 protease ┤Syndecan-4 → NC cell migration.

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Kristine B Walhovd, Stine K Krogsrud ... Didac Vidal-Pineiro
    Research Article

    Human fetal development has been associated with brain health at later stages. It is unknown whether growth in utero, as indexed by birth weight (BW), relates consistently to lifespan brain characteristics and changes, and to what extent these influences are of a genetic or environmental nature. Here we show remarkably stable and lifelong positive associations between BW and cortical surface area and volume across and within developmental, aging and lifespan longitudinal samples (N = 5794, 4–82 y of age, w/386 monozygotic twins, followed for up to 8.3 y w/12,088 brain MRIs). In contrast, no consistent effect of BW on brain changes was observed. Partly environmental effects were indicated by analysis of twin BW discordance. In conclusion, the influence of prenatal growth on cortical topography is stable and reliable through the lifespan. This early-life factor appears to influence the brain by association of brain reserve, rather than brain maintenance. Thus, fetal influences appear omnipresent in the spacetime of the human brain throughout the human lifespan. Optimizing fetal growth may increase brain reserve for life, also in aging.