Abstract

Declining bone mass is associated with aging and osteoporosis, a disease characterized by progressive weakening of the skeleton and increased fracture incidence. Growth and lifelong homeostasis of bone rely on interactions between different cell types including vascular cells and mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs). As these interactions involve Notch signaling, we have explored whether treatment with secreted Notch ligand proteins can enhance osteogenesis in adult mice. We show that a bone-targeting, high affinity version of the ligand Delta-like 4, termed Dll4(E12), induces bone formation in male mice without causing adverse effects in other organs, which are known to rely on intact Notch signaling. Due to lower bone surface and thereby reduced retention of Dll4(E12), the same approach failed to promote osteogenesis in female and ovariectomized mice but strongly enhanced trabecular bone formation in combination with parathyroid hormone. Single cell analysis of stromal cells indicates that Dll4(E12) primarily acts on MSCs and has comparably minor effects on osteoblasts, endothelial cells or chondrocytes. We propose that activation of Notch signaling by bone-targeted fusion proteins might be therapeutically useful and can avoid detrimental effects in Notch-dependent processes in other organs.

Data availability

scRNA-seq data have been deposited in the GEO functional genomics data repository under the accession number GSE152285. Data can be accessed via https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE152285 with the token mzcbwwqgptidxmh.

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Cong Xu

    Department of Tissue Morphogenesis, Max Planck Institute for Molecular Biomedicine, Münster, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Van Vuong Dinh

    Department of Tissue Morphogenesis, Max Planck Institute for Molecular Biomedicine, Münster, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Kai Kruse

    Department of Tissue Morphogenesis, Max Planck Institute for Molecular Biomedicine, Münster, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Hyun-Woo Jeong

    Department of Tissue Morphogenesis, Max Planck Institute for Molecular Biomedicine, Münster, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Emma C Watson

    Department of Tissue Morphogenesis, Max Planck Institute for Molecular Biomedicine, Münster, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0986-5524
  6. Susanne Adams

    Department of Tissue Morphogenesis, Max Planck Institute for Molecular Biomedicine, Münster, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Frank Berkenfeld

    Department of Tissue Morphogenesis, Max Planck Institute for Molecular Biomedicine, Münster, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Martin Stehling

    Flow Cytometry Unit, Max Planck Institute for Molecular Biomedicine, Münster, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Seyed Javad Rasouli

    Department of Tissue Morphogenesis, Max Planck Institute for Molecular Biomedicine, Münster, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Rui Fan

    Embryonic Self-Organization Research Group, Max Planck Institute for Molecular Biomedicine, Münster, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Rui Chen

    Embryonic Self-Organization Research Group, Max Planck Institute for Molecular Biomedicine, Münster, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Ivan Bedzhov

    Embryonic Self-Organization Research Group, Max Planck Institute for Molecular Biomedicine, Münster, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Qi Chen

    CAS Key Laboratory of Regenerative Biology, Guangzhou Institutes of Biomedicine and Health, Guangzhou, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8485-6540
  14. Katsuhiro Kato

    Department of Tissue Morphogenesis, Max Planck Institute for Molecular Biomedicine, Münster, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Mara Elena Pitulescu

    Tissue Morphogenesis, Max Planck Institute for Molecular Biomedicine, Münster, Germany
    For correspondence
    mara.pitulescu@mpi-muenster.mpg.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Ralf H Adams

    Department of Tissue Morphogenesis, Max Planck Institute for Molecular Biomedicine, Münster, Germany
    For correspondence
    ralf.adams@mpi-muenster.mpg.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3031-7677

Funding

Max Planck Society

  • Ralf H Adams

European Research Council (AdG 339409 AngioBone)

  • Ralf H Adams

European Research Council (AdG 786672 PROVEC)

  • Ralf H Adams

Leducq Foundation

  • Ralf H Adams

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

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All animals were housed at the Max Planck Institute for Molecular Biomedicine and protocols were approved by animal ethics committees with permissions (Az 81-02.04.2019.A114 and Az 81-02.04.2020.A416) granted by the Landesamt für Natur, Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz (LANUV) of North Rhine-Westphalia. Every effort was made to minimize suffering.

Copyright

© 2022, Xu 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

  • 2,426
    views
  • 438
    downloads
  • 26
    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. Cong Xu
  2. Van Vuong Dinh
  3. Kai Kruse
  4. Hyun-Woo Jeong
  5. Emma C Watson
  6. Susanne Adams
  7. Frank Berkenfeld
  8. Martin Stehling
  9. Seyed Javad Rasouli
  10. Rui Fan
  11. Rui Chen
  12. Ivan Bedzhov
  13. Qi Chen
  14. Katsuhiro Kato
  15. Mara Elena Pitulescu
  16. Ralf H Adams
(2022)
Induction of osteogenesis by bone-targeted Notch activation
eLife 11:e60183.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.60183

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.60183

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    2. Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine
    Ana Catarina Costa, Blanca R Murillo ... Monica M Sousa
    Research Article

    Sensory dorsal root ganglion (DRG) neurons have a unique pseudo-unipolar morphology in which a stem axon bifurcates into a peripheral and a central axon, with different regenerative abilities. Whereas peripheral DRG axons regenerate, central axons are unable to regrow. Central axon regeneration can however be elicited by a prior conditioning lesion to the peripheral axon. How DRG axon asymmetry is established remains unknown. Here we developed a rodent in vitro system replicating DRG pseudo-unipolarization and asymmetric axon regeneration. Using this model, we observed that from early development, central DRG axons have a higher density of growing microtubules. This asymmetry was also present in vivo and was abolished by a conditioning lesion that decreased microtubule polymerization of central DRG axons. An axon-specific microtubule-associated protein (MAP) signature, including the severases spastin and katanin and the microtubule regulators CRMP5 and tau, was found and shown to adapt upon conditioning lesion. Supporting its significance, interfering with the DRG MAP signature either in vitro or in vivo readily abolished central-peripheral asymmetries in microtubule dynamics and regenerative ability. In summary, our data unveil that axon-specific microtubule regulation drives asymmetric regeneration of sensory neuron axons.

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine
    Ruben Sebastian-Perez, Shoma Nakagawa ... Maria Pia Cosma
    Research Article

    Chromocenters are established after the 2-cell (2C) stage during mouse embryonic development, but the factors that mediate chromocenter formation remain largely unknown. To identify regulators of 2C heterochromatin establishment in mice, we generated an inducible system to convert embryonic stem cells (ESCs) to 2C-like cells. This conversion is marked by a global reorganization and dispersion of H3K9me3-heterochromatin foci, which are then reversibly formed upon re-entry into pluripotency. By profiling the chromatin-bound proteome (chromatome) through genome capture of ESCs transitioning to 2C-like cells, we uncover chromatin regulators involved in de novo heterochromatin formation. We identified TOPBP1 and investigated its binding partner SMARCAD1. SMARCAD1 and TOPBP1 associate with H3K9me3-heterochromatin in ESCs. Interestingly, the nuclear localization of SMARCAD1 is lost in 2C-like cells. SMARCAD1 or TOPBP1 depletion in mouse embryos leads to developmental arrest, reduction of H3K9me3, and remodeling of heterochromatin foci. Collectively, our findings contribute to comprehending the maintenance of chromocenters during early development.