Most skeletal elements arise from a cartilage template via the process of endochondral ossification (Long and Ornitz, 2013; Olsen et al., 2000; Ono et al., 2019). During skeletal development, mesenchymal stem and progenitor cells condense and differentiate to form chondrocytes or cartilage cells (Hirao et al., 2006; Maes et al., 2012; Olsen et al., 2000; Spencer et al., 2014). These chondrocytes undergo rapid proliferation while depositing an extracellular matrix (ECM) rich in type II collagen (COL2A1), forming the initial immature cartilage rudiments (Ono et al., 2019). As cartilage growth proceeds, the chondrocytes localized nearest the center of each rudiment exit the cell cycle and undergo a process of maturation and hypertrophic differentiation (Capasso et al., 1984; Kong et al., 1993; Kwan et al., 1997; Long and Ornitz, 2013; Olsen et al., 2000; Ono et al., 2019; Reginato et al., 1986; Schmid and Conrad, 1982). Hypertrophic chondrocytes, which are identified by their specific expression of type X collagen (COL10A1), are ultimately responsible for secreting additional proteins such as Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor alpha (VEGFα), Platelet Derived Growth Factor beta (PDGFβ), and Indian Hedgehog (IHH) among other factors to promote both vascular invasion and osteoblast differentiation of the surrounding perichondrial progenitors (Capasso et al., 1984; Kwan et al., 1997; Olsen et al., 2000; Reginato et al., 1986; Schmid and Conrad, 1982; St-Jacques et al., 1999; Zelzer et al., 2004). As vessels from the perichondrium invade the hypertrophic cartilage to establish the marrow cavity, newly formed osteoblasts and their progenitors are delivered by these vessels to the marrow space (Maes et al., 2010; Olsen et al., 2000). There, osteoblasts secrete a type I collagen (COL1A1)-rich matrix that ultimately mineralizes to replace the cartilage with bone, while the hypertrophic cartilage is remodeled and reduced with age (Olsen et al., 2000). Hypertrophic chondrocytes are essential for both establishment of the marrow cavity and bone formation; however, their precise fate and direct or indirect contribution to bone formation has been questioned (Tsang et al., 2015).

Recent genetic evidence suggests that hypertrophic chondrocytes undergo a process of transdifferentiation to directly generate osteoblasts and osteocytes that contribute to the formation of trabecular and endocortical bone (Park et al., 2015; Yang et al., 2014b; Yang et al., 2014a; Zhou et al., 2014a). To determine the fate of growth plate chondrocytes during endochondral bone formation, investigators have utilized mouse lines combining constitutive and inducible CRE recombinases under the control of the Col2a1, Acan, or Col10a1 promotors/enhancers with a recombination sensitive reporter. Utilization of the constitutive and inducible Col2a1Cre/Col2a1CreERT2 mouse lines have complicated our understanding of this lineage by the fact that in addition to their expression in immature chondrocytes, Col2a1 and these genetic tools have been noted to be expressed within and/or label directly perichondrial and marrow associated cell populations known to give rise to osteoblast lineage cells (Hilton et al., 2007; Long et al., 2001). Some of the more convincing data generated utilizing a Col2a1CreERT2 mouse line and recombination-sensitive reporter comes from Yang et al., 2014a, which established an approach for low-dose tamoxifen delivery to drive recombination in clones or clusters of immature chondrocytes that could be tracked over time. When the chase period was short (1–5 days post tamoxifen), reporter expression was largely restricted to immature chondrocyte clusters or extensions of these clusters into early hypertrophic chondrocytes. However, when the chase period was extended (10 days post tamoxifen), reporter expression could be observed throughout individual columns of proliferating to hypertrophic chondrocytes that also extended into Col1a1-expressing osteoblasts localized only to the regions of metaphyseal bone directly underneath the labeled chondrocytes; a result that is consistent with chondrocytes transitioning to an osteoblastic fate (Yang et al., 2014a). Similar pulse-chase experiments were performed utilizing the AcanCre^ERT2; Rosa26^fs-tdTomato reporter model at both embryonic and adult time points utilizing doses of tamoxifen that elicit high rates of recombination in chondrocytes. These data suggested that following short (1–3 days post tamoxifen) or long (2 weeks post tamoxifen) chase periods, non-chondrocytic cells associated with the primary spongiosa and trabecular bone were reporter positive with some cells labeling with the Col1a1(2.3 kb)-eGFP.(Zhou et al., 2014b) The most convincing data was generated utilizing a combination of constitutive and inducible Col10a1Cre/Col10a1CreERT2 mouse lines and recombination-sensitive reporters; models that are much more restricted in their expression to hypertrophic chondrocytes of the growth plate (Yang et al., 2014b). This study, as well as others solely utilizing a constitutive Col10a1Cre model, determined that hypertrophic chondrocytes can relatively quickly give rise to osteoblastic cells expressing OSTERIX (OSX), COL1A1, and eventually even OSTEOCALCIN (OCN) and/or SCLEROSTIN (SOST) expressing osteocytes within the trabecular and endocortical bone matrix (Park et al., 2015; Yang et al., 2014b; Yang et al., 2014a; Zhou et al., 2014b). Interestingly, Yang et al., 2014a utilized a Col10a1Cre; Rosa26^fs-eYFP reporter model and noted the presence of some YFP⁺, Perilipin-expressing adipocytes and YFP⁺, PDGFRβ⁺ pericytes within the bone marrow, suggesting the potential for alternate fates of hypertrophic chondrocytes beyond the osteoblast lineage. Utilizing similar techniques, Tan et al., 2020 also demonstrated the potential for mature adipocytes to arise from Col10a1-expressing hypertrophic chondrocytes.

Since the fates of mature osteoblasts, adipocytes, and pericytes are unlikely to arise from independent hypertrophic chondrocyte transdifferentiation events, we reasoned that the hypertrophic chondrocytes may undergo a dedifferentiation process to generate skeletal stem and progenitor cell (SSPC) population(s) that localize to the bone marrow and maintain the capacity of redifferentiating into more mature cell fates. To address this issue, we utilized hypertrophic chondrocyte genetic reporter mouse models combined with single cell RNA-sequencing, immunofluorescent staining validation assays, fluorescent activated cell sorting (FACS)/flow cytometry, and bulk RNA-sequencing approaches of clonal cell populations. Our data indicate that hypertrophic chondrocytes indeed undergo a process of dedifferentiation to generate bone-marrow-associated SSPCs embryonically and postnatally. These SSPC likely serve as a primary source of osteogenic cells during skeletal development and also contribute to the adipogenic lineage, but not the pericyte lineage. Further, these studies indicate that the hypertrophic chondrocyte derived SSPCs are strikingly similar at the transcriptomic level to marrow-associated SSPCs derived from other sources, but behave quite differently upon kidney capsule transplantation to test their multipotency. Hypertrophic chondrocyte derived SSPCs were able to give rise to a fully mature bone ossicle, complete with marrow cavity and adipocytes, while marrow SSPCs from other sources could only generate bone.

Recent and historic data have suggested that hypertrophic chondrocytes are capable of becoming osteoblasts that directly contribute to trabecular bone formation (Giovannone et al., 2019; Park et al., 2015; Tsang et al., 2015; Yang et al., 2014b; Yang et al., 2014a; Zhou et al., 2014b); however, the process by which hypertrophic chondrocytes generate osteoblasts remains unknown. Current genetic lineage tracing studies have suggested a transdifferentiation mechanism by which hypertrophic chondrocytes differentiate directly into an osteoprogenitor or mature osteoblast without transiting through an intermediate or more primitive state (Park et al., 2015). Here, we have provided genetic and transcriptomic evidence, consistent with our hypothesis, that hypertrophic chondrocytes undergo a process of dedifferentiation to form SSPC populations ultimately giving rise to osteoblastic and adipogenic cell fates within the marrow compartment of embryonic, postnatal, and adult bones. A number of genetic and flow cytometric approaches have been used to identify and isolate multipotent SSPC populations within both the bone marrow and periosteal compartments. Many of these efforts have used alternative genetic models (Gremlin1Cre, LeprCre, Col2a1Cre, Cxcl12Cre) with lineage tracing and/or RNA-seq analyses or have utilized flow cytometric-based selection methods with antibodies against PDGFRα, CD200, and ITGAV among others followed by differentiation assays (Boulais et al., 2018; Chan et al., 2015; Farahani and Xaymardan, 2015; Gulati et al., 2018; Mizuhashi et al., 2019; Ono et al., 2014; Worthley et al., 2015; Zhou et al., 2014a). Generally, these studies have identified the presence of non-hematopoietic, non-endothelial multipotent mesenchymal cell populations with at least the capacity for osteogenic and/or adipogenic differentiation (Robey et al., 2014). It has also largely been assumed that these marrow-associated SSPCs are derived from the perichondrial/periosteal cells during skeletal development. Our study demonstrates that hypertrophic chondrocytes of the growth plate serve as a reservoir and alternative source of marrow-associated SSPCs likely utilized for rapid bone growth during skeletal development (Figure 9).

Figure 9

Download asset Open asset

Specifically, our analyses of Col10a1CreERT2; Rosa26^fs-tdTomato and Col10a1Cre; Rosa26^fs-tdTomato skeletal rudiments at E16.5 identified not only hypertrophic chondrocytes (Col10a1 expressing cells) and their descendant osteoblasts (Bglap expressing cells), but also hypertrophic chondrocyte derived SSPCs expressing Pdgfra, Ly6a, Lepr, and Cxcl12. A population of lineage negative, CXCL12-, PDGFRα+, SCA1+ SSPCs (PαS cells) have been identified as a quiescent population associated with vessels near the endosteum (Morikawa et al., 2009). These PαS cells are also capable of forming CFU-Fs, can differentiate into osteoblasts, chondrocytes, and adipocytes, while also being important for the migration and maintenance of HSCs (Morikawa et al., 2009; Nusspaumer et al., 2017). The appearance of these cells at E16.5 (but not 2 months) suggests that these might be either a more transient population derived from hypertrophic chondrocytes or are of an initial finite number and contribute early in development and are lost with age, as opposed to hypertrophic chondrocyte derived CXCL12-abundant reticular (CAR) cells (Cxcl12⁺; Ly6a1^-) that continue to be present in our data at 2 months of age.

Our analyses of 2-month Col10a1Cre; Rosa26^fs-tdTomato bone marrow identified not only hypertrophic chondrocyte-derived osteoprogenitors (Sp7 expressing) (Park et al., 2015) and osteoblast populations, but also hypertrophic chondrocyte-derived marrow and vessel-associated cells expressing Lepr, Pdgfra, Pdgfrb, Grem1, Cxcl12, with several expressing Itgav, Cd200, and Eng (CD105) while lacking the expression of Col10a1, Cre, and most osteogenic genes. Since Runx2, Pparg, and Adipoq are also expressed throughout many of these cells at 2 months of age, we postulate that these hypertrophic chondrocyte-derived cells encompass populations of SSPCs with the capability of osteogenic and adipogenic differentiation. This indeed was confirmed via our in vitro and in vivo differentiation assays. Prior work has demonstrated that Runx2 expressing and LEPR⁺ progenitors are primed for osteoblastic differentiation (Yang et al., 2017), while LEPR⁺ progenitors expressing Adipoq and Pparg are associated with adipogenic differentiation (Zhong et al., 2020). Priming of the SSPCs may allow for their rapid differentiation when in the proper supportive osteogenic/adipogenic niche or outside a niche that supports SSPC maintenance.

Since SSPC populations, including CAR cells, were thought to originate from perichondrial/periosteal cell sources and since LEPR+ cells constitute ~100% of CFU-Fs, we attempted to compare SSPCs/CAR cells derived from hypertrophic chondrocytes to those of other origins by utilizing Col10a1Cre; Rosa26^fs-tdTomato bone marrow cells plated at clonal density (Zhou et al., 2014a). Nearly 50% of the CFU-Fs were originally derived from hypertrophic chondrocytes (tdTOMATO+), while the other half of CFU-Fs (tdTOMATO-) were likely derived from a perichondrial/periosteal origin. Additionally, when compared to SSPCs derived from other cell sources, the hypertrophic chondrocyte derived SSPCs were much more conducive to the formation of a bone ossicle with adipocytes and marrow upon transplantation, highlighting the supportive nature of these cells to vascular invasion and hematopoietic cell populations. Collectively, these data indicate for first time that growth plate hypertrophic chondrocytes may serve as a reservoir for the generation of SSPCs (including PαS cells) and osteoblasts during early embryonic development, but then primarily shift to CAR cell populations as the mice proceed through postnatal development and homeostasis.

Assessments of 2 M bulk RNA-seq data and EdU incorporation assays from CFU-F cultures, as well as cell cycle analysis of our scRNA-seq data, indicate an enhanced proliferative capacity for hypertrophic chondrocyte derived CFU-Fs and SSPCs/CAR cells. This data may be reflective of the fact that Yang et al. also identified the presence of both hypertrophic chondrocyte-derived Col1a1⁺ and Col1a1^- marrow-associated cells that were BrdU⁺ proliferating cells, indicating that hypertrophic chondrocytes eventually re-enter the cell cycle during this cell fate transition (Park et al., 2015; Yang et al., 2014a). Interestingly, our scRNA-seq dataset identified similar proportions of cycling cells in hypertrophic chondrocyte derived SSPCs/CAR cells and osteoblasts. This is in stark contrast to the more quiescent phenotype observed in most primitive SSPC populations that have been highlighted across numerous studies (Tikhonova et al., 2019; Zhong et al., 2020). However, recent work utilizing similar scRNA-seq approaches assessed proliferation rates of chondrocyte and perichondrial-derived SSPCs and osteoblast populations in the Col2a1Cre; Rosa26^fs-tdTomato bone marrow and also indicated similar proliferative capacities between later committed progenitors and osteoblasts, which was greater than the most primitive of SSPCs (Zhong et al., 2020). Zhong et al., also utilized the AdipoqCre^ERT2; Rosa26^fs-tdTomato model to investigate colony forming and proliferative potential of broad populations of Adipoq-expressing cells and descendants. These tdTOMATO⁺ cells contributed very little to CFU-Fs and exhibited minimal proliferation in vitro (Zhong et al., 2020). Tikhonova et al. also utilized scRNA-seq and identified a subset of cells from the LeprCre; Rosa26^fs-tdTomato lineage that cluster into a high cycling group (Tikhonova et al., 2019), which may represent a more proliferative LEPR⁺ SSPC population derived from the cartilage growth plate. Finally, it is worth noting again that the in vivo contribution of AdipoqCre; Rosa26^fs-tdTomato and LeprCre; Rosa26^fs-tdTomato lineages to osteoblasts and/or osteocytes is something that occurs over developmental time postnatally, while the Col10a1Cre; Rosa26^fs-tdTomato lineage contributes to the osteoblast and osteocyte fates rapidly; as early as the embryonic period of skeletal development. This may also be attributed to the rapid or transient nature by which hypertrophic chondrocytes transit through the SSPC phase during these periods, such that the LeprCre or AdipoqCre do not have sufficient time or levels of Cre expression to induce recombination within this population. Also note that we do not observe Adipoq expression in the transitional cells at E16.5. Therefore, LeprCre and AdipoqCre may only be efficient at recombining floxed alleles within the less transient SSPC populations postnatally that continue to be maintained as SSPCs and subsequently slowly/weakly contribute to the osteogenic and adipogenic lineages during late postnatal/adult skeletal development and homeostasis.

While the data presented here demonstrates hypertrophic chondrocyte contribution to SSPCs, we note the importance of further studies to elucidate the mechanisms driving this process. Recent publications have suggested roles for pathways like WNT/β-catenin in balancing osteogenesis and adipogenesis from hypertrophic chondrocytes (Tan et al., 2020). Additionally, Sox9 was shown to be important for maintaining chondrocytes before changing fates toward the osteoblast lineage (Haseeb et al., 2021). Future studies will need to take into account the potential different signaling pathways that drive the dedifferentiation of hypertrophic chondrocytes to a SSPC fate versus the re-differentiation of hypertrophic chondrocyte derived SSPCs toward the osteogenic and adipogenic lineages. Additional studies have also demonstrated a potential transient embryonic and postnatal contribution of hypertrophic chondrocytes to developmental bone formation, since genetic deletion of Runx2 within hypertrophic chondrocytes (and their descendants) initially reduces osteoblastic bone formation that ultimately fully recovers around 3–6 weeks of age (Qin et al., 2020). While it is possible that the late postnatal formation is ‘recovered’ from osteoblasts derived purely from an alternate source (such as the periosteum), it is also possible that removal of Runx2 within the hypertrophic chondrocyte lineages induces some hypertrophic chondrocyte cell death, alters angiogenic/osteogenic factors (VEGFa among others) secreted from hypertrophic chondrocytes, and/or delays the re-differentiation of hypertrophic chondrocyte-derived SSPCs toward the osteoblast lineage; thus simply delaying postnatal bone formation by reducing the contribution of hypertrophic chondrocytes and their descendants to the earliest stages of bone development. Further studies are needed to more thoroughly understand these lineage contributions over time, as we demonstrate with the Col10a1CreERT2; Rosa26^fs-tdTomato mouse line that there is a continued contribution of osteoblastic cells from hypertrophic chondrocytes throughout embryonic development to at least approximately 4–5 months of age or skeletal maturity.

All raw data has been made available as source data files within the manuscript. All sequencing datasets are available via the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) under the accession numbers: GSE179174, GSE190616, and GSE179148.

1. 1. Long JT
   2. Leinroth A
   3. Liao Y
   4. Ren Y
   5. Mirando AJ
   6. Nguyen T
   7. Guo W
   8. Sharma D
   9. Rouse D
   10. Wu C
   11. Cheah KS
   12. Karner CM
   13. Hilton MJ

   (2022) NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus

   ID GSE179174. Collagen10a1-Cre;Rosa26-tdTomato Bone marrow colony forming units.

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=gse179174
2. 1. Long JT
   2. Leinroth A
   3. Liao Y
   4. Ren Y
   5. Mirando AJ
   6. Nguyen T
   7. Guo W
   8. Sharma D
   9. Rouse D
   10. Wu C
   11. Cheah KS
   12. Karner CM
   13. Hilton MJ

   (2022) NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus

   ID GSE190616. Collagen10-Cre;Rosa26-tdTomato e16.5 single cell RNA-sequencing.

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE190616
3. 1. Long JT
   2. Leinroth A
   3. Liao Y
   4. Ren Y
   5. Mirando AJ
   6. Nguyen T
   7. Guo W
   8. Sharma D
   9. Rouse D
   10. Wu C
   11. Cheah KS
   12. Karner CM
   13. Hilton MJ

   (2022) NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus

   ID GSE179148. Collagen10-Cre;Rosa26-tdTomato bone marrow single cell RNA-sequencing.

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE179148

1. 1. Anders S
   2. Pyl PT
   3. Huber W

   (2015) HTSeq--a Python framework to work with high-throughput sequencing data

   Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) 31:166–169.

   https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btu638

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Ashburner M
   2. Ball CA
   3. Blake JA
   4. Botstein D
   5. Butler H
   6. Cherry JM
   7. Davis AP
   8. Dolinski K
   9. Dwight SS
   10. Eppig JT
   11. Harris MA
   12. Hill DP
   13. Issel-Tarver L
   14. Kasarskis A
   15. Lewis S
   16. Matese JC
   17. Richardson JE
   18. Ringwald M
   19. Rubin GM
   20. Sherlock G

   (2000) Gene Ontology: tool for the unification of biology

   Nature Genetics 25:25–29.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/75556

   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Boulais PE
   2. Mizoguchi T
   3. Zimmerman S
   4. Nakahara F
   5. Vivié J
   6. Mar JC
   7. van Oudenaarden A
   8. Frenette PS

   (2018) The Majority of CD45– Ter119– CD31– Bone Marrow Cell Fraction Is of Hematopoietic Origin and Contains Erythroid and Lymphoid Progenitors

   Immunity 49:627–639.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2018.08.019

   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Butler A
   2. Hoffman P
   3. Smibert P
   4. Papalexi E
   5. Satija R

   (2018) Integrating single-cell transcriptomic data across different conditions, technologies, and species

   Nature Biotechnology 36:411–420.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4096

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Cao J
   2. Spielmann M
   3. Qiu X
   4. Huang X
   5. Ibrahim DM
   6. Hill AJ
   7. Zhang F
   8. Mundlos S
   9. Christiansen L
   10. Steemers FJ
   11. Trapnell C
   12. Shendure J

   (2019) The single-cell transcriptional landscape of mammalian organogenesis

   Nature 566:496–502.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-0969-x

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Capasso O
   2. Tajana G
   3. Cancedda R

   (1984) Location of 64K collagen producer chondrocytes in developing chicken embryo tibiae

   Molecular and Cellular Biology 4:1163–1168.

   https://doi.org/10.1128/mcb.4.6.1163-1168.1984

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Chan CKF
   2. Seo EY
   3. Chen JY
   4. Lo D
   5. McArdle A
   6. Sinha R
   7. Tevlin R
   8. Seita J
   9. Vincent-Tompkins J
   10. Wearda T
   11. Lu W-J
   12. Senarath-Yapa K
   13. Chung MT
   14. Marecic O
   15. Tran M
   16. Yan KS
   17. Upton R
   18. Walmsley GG
   19. Lee AS
   20. Sahoo D
   21. Kuo CJ
   22. Weissman IL
   23. Longaker MT

   (2015) Identification and specification of the mouse skeletal stem cell

   Cell 160:285–298.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2014.12.002

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Chan CKF
   2. Gulati GS
   3. Sinha R
   4. Tompkins JV
   5. Lopez M
   6. Carter AC
   7. Ransom RC
   8. Reinisch A
   9. Wearda T
   10. Murphy M
   11. Brewer RE
   12. Koepke LS
   13. Marecic O
   14. Manjunath A
   15. Seo EY
   16. Leavitt T
   17. Lu W-J
   18. Nguyen A
   19. Conley SD
   20. Salhotra A
   21. Ambrosi TH
   22. Borrelli MR
   23. Siebel T
   24. Chan K
   25. Schallmoser K
   26. Seita J
   27. Sahoo D
   28. Goodnough H
   29. Bishop J
   30. Gardner M
   31. Majeti R
   32. Wan DC
   33. Goodman S
   34. Weissman IL
   35. Chang HY
   36. Longaker MT

   (2018) Identification of the Human Skeletal Stem Cell

   Cell 175:43–56.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2018.07.029

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Chasseigneaux S
   2. Moraca Y
   3. Cochois-Guégan V
   4. Boulay A-C
   5. Gilbert A
   6. Le Crom S
   7. Blugeon C
   8. Firmo C
   9. Cisternino S
   10. Laplanche J-L
   11. Curis E
   12. Declèves X
   13. Saubaméa B

   (2018) Isolation and differential transcriptome of vascular smooth muscle cells and mid-capillary pericytes from the rat brain

   Scientific Reports 8:12272.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-30739-5

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Crisan M
    2. Yap S
    3. Casteilla L
    4. Chen C-W
    5. Corselli M
    6. Park TS
    7. Andriolo G
    8. Sun B
    9. Zheng B
    10. Zhang L
    11. Norotte C
    12. Teng P-N
    13. Traas J
    14. Schugar R
    15. Deasy BM
    16. Badylak S
    17. Buhring H-J
    18. Giacobino J-P
    19. Lazzari L
    20. Huard J
    21. Péault B

    (2008) A perivascular origin for mesenchymal stem cells in multiple human organs

    Cell Stem Cell 3:301–313.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2008.07.003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Dobin A
    2. Davis CA
    3. Schlesinger F
    4. Drenkow J
    5. Zaleski C
    6. Jha S
    7. Batut P
    8. Chaisson M
    9. Gingeras TR

    (2013) STAR: ultrafast universal RNA-seq aligner

    Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) 29:15–21.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bts635

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Farahani RM
    2. Xaymardan M

    (2015) Platelet-Derived Growth Factor Receptor Alpha as a Marker of Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Development and Stem Cell Biology

    Stem Cells International 2015:1–8.

    https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/362753

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Gene Ontology Consortium

    (2021) The Gene Ontology resource: enriching a GOld mine

    Nucleic Acids Research 49:D325–D334.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkaa1113

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Giovannone D
    2. Paul S
    3. Schindler S
    4. Arata C
    5. Farmer DT
    6. Patel P
    7. Smeeton J
    8. Crump JG

    (2019) Programmed conversion of hypertrophic chondrocytes into osteoblasts and marrow adipocytes within zebrafish bones

    eLife 8:e42736.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.42736

    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Gulati GS
    2. Murphy MP
    3. Marecic O
    4. Lopez M
    5. Brewer RE
    6. Koepke LS
    7. Manjunath A
    8. Ransom RC
    9. Salhotra A
    10. Weissman IL
    11. Longaker MT
    12. Chan CKF

    (2018) Isolation and functional assessment of mouse skeletal stem cell lineage

    Nature Protocols 13:1294–1309.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2018.041

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Guo W
    2. Spiller KV
    3. Tang J
    4. Karner CM
    5. Hilton MJ
    6. Wu C

    (2020) Hypoxia Depletes Contaminating CD45+ Hematopoietic Cells from Bone Marrow Stromal Cell (BMSC) Cultures: Methods for BMSC Culture Purification

    Cell Biology 53:102317.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scr.2021.102317

    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Hafemeister C
    2. Satija R

    (2019) Normalization and variance stabilization of single-cell RNA-seq data using regularized negative binomial regression

    Genome Biology 20:296.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-019-1874-1

    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Hao Y
    2. Hao S
    3. Andersen-Nissen E
    4. Mauck WM
    5. Zheng S
    6. Butler A
    7. Lee MJ
    8. Wilk AJ
    9. Darby C
    10. Zagar M
    11. Hoffman P
    12. Stoeckius M
    13. Papalexi E
    14. Mimitou EP
    15. Jain J
    16. Srivastava A
    17. Stuart T
    18. Fleming LB
    19. Yeung B
    20. Rogers AJ
    21. McElrath JM
    22. Blish CA
    23. Gottardo R
    24. Smibert P
    25. Satija R

    (2020) Integrated Analysis of Multimodal Single-Cell Data

    Genomics 184:3573–3587.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.04.048

    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Haseeb A
    2. Kc R
    3. Angelozzi M
    4. de Charleroy C
    5. Rux D
    6. Tower RJ
    7. Yao L
    8. Pellegrino da Silva R
    9. Pacifici M
    10. Qin L
    11. Lefebvre V

    (2021) SOX9 keeps growth plates and articular cartilage healthy by inhibiting chondrocyte dedifferentiation/osteoblastic redifferentiation

    PNAS 118:e2019152118.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2019152118

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Hilton MJ
    2. Tu X
    3. Long F

    (2007) Tamoxifen-inducible gene deletion reveals a distinct cell type associated with trabecular bone, and direct regulation of PTHrP expression and chondrocyte morphology by Ihh in growth region cartilage

    Developmental Biology 308:93–105.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2007.05.011

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Hirao M
    2. Tamai N
    3. Tsumaki N
    4. Yoshikawa H
    5. Myoui A

    (2006) Oxygen tension regulates chondrocyte differentiation and function during endochondral ossification

    The Journal of Biological Chemistry 281:31079–31092.

    https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M602296200

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Huber W
    2. Carey VJ
    3. Gentleman R
    4. Anders S
    5. Carlson M
    6. Carvalho BS
    7. Bravo HC
    8. Davis S
    9. Gatto L
    10. Girke T
    11. Gottardo R
    12. Hahne F
    13. Hansen KD
    14. Irizarry RA
    15. Lawrence M
    16. Love MI
    17. MacDonald J
    18. Obenchain V
    19. Oleś AK
    20. Pagès H
    21. Reyes A
    22. Shannon P
    23. Smyth GK
    24. Tenenbaum D
    25. Waldron L
    26. Morgan M

    (2015) Orchestrating high-throughput genomic analysis with Bioconductor

    Nature Methods 12:115–121.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3252

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Kersey PJ
    2. Staines DM
    3. Lawson D
    4. Kulesha E
    5. Derwent P
    6. Humphrey JC
    7. Hughes DST
    8. Keenan S
    9. Kerhornou A
    10. Koscielny G
    11. Langridge N
    12. McDowall MD
    13. Megy K
    14. Maheswari U
    15. Nuhn M
    16. Paulini M
    17. Pedro H
    18. Toneva I
    19. Wilson D
    20. Yates A
    21. Birney E

    (2012) Ensembl Genomes: an integrative resource for genome-scale data from non-vertebrate species

    Nucleic Acids Research 40:D91–D97.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkr895

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Kong RY
    2. Kwan KM
    3. Lau ET
    4. Thomas JT
    5. Boot-Handford RP
    6. Grant ME
    7. Cheah KS

    (1993) Intron-exon structure, alternative use of promoter and expression of the mouse collagen X gene, Col10a-1

    European Journal of Biochemistry 213:99–111.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1432-1033.1993.tb17739.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. Software

    1. Konopka T

    (2019)

    umap: Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection

    Umap.
26. 1. Kusumbe AP
    2. Ramasamy SK
    3. Starsichova A
    4. Adams RH

    (2015) Sample preparation for high-resolution 3D confocal imaging of mouse skeletal tissue

    Nature Protocols 10:1904–1914.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2015.125

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Kwan KM
    2. Pang MKM
    3. Zhou S
    4. Cowan SK
    5. Kong RYC
    6. Pfordte T
    7. Olsen BR
    8. Sillence DO
    9. Tam PPL
    10. Cheah KSE

    (1997) Abnormal compartmentalization of cartilage matrix components in mice lacking collagen X: implications for function

    The Journal of Cell Biology 136:459–471.

    https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.136.2.459

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Long F
    2. Zhang XM
    3. Karp S
    4. Yang Y
    5. McMahon AP

    (2001) Genetic manipulation of hedgehog signaling in the endochondral skeleton reveals a direct role in the regulation of chondrocyte proliferation

    Development (Cambridge, England) 128:5099–5108.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.128.24.5099

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Long F
    2. Ornitz DM

    (2013) Development of the endochondral skeleton

    Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology 5:a008334.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a008334

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Love MI
    2. Huber W
    3. Anders S

    (2014) Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2

    Genome Biology 15:550.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-014-0550-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Macosko EZ
    2. Basu A
    3. Satija R
    4. Nemesh J
    5. Shekhar K
    6. Goldman M
    7. Tirosh I
    8. Bialas AR
    9. Kamitaki N
    10. Martersteck EM
    11. Trombetta JJ
    12. Weitz DA
    13. Sanes JR
    14. Shalek AK
    15. Regev A
    16. McCarroll SA

    (2015) Highly Parallel Genome-wide Expression Profiling of Individual Cells Using Nanoliter Droplets

    Cell 161:1202–1214.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2015.05.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Maes C
    2. Kobayashi T
    3. Selig MK
    4. Torrekens S
    5. Roth SI
    6. Mackem S
    7. Carmeliet G
    8. Kronenberg HM

    (2010) Osteoblast precursors, but not mature osteoblasts, move into developing and fractured bones along with invading blood vessels

    Developmental Cell 19:329–344.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2010.07.010

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Maes C
    2. Carmeliet G
    3. Schipani E

    (2012) Hypoxia-driven pathways in bone development, regeneration and disease

    Nature Reviews. Rheumatology 8:358–366.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrrheum.2012.36

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Martin M

    (2011) Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads

    EMBnet.Journal 17:200.

    https://doi.org/10.14806/ej.17.1.200

    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Mi H
    2. Muruganujan A
    3. Ebert D
    4. Huang X
    5. Thomas PD

    (2019) PANTHER version 14: more genomes, a new PANTHER GO-slim and improvements in enrichment analysis tools

    Nucleic Acids Research 47:D419–D426.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gky1038

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Mizoguchi T
    2. Pinho S
    3. Ahmed J
    4. Kunisaki Y
    5. Hanoun M
    6. Mendelson A
    7. Ono N
    8. Kronenberg HM
    9. Frenette PS

    (2014) Osterix marks distinct waves of primitive and definitive stromal progenitors during bone marrow development

    Developmental Cell 29:340–349.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2014.03.013

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Mizuhashi K
    2. Nagata M
    3. Matsushita Y
    4. Ono W
    5. Ono N

    (2019) Growth Plate Borderline Chondrocytes Behave as Transient Mesenchymal Precursor Cells

    Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 34:1387–1392.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.3719

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Morikawa S
    2. Mabuchi Y
    3. Kubota Y
    4. Nagai Y
    5. Niibe K
    6. Hiratsu E
    7. Suzuki S
    8. Miyauchi-Hara C
    9. Nagoshi N
    10. Sunabori T
    11. Shimmura S
    12. Miyawaki A
    13. Nakagawa T
    14. Suda T
    15. Okano H
    16. Matsuzaki Y

    (2009) Prospective identification, isolation, and systemic transplantation of multipotent mesenchymal stem cells in murine bone marrow

    The Journal of Experimental Medicine 206:2483–2496.

    https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.20091046

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Nusspaumer G
    2. Jaiswal S
    3. Barbero A
    4. Reinhardt R
    5. Ishay Ronen D
    6. Haumer A
    7. Lufkin T
    8. Martin I
    9. Zeller R

    (2017) Ontogenic Identification and Analysis of Mesenchymal Stromal Cell Populations during Mouse Limb and Long Bone Development

    Stem Cell Reports 9:1124–1138.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stemcr.2017.08.007

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Olsen BR
    2. Reginato AM
    3. Wang W

    (2000) Bone development

    Annual Review of Cell and Developmental Biology 16:191–220.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.cellbio.16.1.191

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Omatsu Y
    2. Sugiyama T
    3. Kohara H
    4. Kondoh G
    5. Fujii N
    6. Kohno K
    7. Nagasawa T

    (2010) The essential functions of adipo-osteogenic progenitors as the hematopoietic stem and progenitor cell niche

    Immunity 33:387–399.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2010.08.017

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Ono N
    2. Ono W
    3. Nagasawa T
    4. Kronenberg HM

    (2014) A subset of chondrogenic cells provides early mesenchymal progenitors in growing bones

    Nature Cell Biology 16:1157–1167.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncb3067

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Ono N
    2. Balani DH
    3. Kronenberg HM

    (2019) Stem and progenitor cells in skeletal development

    Current Topics in Developmental Biology 133:1–24.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.ctdb.2019.01.006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Park J
    2. Gebhardt M
    3. Golovchenko S
    4. Perez-Branguli F
    5. Hattori T
    6. Hartmann C
    7. Zhou X
    8. deCrombrugghe B
    9. Stock M
    10. Schneider H
    11. von der Mark K

    (2015) Dual pathways to endochondral osteoblasts: a novel chondrocyte-derived osteoprogenitor cell identified in hypertrophic cartilage

    Biology Open 4:608–621.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/bio.201411031

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Qin X
    2. Jiang Q
    3. Nagano K
    4. Moriishi T
    5. Miyazaki T
    6. Komori H
    7. Ito K
    8. Mark K
    9. Sakane C
    10. Kaneko H
    11. Komori T

    (2020) Runx2 is essential for the transdifferentiation of chondrocytes into osteoblasts

    PLOS Genetics 16:e1009169.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1009169

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Qiu X
    2. Hill A
    3. Packer J
    4. Lin D
    5. Ma YA
    6. Trapnell C

    (2017a) Single-cell mRNA quantification and differential analysis with Census

    Nature Methods 14:309–315.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.4150

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Qiu X
    2. Mao Q
    3. Tang Y
    4. Wang L
    5. Chawla R
    6. Pliner HA
    7. Trapnell C

    (2017b) Reversed graph embedding resolves complex single-cell trajectories

    Nature Methods 14:979–982.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.4402

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. Software

    1. R Development Core Team

    (2013) R: A language and environment for statistical computing

    R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.

    http://www.r-project.org
49. 1. Reginato AM
    2. Lash JW
    3. Jimenez SA

    (1986) Biosynthetic expression of type X collagen in embryonic chick sternum cartilage during development

    The Journal of Biological Chemistry 261:2897–2904.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9258(17)35871-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. Book

    1. Robey P
    2. Kuznetsov S
    3. Riminucci M
    4. Bianco P

    (2014) Bone Marrow Stromal Cell Assays

    In: Hilton MJ, editors. In Skeletal Development and Repair: Methods and Protocols. Springer. pp. 279–293.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-62703-989-5

    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Robling AG
    2. Bonewald LF

    (2020) The Osteocyte: New Insights

    Annual Review of Physiology 82:485–506.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-physiol-021119-034332

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Sapir-Koren R
    2. Livshits G

    (2014) Bone mineralization is regulated by signaling cross talk between molecular factors of local and systemic origin: the role of fibroblast growth factor 23

    BioFactors (Oxford, England) 40:555–568.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/biof.1186

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. Software

    1. Satija R
    2. Butler A
    3. Hoffman P
    4. Stuart T

    (2020)

    SeuratWrappers: Community-Provided Methods and Extensions for the Seurat Object

    SeuratWrappers.
54. 1. Schmid TM
    2. Conrad HE

    (1982)

    A unique low molecular weight collagen secreted by cultured chick embryo chondrocytes

    The Journal of Biological Chemistry 257:12444–12450.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Spencer JA
    2. Ferraro F
    3. Roussakis E
    4. Klein A
    5. Wu J
    6. Runnels JM
    7. Zaher W
    8. Mortensen LJ
    9. Alt C
    10. Turcotte R
    11. Yusuf R
    12. Côté D
    13. Vinogradov SA
    14. Scadden DT
    15. Lin CP

    (2014) Direct measurement of local oxygen concentration in the bone marrow of live animals

    Nature 508:269–273.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13034

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. St-Jacques B
    2. Hammerschmidt M
    3. McMahon AP

    (1999) Indian hedgehog signaling regulates proliferation and differentiation of chondrocytes and is essential for bone formation

    Genes & Development 13:2072–2086.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.13.16.2072

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Stuart T
    2. Butler A
    3. Hoffman P
    4. Hafemeister C
    5. Papalexi E
    6. Mauck WM
    7. Hao Y
    8. Stoeckius M
    9. Smibert P
    10. Satija R

    (2019) Comprehensive Integration of Single-Cell Data

    Cell 177:1888–1902.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2019.05.031

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Tan Z
    2. Kong M
    3. Wen S
    4. Tsang KY
    5. Niu B
    6. Hartmann C
    7. Chan D
    8. Hui C-C
    9. Cheah KSE

    (2020) IRX3 and IRX5 Inhibit Adipogenic Differentiation of Hypertrophic Chondrocytes and Promote Osteogenesis

    Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 35:2444–2457.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.4132

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Tencerova M
    2. Kassem M

    (2016) The Bone Marrow-Derived Stromal Cells: Commitment and Regulation of Adipogenesis

    Frontiers in Endocrinology 7:127.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2016.00127

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Tikhonova AN
    2. Dolgalev I
    3. Hu H
    4. Sivaraj KK
    5. Hoxha E
    6. Cuesta-Domínguez Á
    7. Pinho S
    8. Akhmetzyanova I
    9. Gao J
    10. Witkowski M
    11. Guillamot M
    12. Gutkin MC
    13. Zhang Y
    14. Marier C
    15. Diefenbach C
    16. Kousteni S
    17. Heguy A
    18. Zhong H
    19. Fooksman DR
    20. Butler JM
    21. Economides A
    22. Frenette PS
    23. Adams RH
    24. Satija R
    25. Tsirigos A
    26. Aifantis I

    (2019) The bone marrow microenvironment at single-cell resolution

    Nature 569:222–228.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1104-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Tirosh I
    2. Izar B
    3. Prakadan SM
    4. Wadsworth MH
    5. Treacy D
    6. Trombetta JJ
    7. Rotem A
    8. Rodman C
    9. Lian C
    10. Murphy G
    11. Fallahi-Sichani M
    12. Dutton-Regester K
    13. Lin JR
    14. Cohen O
    15. Shah P
    16. Lu D
    17. Genshaft AS
    18. Hughes TK
    19. Ziegler CGK
    20. Kazer SW
    21. Gaillard A
    22. Kolb KE
    23. Villani AC
    24. Johannessen CM
    25. Andreev AY
    26. Van Allen EM
    27. Bertagnolli M
    28. Sorger PK
    29. Sullivan RJ
    30. Flaherty KT
    31. Frederick DT
    32. Jané-Valbuena J
    33. Yoon CH
    34. Rozenblatt-Rosen O
    35. Shalek AK
    36. Regev A
    37. Garraway LA

    (2016) Dissecting the multicellular ecosystem of metastatic melanoma by single-cell RNA-seq

    Science (New York, N.Y.) 352:189–196.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad0501

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Trapnell C
    2. Cacchiarelli D
    3. Grimsby J
    4. Pokharel P
    5. Li S
    6. Morse M
    7. Lennon NJ
    8. Livak KJ
    9. Mikkelsen TS
    10. Rinn JL

    (2014) The dynamics and regulators of cell fate decisions are revealed by pseudotemporal ordering of single cells

    Nature Biotechnology 32:381–386.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2859

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Tsang KY
    2. Chan D
    3. Cheah KSE

    (2015) Fate of growth plate hypertrophic chondrocytes: death or lineage extension?

    Development, Growth & Differentiation 57:179–192.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/dgd.12203

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. Software

    1. Wickham H

    (2019)

    stringr: Simple, Consistent Wrappers for Common String Operationsitle

    Stringr.
65. Software

    1. Wickham H
    2. François R
    3. Henry L
    4. Müller K

    (2020)

    dplyr: A Grammar of Data Manipulation

    Dplyr.
66. 1. Worthley DL
    2. Churchill M
    3. Compton JT
    4. Tailor Y
    5. Rao M
    6. Si Y
    7. Levin D
    8. Schwartz MG
    9. Uygur A
    10. Hayakawa Y

    (2015) Gremlin 1 Identifies a Skeletal Stem Cell with Bone

    Cartilage, and Reticular Stromal Potential. Cell 160:269–284.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2014.11.042

    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Yamazaki T
    2. Mukouyama YS

    (2018) Tissue Specific Origin, Development, and Pathological Perspectives of Pericytes

    Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine 5:78.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2018.00078

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Yang L
    2. Tsang KY
    3. Tang HC
    4. Chan D
    5. Cheah KSE

    (2014a) Hypertrophic chondrocytes can become osteoblasts and osteocytes in endochondral bone formation

    PNAS 111:12097–12102.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1302703111

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Yang G
    2. Zhu L
    3. Hou N
    4. Lan Y
    5. Wu XM
    6. Zhou B
    7. Teng Y
    8. Yang X

    (2014b) Osteogenic fate of hypertrophic chondrocytes

    Cell Research 24:1266–1269.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/cr.2014.111

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Yang M
    2. Arai A
    3. Udagawa N
    4. Hiraga T
    5. Lijuan Z
    6. Ito S
    7. Komori T
    8. Moriishi T
    9. Matsuo K
    10. Shimoda K
    11. Zahalka AH
    12. Kobayashi Y
    13. Takahashi N
    14. Mizoguchi T

    (2017) Osteogenic Factor Runx2 Marks a Subset of Leptin Receptor-Positive Cells that Sit Atop the Bone Marrow Stromal Cell Hierarchy

    Scientific Reports 7:4928.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-05401-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Yu Y
    2. Newman H
    3. Shen L
    4. Sharma D
    5. Hu G
    6. Mirando AJ
    7. Zhang H
    8. Knudsen E
    9. Zhang G-F
    10. Hilton MJ
    11. Karner CM

    (2019) Glutamine Metabolism Regulates Proliferation and Lineage Allocation in Skeletal Stem Cells

    Cell Metabolism 29:966–978.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2019.01.016

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Zelzer E
    2. Mamluk R
    3. Ferrara N
    4. Johnson RS
    5. Schipani E
    6. Olsen BR

    (2004) VEGFA is necessary for chondrocyte survival during bone development

    Development (Cambridge, England) 131:2161–2171.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.01053

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Zhong L
    2. Yao L
    3. Tower RJ
    4. Wei Y
    5. Miao Z
    6. Park J
    7. Shrestha R
    8. Wang L
    9. Yu W
    10. Holdreith N
    11. Huang X
    12. Zhang Y
    13. Tong W
    14. Gong Y
    15. Ahn J
    16. Susztak K
    17. Dyment N
    18. Li M
    19. Long F
    20. Chen C
    21. Seale P
    22. Qin L

    (2020) Single cell transcriptomics identifies a unique adipose lineage cell population that regulates bone marrow environment

    eLife 9:e54695.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.54695

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
74. 1. Zhou X
    2. von der Mark K
    3. Henry S
    4. Norton W
    5. Adams H
    6. de Crombrugghe B

    (2014a) Chondrocytes transdifferentiate into osteoblasts in endochondral bone during development, postnatal growth and fracture healing in mice

    PLOS Genetics 10:e1004820.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1004820

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
75. 1. Zhou BO
    2. Yue R
    3. Murphy MM
    4. Peyer JG
    5. Morrison SJ

    (2014b) Leptin-receptor-expressing mesenchymal stromal cells represent the main source of bone formed by adult bone marrow

    Cell Stem Cell 15:154–168.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2014.06.008

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

Decision letter after peer review:

[Editors’ note: the authors submitted for reconsideration following the decision after peer review. What follows is the decision letter after the first round of review.]

Thank you for submitting the paper "Hypertrophic Chondrocytes Serve as a Reservoir for Unique Marrow Associated Skeletal Stem and Progenitor Cells, Osteoblasts, and Adipocytes During Skeletal Development" for consideration at eLife. Your initial submission has been reviewed by three peer reviewers, one of whom is a member of our Board of Reviewing Editors, and the evaluation has been overseen by a Senior Editor. Although the work is of interest, we regret to inform you that the findings at this stage are too preliminary for further consideration at eLife.

Reviewer #1:

Several prior studies showed that hypertrophic chondrocytes can give rise to osteoblast lineage cells during skeletal development and growth. In the present study, the authors, by conducted a characterization on the localization and lineage fate of the tdTomator+ cells using Col10a1CreERT2 ; R26-tdTomato lineage-tracing system, confirmed that hypertrophic chondrocytes gave rise to osteoblasts and other bone marrow associated cells. The authors then performed single cell RNA-sequencing on cells derived from 2-month-old Col10a1Cre; R26-tdTomato mice. They found that a subset of bone marrow tdTomato+ cells are skeletal stem and progenitor cells (SSPC) that contribute to osteogenic cells and the adipogenic lineage cells. Finally, the authors performed bulk RNA-sequencing on the tdTomoto+ and tdTomoto- CFU-Fs, and they found enriched expression of cell proliferation and vascular development genes within the tdTomoto+ CFU-Fs. These findings add new evidence to the current concept of chondrocyte-osteoprogenitors-osteoblast transdifferentiation and suggest hypertrophic chondrocytes may undergo dedifferentiate into SSPC. I have the following issues for the authors to address:

1. The lineage tracing study was conducted only in postnatal mice (P6) and chased for 2 weeks. Lineage tracing at different age groups (pre-natal or adult mice) would be useful. Moreover, more evidence is needed to claim that hypertrophic chondrocytes-derived cells undergo a process of dedifferentiation into SSPCs. For example, it is necessary to conduct fluorescence imaging to assess whether stem/progenitor markers (preferentially use another fluorescence reporter mouse strain) colocalize with tdTomato in bone/bone marrow tissue sections from Col10a1CreERT2 ; R26-tdTomato mice at different time points after tamoxifen treatment. Flow cytometry analyses of the expression of the stem/progenitor markers in sorted tdTomato+ cells would also be helpful.

2. Could the authors explain why the single cell RNA-seq were conducted using bone/bone marrow cells derived from 2-month-old non-inducible Col10a1Cre; R26-tdTomato mice? The Tamoxifen-inducible strain at early postnatal stage may make more sense.

3. In Figure 1l, 70-80% of OCN was tdTomato+ in Col10a1Cre; R26-tdTomato mice. However, in Figure 5 and Figure S10, tdTomoto+ and tdTomoto- colonies showed similar ability of osteogenesis. Please explain the discrepancy.

4. In Figure 5, the authors show that nearly 50% of CFU-F colonies derived from Col10a1Cre;R26-tdTomato mice. What is the age of the mice used? Is this age-associated?

5. In Figure S10, the authors assessed the in vitro osteogenic and adipogenic differentiation capacities of the colonies. The images of different staining results should be presented.

Recommendations for the authors:

1. I suggest that Figure S3, especially the staining data in Col10a1CreERT2;Rosa26-tdTomato mice, could be moved to the main text because it provides important evidence to support the dedifferentiation of the labeled tdTomato+ cells.

2. The mechanisms underlying the dedifferentiation of hypertrophic chondrocytes are interesting. This may be elaborated in the Discussion section.

Reviewer #2:

Strengths:

1. This study utilized a powerful combination of hypertrophic chondrocyte-specific lineage tracing models and single cell RNA-seq analyses, to uncover previously unknown identities of hypertrophic chondrocyte-derived bone marrow stromal cell populations.

2. This study took a closer look at Col10a1-creER-based lineage-tracing models to confirm that hypertrophic chondrocytes can transition into bone marrow stromal cells.

3. This study discovers heterogeneity of hypertrophic chondrocyte-derived cells in bone marrow, including osteoblasts and undifferentiated stromal cells that may overlap with skeletal stem and progenitor cells.

Weaknesses:

1. The major conclusion of this study on de-differentiation is mostly supported by single cell RNA-seq analyses of flushed and sorted bone marrow stromal cells, which does not capture the transition of hypertrophic chondrocytes.

2. The authors used Col10a1-CreER and Col10a1-Cre models interchangeably without much considering the important temporal factor. SSPCs that they defined in scRNA-seq experiments may not represent those generated by a recent transformation event. The transformation may have occurred at a much earlier development time point. Essentially all SSPCs in the endochondroal pathway are, after all, derived from chondrocytes. Therefore, these SSPCs may not represent a unique cell population.

3. The authors did not consider the heterogeneity of chondrocytes that are marked by Col10a1-Cre, which include hypertrophic chondrocytes at various locations of the growth plate.

4. This study did not directly show that hypertrophic chondrocyte-derived SSPC populations actually contribute to osteoblasts. These cells could be just bystanders, whereas direct transformation of hypertrophic chondrocytes to osteoblasts may be more significant.

5. The section pertaining to support of hematopoiesis was mostly irrelevant.

Recommendations for the authors:

1. Title:

It is unclear what the authors mean by "unique" marrow associated skeletal stem and progenitor cells. They defined these cells based on previously available markers as described in the main text; therefore, they are not "unique".

2. Abstract:

Generally speaking, this abstract is oversimplified and overstated, not capturing the essence of this study. The distinction between two models of lineage tracing (constitutive active vs. inducible) should be delineated.

Line 38: I am not sure which reference(s) the authors mean by saying that "SSPCs localized to the surrounding periosteum serve as the primary source of marrow associated SSPCs, osteoblasts, osteocytes, and adipocytes during skeletal development". The periosteum does not provide a precursor for marrow cell populations. The perichondrium is not a primary source of marrow cells.

Line 40: The authors should specify which genetic reporter mouse models they used in this study.

Line 42: What do the authors mean by this: "…unique marrow associated SSPCs, previously characterized as a CXCL12-abundant reticular (CAR) cells"? This sentence is contradictory. Moreover, the definition of CAR cells is well-established in the field.

3. Introduction:

Line 47-63: Olsen et al. 2000 is cited five times in the first paragraph. Although this is a valid book chapter to cite, they should identify the primary literature and also cite these papers accordingly.

Line 83-85: It is not true that the Acan-CreER model is more restricted to chondrocytes within the growth plate. It shows more recombination in the periosteum and other marrow components.

Line 109-110: It is not surprising that hypertrophic chondrocyte derived SSPCs are striking similar to marrow associated SSPCs, because, after all, most SSPCs are derived from chondrocytes in the endochondral pathway.

4. Results:

Line 128: IF staining in Figure 1d is not convincing.

Line 131-132: This point is not new and has been already shown in preceding studies. Although I appreciate their efforts to reproduce, these results are confirmatory and not entirely novel.

Line 153: Singe cell RNA-seq is not the right approach to reveal "multiple cell fates" of hypertrophic chondrocytes.

Line 160-161: To support this statement, the authors should include FACS plots in the paper.

Line 162: Why is the number of cells analyzed here so small (~1,000 cells)? This would limit the power of scRNA-seq analysis.

Line 217: Although interesting, the authors did not provide concrete evidence that de-differentiation generates "the most primitive SSCs". This is largely speculative.

Line 242-251: I am not sure how these discussions on support of hematopoiesis fit into the lines of discussion.

5. Discussion:

Line 390: I don't think that the authors showed here with genetic evidence that "hypertrophic chondrocytes undergo a process of dedifferentiation to form unique SSPCs populations". This piece of data would be critical to sustain the major conclusion of this study.

Line 403 (and the title): Why do the authors think that hypertrophic chondrocytes serve as a "reservoir and alternative source" of SSPCs? Their data clearly support the now well-accepted notion that these cells are a "primary" source of SSPCs.

Line 436: The authors are not the first group demonstrating that growth plate chondrocytes serve as a reservoir for CAR cells.

Line 466-469: The last conclusions appear to be vastly overstated.

Reviewer #3:

Authors examined the process of transdifferentiation of hypertrophic chondrocytes to osteoblasts or other marrow associated cells using the lineage tracing reporter mice (Col10a1 Cre-Rosa Tomato mice), which express Tomato in the hypertrophic chondrocytes and their descendants. They showed that more than 80% of bone marrow osteoblasts was derived from hypertrophic chondrocytes. They performed scRNA sequencing of Tomato-positive cells, and the gene expression profiles of most of the Tomato-positive cells are like those in skeletal stem and progenitor cells (SSPCs) and a niche cell for hematopoietic stem cells. It was confirmed by the staining of the Tamato-positive cells with immunohistochemistry using antibodies against PDGFRb, LEPR, and PDGFRa, which are expressed in SSPCs. Further, they showed that 25% of adipocytes and 37% of LepR+ cells were derived from Tamato-positive cells by immunohistochemistry. They also showed that half of the CFU-F was derived from Tamato-positive cells, and they had more proliferative activity than that derived from Tamato-negative cells. They concluded that hypertrophic chondrocytes undergo a process of dedifferentiation to generate SSPCs, which serve as a primary source of bone marrow osteoblasts and some source of adipocytes.

Strengths:

The scRNA sequencing of the transdifferentiated cells enabled the characterization of SSPCs derived from hypertrophic chondrocytes in detail.

Weaknesses:

1. They used immunohistochemistry for the quantitative analysis, including the frequencies of transdifferentiated osteoblasts and LepR+ cells. The immunohistochemistry using adult mouse samples is not easy because of the process of decalcification, which reduces antigen reactivity. They should use reporter mice driven by 2.3 kb Col1a1 promoter for the frequency of transdifferentiated osteoblasts, and LepR Cre Rosa mice for the frequency of LepR+ cells. Further, they prepared the samples by immersion fixation but not perfusion fixation. It is important to prepare the samples for immunohistochemistry by perfusion fixation to keep the antigen reactivity. They performed immunohistochemistry using OCN antibody to detect osteoblasts in Figure 1 and Supplementary Figure 8. The number of OCN-positive cells are too low, indicating that the immunohistochemical analysis is not working. Further, the pictures with higher magnification are required for the evaluation of the staining in Figure 1 and Supplementary Figures3, 6, 8, and the locations of the pictures with high magnification should be shown in the pictures with low magnification. In Supplementary Figure 3, most of the cells look Tomato single positive cells and PDGFRb, LEPR, or PDGFRa single positive cells. It is contradictory to Figure 3.

2. 37 % of LepR+ cells were derived from hypertrophic chondrocytes. However, more than 80% of OCN-positive cells were derived from hypertrophic chondrocytes. The discrepancy also seems to have been caused by the quantitative analysis using immunohistochemistry of LepR and OCN.

3. In Figure 2, the populations of osteocytes (cluster 1) and osteoblasts (cluster 2) were too small, indicating that the samples were not appropriately collected. It skews the understanding of dedifferentiation and transdifferentiation. It is recommended to perform scRNA sequencing at embryonic stage (E16.5-18.5) to confirm the appearance of dedifferentiated cells.

4. The frequency of osteoblasts derived from hypertrophic chondrocytes at 2 months of age was 83% in this paper, and it was described as consistent to the previous reports. However, it was 19-31% at 3 weeks of age in Yang et al. (Cell Res 24:1266, 2014), 62-63% at 1 month of age in Zhou et al. (PLoS Genet 10: e1004820, 2014), and 15% at 3 weeks of age in Qin et al. (PLoS Genet 16: e1009169, 2020). The frequencies were examined using reporter mice in the previous three papers. As the OCN immunostaining was not working, however, the frequency of this paper is not reliable. Even if it is reliable, the data is not consistent to the previous papers. Further, the last paper, which was not cited in this paper, also showed that bone volume becomes normal by 6 weeks of age in the absence of transdifferentiation of hypertrophic chondrocytes, indicating the transient requirement of the transdifferentiation at embryonic and neonatal stage. Referring the previous findings, precise discussion should be done.

5. The presence of the dedifferentiated cells does not mean that hypertrophic chondrocytes transdifferentiate into osteoblasts through the dedifferentiated cell stage. The data in this paper is consistent with the previous findings, which indicated that hypertrophic chondrocytes become osteoblasts, adipocytes, and stromal cells. Further, the differentiation of hypertrophic chondrocytes into Cxcl12-positive stromal cells was already shown in the previous paper (Nature 563: 254, 2018), although in detailed expression profiles of the stromal cells were provided in this paper.

6. In Figure 5G, are more than half of the cells in cluster 1 (osteocytes) S/G2/M phase?

Recommendations for the authors:

1. In line 131 on page 6, what are other osteogenic markers?

2. In line 147-148 on page 7, what does "loosely associated with the marrow" mean?

[Editors’ note: the authors resubmitted a revised version of the paper for consideration. What follows is the authors’ response to the first round of review.]

Reviewer #1:

Several prior studies showed that hypertrophic chondrocytes can give rise to osteoblast lineage cells during skeletal development and growth. In the present study, the authors, by conducted a characterization on the localization and lineage fate of the tdTomator+ cells using Col10a1CreERT2 ; R26-tdTomato lineage-tracing system, confirmed that hypertrophic chondrocytes gave rise to osteoblasts and other bone marrow associated cells. The authors then performed single cell RNA-sequencing on cells derived from 2-month-old Col10a1Cre; R26-tdTomato mice. They found that a subset of bone marrow tdTomato+ cells are skeletal stem and progenitor cells (SSPC) that contribute to osteogenic cells and the adipogenic lineage cells. Finally, the authors performed bulk RNA-sequencing on the tdTomoto+ and tdTomoto- CFU-Fs, and they found enriched expression of cell proliferation and vascular development genes within the tdTomoto+ CFU-Fs. These findings add new evidence to the current concept of chondrocyte-osteoprogenitors-osteoblast transdifferentiation and suggest hypertrophic chondrocytes may undergo dedifferentiate into SSPC. I have the following issues for the authors to address:

1. The lineage tracing study was conducted only in postnatal mice (P6) and chased for 2 weeks. Lineage tracing at different age groups (pre-natal or adult mice) would be useful. Moreover, more evidence is needed to claim that hypertrophic chondrocytes-derived cells undergo a process of dedifferentiation into SSPCs. For example, it is necessary to conduct fluorescence imaging to assess whether stem/progenitor markers (preferentially use another fluorescence reporter mouse strain) colocalize with tdTomato in bone/bone marrow tissue sections from Col10a1CreERT2 ; R26-tdTomato mice at different time points after tamoxifen treatment. Flow cytometry analyses of the expression of the stem/progenitor markers in sorted tdTomato+ cells would also be helpful.

To address these concerns, we have provided new inducible lineage tracing data at both embryonic (Figure 1a-c, 3g; E16.5) and postnatal/adult (Figure S1a-b; 2-months and 4-months) time points. In Figure 3g, we demonstrate that hypertrophic chondrocytes initially labeled at E13.5-15.5 transition into a marrow associated Pdgfra-expressing cells during bone development. These data were achieved by generating a Col10a1Cre^ERT2; R26-tdTomato mouse line that incorporates a PDGFRa-H2B-GFP knock-in allele. This PDGFRa-H2B- GFP allele was also utilized with our Col10a1Cre; R26-tdTomato mouse line for flow cytometry of marrow associated cells at 2-months of age and demonstrated that greater than 70% of all of hypertrophic chondrocyte derived marrow associated cells or SSPCs are PDGFRa/GFP positive, which is consistent with our scRNA-seq data at this timepoint (Figure S4c).

2. Could the authors explain why the single cell RNA-seq were conducted using bone/bone marrow cells derived from 2-month-old non-inducible Col10a1Cre; R26-tdTomato mice? The Tamoxifen-inducible strain at early postnatal stage may make more sense.

Due to the transient nature of the hypertrophic chondrocytes following single tamoxifen injections in Col10a1Cre^ERT2; R26-tdTomato mice and their limited contribution to the marrow utilizing this strategy, we opted to use the Col10a1Cre^ERT2; R26-tdTomato mouse line. Original inducible experiments did not yield sufficient cell numbers following tissue digestion, FACS, and downstream quality check/removals. We chose 2-months of age as a postnatal developmental time point in which the hypertrophic chondrocytes would have likely produced a potential variety of de-differentiated and or differentiated marrow associated cell types. We thought this would be ideal for capturing the full breadth of what hypertrophic chondroyctes were capable of becoming during skeletal development and homeostasis, in addition to the bone associated osteoblasts and osteocytes. To further address reviewers’ concerns, we have now performed an additional scRNA-seq experiment and analysis of E16.5 Col10a1Cre; R26-tdTomato long bones (cartilage, bone, and marrow tdTomato+ cells) and have confirmed prior 2-month scRNA-seq data that hypertrophic chondrocytes undergo a dedifferentiation process to generate SSPCs prior to becoming cells of the osteoblast lineage (Figure 2, 3, S2, and S3).

3. In Figure 1l, 70-80% of OCN was tdTomato+ in Col10a1Cre; R26-tdTomato mice. However, in Figure 5 and Figure S10, tdTomoto+ and tdTomoto- colonies showed similar ability of osteogenesis. Please explain the discrepancy.

The reviewer notes that 70-80% of OCN+ osteoblasts were tdTomato+, and that the tdTomato+ and tdTomato- colonies were roughly equal in numbers and osteogenic potential. So then why are most osteoblasts and osteocytes derived from hypertrophic chondrocytes? We attribute this to the rapid growth that is required during early skeletal development and the quick turnover of hypertrophic chondrocytes from the growth plate. This likely allows for faster contribution of the hypertrophic chondrocyte derived cells as compared to the invading periosteal associated osteo- progenitors.

4. In Figure 5, the authors show that nearly 50% of CFU-F colonies derived from Col10a1Cre;R26-tdTomato mice. What is the age of the mice used? Is this age-associated?

The 50% CFU ratio was performed at 2-months of age (the same timepoint as our adult scRNA-seq experiment). We have now performed an additional CFU analysis at 8-months of age (Figure 7) and observed relatively similar numbers.

5. In Figure S10, the authors assessed the in vitro osteogenic and adipogenic differentiation capacities of the colonies. The images of different staining results should be presented.

We performed Oil Red O and Von Kossa staining to quantify the in vitro differentiation capacity. These were first analyzed under a fluorescence microscope and marked on the plate for tdTomato positive and tdTomato negative. After the stain is performed that tdTomato signal is much weaker and in the case of Von Kossa is completely opaque because of the stain. In preparation for this re-submission we instead performed in vivo kidney capsule transplantation assays to truly assess their multilineage differentiation capacity. These in vivo data demonstrate that both SSPC populations are capable of forming osteoblasts that generate bone; however, only the hypertrophic chondrocyte derived SSPCs are capable of forming a complete vascularized bone organ with host derived marrow, and donor derived osteoblasts, osteocytes, some marrow associated cells, and adipocytes (Figure 8).

6. I suggest that Figure S3, especially the staining data in Col10a1CreERT2;Rosa26-tdTomato mice, could be moved to the main text because it provides important evidence to support the dedifferentiation of the labeled tdTomato+ cells.

We have now included new Col10a1Cre^ERT2; R26tdTomato lineage tracing data in Figure 1 and 3. We have also now provided additional scRNA-seq data in Figure 2 and 3 that clearly identifies the transition of hypertrophic chondrocytes into a SSPC cell population prior to progressing to the osteoblast lineage. The additional supportive data previously supplied remains in Figure S3.

7. The mechanisms underlying the dedifferentiation of hypertrophic chondrocytes are interesting. This may be elaborated in the Discussion section.

A discussion of the potential mechanisms underlying the dedifferentiation of hypertrophic chondrocytes has been expanded within the Discussion section of the manuscript.

Reviewer #2:

Strengths:

1. This study utilized a powerful combination of hypertrophic chondrocyte-specific lineage tracing models and single cell RNA-seq analyses, to uncover previously unknown identities of hypertrophic chondrocyte-derived bone marrow stromal cell populations.

2. This study took a closer look at Col10a1-creER-based lineage-tracing models to confirm that hypertrophic chondrocytes can transition into bone marrow stromal cells.

3. This study discovers heterogeneity of hypertrophic chondrocyte-derived cells in bone marrow, including osteoblasts and undifferentiated stromal cells that may overlap with skeletal stem and progenitor cells.

Weaknesses:

1. The major conclusion of this study on de-differentiation is mostly supported by single cell RNA-seq analyses of flushed and sorted bone marrow stromal cells, which does not capture the transition of hypertrophic chondrocytes.

We have now performed E16.5 scRNA-sequencing that captures various populations of hypertrophic chondrocytes, as well as their transition through a SSPC stage prior to becoming osteoblast lineage cells (Figure 2 and 3). Imaging of long bone sections from E16.5 Col10a1Cre^ERT2; R26-tdTomatof/+; Pdgfra-H2B-GFP mice (tamoxifen E13.5-15.5) have also demonstrated tdTomato/GFP double positive cells within the marrow space that were OCN-, indicating the presence of Pdgfra (SSPC marker) expressing cells that are derived from hypertrophic chondrocytes and are not osteoblasts (Figure 3g).

2. The authors used Col10a1-CreER and Col10a1-Cre models interchangeably without much considering the important temporal factor. SSPCs that they defined in scRNA-seq experiments may not represent those generated by a recent transformation event. The transformation may have occurred at a much earlier development time point. Essentially all SSPCs in the endochondroal pathway are, after all, derived from chondrocytes. Therefore, these SSPCs may not represent a unique cell population.

We disagree that all SSPCs are derived from chondrocytes.

SSPCs have been identified in the periosteum which originate only from common osteo-chondral or mesenchymal progenitors and not chondrocytes specifically during early skeletal development. We do; however, agree that there might be subclasses of chondrocytes that potentially contribute to SSPCs differently. A recent study by Mizuhashi, et al. (2019) found that borderline chondrocytes exist and rarely undergo hypertrophy or express Col10a1. Differing sources of SSPCs is further supported by our CFU analysis that indicate than nearly half of colonies or progenitors do not originate from hypertrophic chondrocytes and that hypertrophic chondrocyte derived SSPCs appear to have different multilineage capabilities when transplanted in vivo. With this in mind, we also performed scRNA-seq of tdTomato+ cells from E16.5 Col10a1Cre; R26-tdTomato long bones which captures the specific transitional period as hypertrophic chondrocytes give way for the formation of the nascent marrow cavity and endochondral bone, allowing us to demonstrate that some of the SSPCs are certainly derived from hypertrophic chondrocytes during skeletal development (Figure 2, 3, and S3). Some of the SSPCs identified at 2months of age may indeed be cells that were generated at earlier time-points and remain as progenitors within the marrow space, however new lineage tracing data at 2- and 4-months of age suggest that their contribution to marrow associated cells and the osteoblast lineage persists well into adulthood (Figure S1).

3. The authors did not consider the heterogeneity of chondrocytes that are marked by Col10a1-Cre, which include hypertrophic chondrocytes at various locations of the growth plate.

We believe the reviewer is asking if there might be regional differences between hypertrophic chondrocytes. We cannot exclude this possibility, but note that we see SSPCs derived from hypertrophic chondrocytes along the length of the metaphyseal/trabecular region, as well as, throughout the marrow cavity. The expression of the Col10a1-driven CRE is specific to cells only within the hypertrophic zone of the growth plate, and therefore demonstrate that the marrow derived SSPCs, osteoblast lineage cells, and adipocytes are derived from cells within this hypertrophic zone. We have now referenced this in our discussion.

4. This study did not directly show that hypertrophic chondrocyte-derived SSPC populations actually contribute to osteoblasts. These cells could be just bystanders, whereas direct transformation of hypertrophic chondrocytes to osteoblasts may be more significant.

While it is difficult to conclude the exact percentage of cells actively contributing to the osteoblasts from hypertrophic chondrocyte derived SSPCs, we observed in our E16.5 scRNA-seq analysis only a small population of Bglap+ cells and trajectory analysis places them downstream of Pdgfra, Lepr, and Cxcl12 expressing SSPCs (Figure 2 and 3). We also demonstrated that hypertrophic chondrocyte derived SSPCs are fully capable of generating marrow associated cells, osteoblasts, osteocytes, and adipocytes when transplanted under the kidney capsule (Figure 8). We have also added more detail to the Discussion section to acknowledge this potential bystander impact during normal skeletal development in vivo.

5. The section pertaining to support of hematopoiesis was mostly irrelevant.

This section has been removed.

While it is difficult to conclude the exact percentage of cells actively contributing to the osteoblasts from hypertrophic chondrocyte derived SSPCs, we observed in our E16.5 scRNA-seq analysis only a small population of Bglap+ cells and trajectory analysis places them downstream of Pdgfra, Lepr, and Cxcl12 expressing SSPCs (Figure 2 and 3). We also demonstrated that hypertrophic chondrocyte derived SSPCs are fully capable of generating marrow associated cells, osteoblasts, osteocytes, and adipocytes when transplanted under the kidney capsule (Figure 8). We have also added more detail to the Discussion section to acknowledge this potential bystander impact during normal skeletal development in vivo.

Recommendations for the authors:

1. Title:

It is unclear what the authors mean by "unique" marrow associated skeletal stem and progenitor cells. They defined these cells based on previously available markers as described in the main text; therefore, they are not "unique".

We have removed the word unique.

2. Abstract:

Generally speaking, this abstract is oversimplified and overstated, not capturing the essence of this study. The distinction between two models of lineage tracing (constitutive active vs. inducible) should be delineated.

The abstract has been reworked to address this issue.

Line 38: I am not sure which reference(s) the authors mean by saying that "SSPCs localized to the surrounding periosteum serve as the primary source of marrow associated SSPCs, osteoblasts, osteocytes, and adipocytes during skeletal development". The periosteum does not provide a precursor for marrow cell populations. The perichondrium is not a primary source of marrow cells.

We disagree with the reviewer’s assessment that the periosteum does not provide precursors for marrow cell populations, since previous literature has shown that osteoblastic progenitors migrate into the marrow with blood vessels. Specific citations have been provided in the manuscript.

Line 40: The authors should specify which genetic reporter mouse models they used in this study.

Details regarding the genetic reporters have been added.

Line 42: What do the authors mean by this: "…unique marrow associated SSPCs, previously characterized as a CXCL12-abundant reticular (CAR) cells"? This sentence is contradictory. Moreover, the definition of CAR cells is well-established in the field.

We have fixed this contradiction.

3. Introduction:

Line 47-63: Olsen et al. 2000 is cited five times in the first paragraph. Although this is a valid book chapter to cite, they should identify the primary literature and also cite these papers accordingly.

Citations have been added to cite primary literature of the original data.

Line 83-85: It is not true that the Acan-CreER model is more restricted to chondrocytes within the growth plate. It shows more recombination in the periosteum and other marrow components.

The original publication that documented the creation of the AcanCre^ERT2 mouse line (Henry, et al. Genesis 2009) demonstrates fairly restricted X-gal staining to chondrocytes when observed by a short chase during postnatal skeletal development.

Line 109-110: It is not surprising that hypertrophic chondrocyte derived SSPCs are striking similar to marrow associated SSPCs, because, after all, most SSPCs are derived from chondrocytes in the endochondral pathway.

We disagree with the reviewer’s assessment that the periosteum does not provide precursors for marrow cell populations, since prior literature has shown that osteoblastic progenitors migrate into the marrow with blood vessels. Further, our manuscript demonstrates that slightly more than half of the SSPCs are derived from the hypertrophic chondrocytes and interestingly our in vivo transplantation assays indicate important functional differences between these SSPC populations derived from various sources.

4. Results:

Line 128: IF staining in Figure 1d is not convincing.

We have replaced this image with a more representative stained image.

Line 131-132: This point is not new and has been already shown in preceding studies. Although I appreciate their efforts to reproduce, these results are confirmatory and not entirely novel.

We understand that we are not providing novel findings with this replication of the data, but we wanted to replicate the data for context of the utility of the Cre lines and to draw the attention to the non-osteoblast associated cells. Additionally, the specific Col10a1Cre^ERT2 mouse line utilized in this study has not been previously published and we wanted to validate similar results with this model.

Line 153: Singe cell RNA-seq is not the right approach to reveal "multiple cell fates" of hypertrophic chondrocytes.

We utilize scRNA-seq as one method to confirm the multiple cell fates of hypertrophic chondrocytes, in addition to lineage tracing, immunostaining (IF), and flow cytometry.

Line 160-161: To support this statement, the authors should include FACS plots in the paper.

These have now been added to Figure S2.

Line 162: Why is the number of cells analyzed here so small (~1,000 cells)? This would limit the power of scRNA-seq analysis.

The number of cells analyzed was small because only approximately 1/2 of all SSPCs are derived from hypertrophic chondrocytes, which have been previously shown to be a very small population. Further with the smaller number we were able to increase the depth of sequencing to assess potential variation within the SSPC populations. The additional E16.5 scRNA-seq was performed with >2000 cells and provides further confirmation of this transition.

Line 217: Although interesting, the authors did not provide concrete evidence that de-differentiation generates "the most primitive SSCs". This is largely speculative.

This has been corrected.

Line 242-251: I am not sure how these discussions on support of hematopoiesis fit into the lines of discussion.

This section has been moved as we believe it is consistent with the transplantation data that revealed marrow formation ability of the hypertrophic derived SSPCs, consistent with previous literature of the importance of these hematopoietic regulatory factors.

5. Discussion:

Line 390: I don't think that the authors showed here with genetic evidence that "hypertrophic chondrocytes undergo a process of dedifferentiation to form unique SSPCs populations". This piece of data would be critical to sustain the major conclusion of this study.

We have corrected (eliminated) the use of “unique” as the data is consistent with previously identified SSPCs, such as the CAR cells.

Line 403 (and the title): Why do the authors think that hypertrophic chondrocytes serve as a "reservoir and alternative source" of SSPCs? Their data clearly support the now well-accepted notion that these cells are a "primary" source of SSPCs.

Line 436: The authors are not the first group demonstrating that growth plate chondrocytes serve as a reservoir for CAR cells.

We do not believe it to be a well-accepted notion that chondrocytes, specifically Col10a1-expressing hypertrophic chondrocytes give rise to SSPCs. Previous data to target chondrocytes (Col2a1Cre is expressed in cells outside of the growth plate and AcanCre^ERT2 can only provide a portion of the information as it is inducible). Pthrp labeled cells, appear to be a more progenitor population that can either give rise to columns of chondrocytes (closer to our model) or to borderline chondrocytes (largely Col10a1-negative cells). The columns of chondrocytes have been shown to give rise to some CXCL12+ cells; however, this data was limited in that it took months for contribution to a full column and then to CXCL12+ cells. Our data is the first to more completely demonstrate that Col10a1-expressing hypertrophic chondrocytes give rise to not only CXCL12+ cells but also Lepr+ cells, and PαS cells embryonically. Furthermore, we have provided a more robust transcriptomic signature of the SSPCs that are generated by hypertrophic chondrocytes at multiple developmental time points.

Line 466-469: The last conclusions appear to be vastly overstated.

We have reworked the conclusions of the manuscript based on the both the previous and new data.

Reviewer #3:

Authors examined the process of transdifferentiation of hypertrophic chondrocytes to osteoblasts or other marrow associated cells using the lineage tracing reporter mice (Col10a1 Cre-Rosa Tomato mice), which express Tomato in the hypertrophic chondrocytes and their descendants. They showed that more than 80% of bone marrow osteoblasts was derived from hypertrophic chondrocytes. They performed scRNA sequencing of Tomato-positive cells, and the gene expression profiles of most of the Tomato-positive cells are like those in skeletal stem and progenitor cells (SSPCs) and a niche cell for hematopoietic stem cells. It was confirmed by the staining of the Tamato-positive cells with immunohistochemistry using antibodies against PDGFRb, LEPR, and PDGFRa, which are expressed in SSPCs. Further, they showed that 25% of adipocytes and 37% of LepR+ cells were derived from Tamato-positive cells by immunohistochemistry. They also showed that half of the CFU-F was derived from Tamato-positive cells, and they had more proliferative activity than that derived from Tamato-negative cells. They concluded that hypertrophic chondrocytes undergo a process of dedifferentiation to generate SSPCs, which serve as a primary source of bone marrow osteoblasts and some source of adipocytes.

Strengths:

The scRNA sequencing of the transdifferentiated cells enabled the characterization of SSPCs derived from hypertrophic chondrocytes in detail.

Weaknesses:

1. They used immunohistochemistry for the quantitative analysis, including the frequencies of transdifferentiated osteoblasts and LepR+ cells. The immunohistochemistry using adult mouse samples is not easy because of the process of decalcification, which reduces antigen reactivity. They should use reporter mice driven by 2.3 kb Col1a1 promoter for the frequency of transdifferentiated osteoblasts, and LepR Cre Rosa mice for the frequency of LepR+ cells. Further, they prepared the samples by immersion fixation but not perfusion fixation. It is important to prepare the samples for immunohistochemistry by perfusion fixation to keep the antigen reactivity. They performed immunohistochemistry using OCN antibody to detect osteoblasts in Figure 1 and Supplementary Figure 8. The number of OCN-positive cells are too low, indicating that the immunohistochemical analysis is not working. Further, the pictures with higher magnification are required for the evaluation of the staining in Figure 1 and Supplementary Figures3, 6, 8, and the locations of the pictures with high magnification should be shown in the pictures with low magnification. In Supplementary Figure 3, most of the cells look Tomato single positive cells and PDGFRb, LEPR, or PDGFRa single positive cells. It is contradictory to Figure 3.

We have performed flow analysis for PDGFRa utilizing another reporter line (PDGFRa-H2B-GFP) and antibody for PDGFRB and found a majority of tdTomato+ cells in the marrow are SSPCs (Figure S4c). We cannot fully understand the contribution to direct transdifferentiation and dedifferentiation with the currently available tools. We disagree that using a Col1a1(2.3kb) reporter would only demonstrate transdifferentiated but could also include osteoblasts that went through a SSPC intermediate. Additionally, a LepRCre combined with a genetic reporter would also not be usable as the CRE recombinase would affect the reporter already in the Col10a1Cre;R26-tdTomato line. Previous publications cited in this paper have utilized immersion fixation for immuno-staining and we disagree that perfusion fixation is absolutely required for preserving antigen reactivity. We have provided better images further demonstrating the co-labeling of cells.

2. 37 % of LepR+ cells were derived from hypertrophic chondrocytes. However, more than 80% of OCN-positive cells were derived from hypertrophic chondrocytes. The discrepancy also seems to have been caused by the quantitative analysis using immunohistochemistry of LepR and OCN.

The difference in rates of generating the LEPR+ (SSPCs) and OCN+ (osteoblasts) are likely independent processes. The rate at which LEPR+ populations differentiate, proliferate, and/or become quiescent may not be the same and therefore the contributions to the OCN+ osteoblasts could change over time. Additionally, we cannot rule out some transdifferentiation of hypertrophic chondrocytes which would increase the OCN+ population independent of LEPR+ population.

3. In Figure 2, the populations of osteocytes (cluster 1) and osteoblasts (cluster 2) were too small, indicating that the samples were not appropriately collected. It skews the understanding of dedifferentiation and transdifferentiation. It is recommended to perform scRNA sequencing at embryonic stage (E16.5-18.5) to confirm the appearance of dedifferentiated cells.

We purposefully performed only a short digest on the bones as to not obtain as many osteoblasts. We were interested more in the question of whether hypertrophic chondrocytes could dedifferentiate into an SSPC-type population. The reviewer is correct that we cannot draw a direct connection between the rate of dedifferentiation and transdifferentiation from this dataset. Additionally, we have performed E16.5 scRNA-sequencing, as noted by multiple reviewers.

4. The frequency of osteoblasts derived from hypertrophic chondrocytes at 2 months of age was 83% in this paper, and it was described as consistent to the previous reports. However, it was 19-31% at 3 weeks of age in Yang et al. (Cell Res 24:1266, 2014), 62-63% at 1 month of age in Zhou et al. (PLoS Genet 10: e1004820, 2014), and 15% at 3 weeks of age in Qin et al. (PLoS Genet 16: e1009169, 2020). The frequencies were examined using reporter mice in the previous three papers. As the OCN immunostaining was not working, however, the frequency of this paper is not reliable. Even if it is reliable, the data is not consistent to the previous papers. Further, the last paper, which was not cited in this paper, also showed that bone volume becomes normal by 6 weeks of age in the absence of transdifferentiation of hypertrophic chondrocytes, indicating the transient requirement of the transdifferentiation at embryonic and neonatal stage. Referring the previous findings, precise discussion should be done.

We have reworded the conclusions of this study in comparison to the previous studies noted by the reviewer. Yang, et al. utilized a different Cre line as well as used in situ hybridization to analyze overlap. Zhou, et al. utilized the same Cre as this study but looked at 1 month of age which could be different than our 2-month time point because of continued turnover of the hypertrophic cells and proliferation of osteoblasts although their numbers are consistent with our osteocyte quantifications. Qin, et al. provided numbers that are not comparable as the control for these quantifications have one allele of Runx2 deleted (controls were Col10a1Cre;R26- tdTomato;Runx2fl/+). The authors did not provide evidence that the heterozygous allele did not cause a phenotype of its own and also confounds the conclusion that transdifferentiation is only an embryonic/neonatal phenomenon.

5. The presence of the dedifferentiated cells does not mean that hypertrophic chondrocytes transdifferentiate into osteoblasts through the dedifferentiated cell stage. The data in this paper is consistent with the previous findings, which indicated that hypertrophic chondrocytes become osteoblasts, adipocytes, and stromal cells. Further, the differentiation of hypertrophic chondrocytes into Cxcl12-positive stromal cells was already shown in the previous paper (Nature 563: 254, 2018), although in detailed expression profiles of the stromal cells were provided in this paper.

See Reviewer 2 comment 4 for the transdifferentiation versus dedifferentiation conclusions. Additionally, we disagree that this paper demonstrated that hypertrophic chondrocytes were the source of CAR cells. The authors utilized a Pthrp-Cre^ER model that targeted mSSC (based on their flow data) and no evidence of them being chondrocytes (only showing a much earlier state). The authors saw contribution to chondrocyte columns and what appear to be hypertrophic chondrocytes, but do not investigate this further. Additionally, their later paper 2019 JBMR showed that this Pthrp-Cre^ER can label a borderline chondrocyte (Col10a1-negative) cell population associated with some contribution to CAR cells, albeit very minimally at an early postnatal time point. Furthermore, since this tool is not a constitutive CRE, the total contribution over time is very limited. When quantifications were performed the authors did not calculate the percentage of contribution, but rather simply noted that Pthrp-Cre^ER derived cells are capable of generating CXCL12+ marrow associated cells. Finally, the Pthrp-Cre^ER derived cells were very restricted in their potential as they could never give rise to adipocytes. We leave open the possibility that if these cells do contribute to hypertrophic chondrocytes later in development, they likely are not the only contributing cells as we have demonstrated that hypertrophic chondrocyte derived SSPCs can give rise to adipocytes.

6. In Figure 5G, are more than half of the cells in cluster 1 (osteocytes) S/G2/M phase?

We do observe some distribution across the cell cycle in cluster 1. Cluster 1 does not appear to be an osteocyte as osteoblasts can express the genes highlighted in Figure 4 and we do not observe Sost or other osteocyte associated genes in cluster 1, suggesting this is likely not an osteocyte population but rather a second osteoblast population, potentially on a differentiation path toward an osteocyte. Our digestion protocol was not designed to dissociate osteocytes, but rather focus on the marrow associated hypertrophic chondrocyte derived cell populations.

In line 131 on page 6, what are other osteogenic markers?

This has been reworded.

In line 147-148 on page 7, what does “loosely associated with the marrow” mean?

This has been reworded.

Author details

1. Jason T Long

   1. Department of Cell Biology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, United States
   2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, United States

   Contribution

   Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6006-0932

2. Abigail Leinroth

   1. Department of Cell Biology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, United States
   2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, United States

   Contribution

   Data curation, Investigation, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. Yihan Liao

   1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, United States
   2. Department of Pharmacology and Cancer Biology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, United States

   Contribution

   Data curation, Investigation, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

4. Yinshi Ren

   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, United States

   Contribution

   Data curation, Investigation, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

5. Anthony J Mirando

   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, United States

   Contribution

   Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

6. Tuyet Nguyen

   Program of Developmental and Stem Cell Biology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, United States

   Contribution

   Data curation, Investigation, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8769-9955

7. Wendi Guo

   1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, United States
   2. Department of Pharmacology and Cancer Biology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, United States

   Contribution

   Data curation, Investigation, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

8. Deepika Sharma

   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, United States

   Contribution

   Data curation, Investigation, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

9. Douglas Rouse

   Division of Laboratory Animal Resources, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, United States

   Contribution

   Data curation, Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

10. Colleen Wu

    1. Department of Cell Biology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, United States
    2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, United States
    3. Department of Pharmacology and Cancer Biology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, United States

    Contribution

    Resources, Supervision

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

11. Kathryn Song Eng Cheah

    School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong

    Contribution

    Resources

    Competing interests

    Reviewing editor, eLife

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0802-8799

12. Courtney M Karner

    1. Department of Cell Biology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, United States
    2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, United States

    Contribution

    Resources, Supervision

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

13. Matthew J Hilton

    1. Department of Cell Biology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, United States
    2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, United States

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing

    For correspondence

    matthew.hilton@duke.edu

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3165-267X

• 2,265

  Page views

• 491

  Downloads

• 10

  Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: PubMed Central, Crossref, Scopus.