Loss of ninein interferes with osteoclast formation and causes premature ossification

Abstract

Ninein is a centrosome protein that has been implicated in microtubule anchorage and centrosome cohesion. Mutations in the human NINEIN gene have been linked to Seckel syndrome and to a rare form of skeletal dysplasia. However, the role of ninein in skeletal development remains unknown. Here, we describe a ninein knockout mouse with advanced endochondral ossification during embryonic development. Although the long bones maintain a regular size, the absence of ninein delays the formation of the bone marrow cavity in the prenatal tibia. Likewise, intramembranous ossification in the skull is more developed, leading to a premature closure of the interfrontal suture. We demonstrate that ninein is strongly expressed in osteoclasts of control mice, and that its absence reduces the fusion of precursor cells into syncytial osteoclasts, whereas the number of osteoblasts remains unaffected. As a consequence, ninein-deficient osteoclasts have a reduced capacity to resorb bone. At the cellular level, the absence of ninein interferes with centrosomal microtubule organization, reduces centrosome cohesion, and provokes the loss of centrosome clustering in multinucleated mature osteoclasts. We propose that centrosomal ninein is important for osteoclast fusion, to enable a functional balance between bone-forming osteoblasts and bone-resorbing osteoclasts during skeletal development.

Data availability

10.6084/m9.figshare.25650942source data files have been provided for Figure 7-figure supplement 1

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Thierry Gilbert

    Centre de Biologie Intégrative, University Toulouse III, CNRS, Toulouse, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Camille Gorlt

    Centre de Biologie Intégrative, University Toulouse III, CNRS, Toulouse, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Merlin Barbier

    Centre de Biologie Intégrative, University Toulouse III / CNRS, Toulouse, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Benjamin Duployer

    CIRIMAT, University Toulouse III, CNRS, Toulouse, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Marianna Plozza

    Institut de Pharmacologie et de Biologie Structurale, Université de Toulouse, CNRS, UPS, Toulouse, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Ophélie Dufrancais

    Institut de Pharmacologie et de Biologie Structurale, Université de Toulouse, CNRS, UPS, Toulouse, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Laure-Elene Martet

    Centre de Biologie Intégrative, University Toulouse III, CNRS, Toulouse, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Elisa Dalbard

    Centre de Biologie Intégrative, University Toulouse III, CNRS, Toulouse, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Loelia Segot

    Centre de Biologie Intégrative, University Toulouse III, CNRS, Toulouse, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Christophe Tenailleau

    CIRIMAT, University Toulouse III, CNRS, Toulouse, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Laurence Haren

    Centre de Biologie Intégrative, University Toulouse III, CNRS, Toulouse, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Christel Vérollet

    Institut de Pharmacologie et de Biologie Structurale, Université de Toulouse, CNRS, UPS, Toulouse, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1079-9085
  13. Christiane Bierkamp

    Centre de Biologie Intégrative, University Toulouse III, CNRS, Toulouse, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Andreas Merdes

    Centre de Biologie Intégrative, University Toulouse III, CNRS, Toulouse, France
    For correspondence
    andreas.merdes@univ-tlse3.fr
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3739-2728

Funding

Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR16-CE13-0005-01)

  • Christel Vérollet

Universite Toulouse III (financement S&N Bernard)

  • Andreas Merdes

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Mei Wan, Johns Hopkins University, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All animal experiments were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at the Genotoul Anexplo facilities of the Center for Integrative Biology, University Toulouse III (institution agreement #D3155511, project agreement APAFIS#2725-2015111213203624 v5).

Version history

  1. Received: October 11, 2023
  2. Preprint posted: November 6, 2023 (view preprint)
  3. Accepted: June 4, 2024
  4. Accepted Manuscript published: June 5, 2024 (version 1)
  5. Version of Record published: June 13, 2024 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2024, Gilbert et al.

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

Metrics

  • 254
    views
  • 73
    downloads
  • 0
    citations

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

Download links

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

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

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

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

  1. Thierry Gilbert
  2. Camille Gorlt
  3. Merlin Barbier
  4. Benjamin Duployer
  5. Marianna Plozza
  6. Ophélie Dufrancais
  7. Laure-Elene Martet
  8. Elisa Dalbard
  9. Loelia Segot
  10. Christophe Tenailleau
  11. Laurence Haren
  12. Christel Vérollet
  13. Christiane Bierkamp
  14. Andreas Merdes
(2024)
Loss of ninein interferes with osteoclast formation and causes premature ossification
eLife 13:e93457.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.93457

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.93457

Further reading

    1. Developmental Biology
    Phuong-Khanh Nguyen, Louise Cheng
    Research Article

    The brain is consisted of diverse neurons arising from a limited number of neural stem cells. Drosophila neural stem cells called neuroblasts (NBs) produces specific neural lineages of various lineage sizes depending on their location in the brain. In the Drosophila visual processing centre - the optic lobes (OLs), medulla NBs derived from the neuroepithelium (NE) give rise to neurons and glia cells of the medulla cortex. The timing and the mechanisms responsible for the cessation of medulla NBs are so far not known. In this study, we show that the termination of medulla NBs during early pupal development is determined by the exhaustion of the NE stem cell pool. Hence, altering NE-NB transition during larval neurogenesis disrupts the timely termination of medulla NBs. Medulla NBs terminate neurogenesis via a combination of apoptosis, terminal symmetric division via Prospero, and a switch to gliogenesis via Glial Cell Missing (Gcm), however, these processes occur independently of each other. We also show that temporal progression of the medulla NBs is mostly not required for their termination. As the Drosophila OL shares a similar mode of division with mammalian neurogenesis, understanding when and how these progenitors cease proliferation during development can have important implications for mammalian brain size determination and regulation of its overall function.

    1. Developmental Biology
    Sanjay Kumar Sukumar, Vimala Antonydhason ... Ruth H Palmer
    Research Article

    Numerous roles for the Alk receptor tyrosine kinase have been described in Drosophila, including functions in the central nervous system (CNS), however the molecular details are poorly understood. To gain mechanistic insight, we employed Targeted DamID (TaDa) transcriptional profiling to identify targets of Alk signaling in the larval CNS. TaDa was employed in larval CNS tissues, while genetically manipulating Alk signaling output. The resulting TaDa data were analyzed together with larval CNS scRNA-seq datasets performed under similar conditions, identifying a role for Alk in the transcriptional regulation of neuroendocrine gene expression. Further integration with bulk and scRNA-seq datasets from larval brains in which Alk signaling was manipulated identified a previously uncharacterized Drosophila neuropeptide precursor encoded by CG4577 as an Alk signaling transcriptional target. CG4577, which we named Sparkly (Spar), is expressed in a subset of Alk-positive neuroendocrine cells in the developing larval CNS, including circadian clock neurons. In agreement with our TaDa analysis, overexpression of the Drosophila Alk ligand Jeb resulted in increased levels of Spar protein in the larval CNS. We show that Spar protein is expressed in circadian (clock) neurons, and flies lacking Spar exhibit defects in sleep and circadian activity control. In summary, we report a novel activity regulating neuropeptide precursor gene that is regulated by Alk signaling in the Drosophila CNS.