Peer review process
Revised: This Reviewed Preprint has been revised by the authors in response to the previous round of peer review; the eLife assessment and the public reviews have been updated where necessary by the editors and peer reviewers.
Read more about eLife’s peer review process.Editors
- Reviewing EditorYousef Abu-AmerWashington University in St. Louis, St Louis, United States of America
- Senior EditorChristopher HuangUniversity of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
Reviewer #1 (Public review):
Summary:
While previous studies by this group and others have demonstrated the anti-inflammatory properties of osteoactivin, its specific role in cartilage homeostasis and disease pathogenesis remains unknown.
Strengths:
Strengths of the study include its clinical relevance, given the lack of curative treatments for osteoarthritis, as well as the clarity of the narrative and the quality of most results."
Weaknesses:
A limitation of the study is the reliance on standard techniques; however, this is a minor concern that does not diminish the overall impact or significance of the work.
Comments on revisions:
The authors have satisfactorily addressed my concerns.
Reviewer #2 (Public review):
Summary:
This manuscript presents compelling evidence for a novel anti-inflammatory function of glycoprotein non-metastatic melanoma protein B (GPNMB) in chondrocyte biology and osteoarthritis (OA) pathology. Through a combination of in vitro, ex vivo, and in vivo models, including the destabilization of the medial meniscus (DMM) surgery in mice, the authors demonstrate that GPNMB expression is upregulated in OA-affected cartilage and that recombinant GPNMB treatment reduces the expression of key catabolic markers (MMPs, Adamts-4, and IL-6) without impairing anabolic gene expression. Notably, DBA/2J mice lacking functional GPNMB exhibit exacerbated cartilage degradation post-injury. Mechanistically, GPNMB appears to mitigate inflammation via the MAPK/ERK pathway. Overall, the work is thorough, methodologically sound, and significantly advances our understanding of GPNMB as a protective modulator in osteoarthritic joint disease. The findings could open pathways for therapeutic development.
Strengths:
(1) Clear hypothesis addressing a well-defined knowledge gap.
(2) Robust and multi-modal experimental design: includes human, mouse, cell-line, explant, and surgical OA models.
(3) Elegant use of DBA/2J GPNMB-deficient mice to mimic endogenous loss-of-function.
(4) Mechanistic insight provided through MAPK signaling analysis.
(5) Statistical analysis appears rigorous and the figures are informative.
Weaknesses:
(1) Clarify the strain background of the DBA/2J GPNMB+ mice: While DBA/2J GPNMB+ is described as a control, it would help to explicitly state whether these are transgenically rescued mice or another background strain. Are they littermates, congenic, or a separate colony?
(2) Provide exact sample sizes and variance in all figure legends: Some figures (e.g., Figure 2 panels) do not consistently mention how many replicates were used (biological vs. technical) for each experimental group. Standardizing this across all panels would improve reproducibility.
(3) Expand on potential sex differences: The DMM model is applied only in male mice, which is noted in the methods. It would be helpful if the authors added 1-2 lines in the discussion acknowledging potential sex-based differences in OA progression and GPNMB function.
(4) Visual clarity in schematic (Figure 7): The proposed mechanism is helpful but the text within the schematic is somewhat dense and could be made more readable with spacing or enlarged font. Also, label the MAPK/ERK pathway explicitly in panel B.
Comments on revisions:
The authors have addressed all the concerns raised in the initial review.