Aims

This study examined the relationship between obesity (OB) and osteoporosis (OP), aiming to identify shared genetic markers and molecular mechanisms to facilitate the development of therapies that target both conditions simultaneously.

Bone regeneration and repair are crucial to ambulation and quality of life. Factors such as poor general health, serious medical comorbidities, chronic inflammation, and ageing can lead to delayed healing and nonunion of fractures, and persistent bone defects. Bioengineering strategies to heal bone often involve grafting of autologous bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) or mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) with biocompatible scaffolds. While BMAC shows promise, variability in its efficacy exists due to discrepancies in MSC concentration and robustness, and immune cell composition. Understanding the mechanisms by which macrophages and lymphocytes – the main cellular components in BMAC – interact with MSCs could suggest novel strategies to enhance bone healing. Macrophages are polarized into pro-inflammatory (M1) or anti-inflammatory (M2) phenotypes, and influence cell metabolism and tissue regeneration via the secretion of cytokines and other factors. T cells, especially helper T1 (Th1) and Th17, promote inflammation and osteoclastogenesis, whereas Th2 and regulatory T (Treg) cells have anti-inflammatory pro-reconstructive effects, thereby supporting osteogenesis. Crosstalk among macrophages, T cells, and MSCs affects the bone microenvironment and regulates the local immune response. Manipulating the proportion and interactions of these cells presents an opportunity to alter the local regenerative capacity of bone, which potentially could enhance clinical outcomes.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2024;13(9):462–473.

Aims. We aimed to develop a gene signature that predicts the occurrence of postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMOP) by studying its genetic mechanism. Methods. Five datasets were obtained from the Gene Expression Omnibus database. Unsupervised consensus cluster analysis was used to determine new PMOP subtypes. To determine the central genes and the core modules related to PMOP, the weighted gene co-expression network analysis (WCGNA) was applied. Gene Ontology enrichment analysis was used to explore the biological processes underlying key genes. Logistic regression univariate analysis was used to screen for statistically significant variables. Two algorithms were used to select important PMOP-related genes. A logistic regression model was used to construct the PMOP-related gene profile. The receiver operating characteristic area under the curve, Harrell’s concordance index, a calibration chart, and decision curve analysis were used to characterize PMOP-related genes. Then, quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) was used to verify the expression of the PMOP-related genes in the gene signature. Results. We identified three PMOP-related subtypes and four core modules. The muscle system process, muscle contraction, and actin filament-based movement were more active in the hub genes. We obtained five feature genes related to PMOP. Our analysis verified that the gene signature had good predictive power and applicability. The outcomes of the GSE56815 cohort were found to be consistent with the results of the earlier studies. qRT-PCR results showed that RAB2A and FYCO1 were amplified in clinical samples. Conclusion. The PMOP-related gene signature we developed and verified can accurately predict the risk of PMOP in patients. These results can elucidate the molecular mechanism of RAB2A and FYCO1 underlying PMOP, and yield new and improved treatment strategies, ultimately helping PMOP monitoring. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(8):548–560

Aims

Despite the interest in the association of gut microbiota with bone health, limited population-based studies of gut microbiota and bone mineral density (BMD) have been made. Our aim is to explore the possible association between gut microbiota and BMD.

Aims

Accumulated evidence indicates that local cell origins may ingrain differences in the phenotypic activity of human osteoblasts. We hypothesized that these differences may also exist in osteoblasts harvested from the same bone type at periarticular sites, including those adjacent to the fixation sites for total joint implant components.

During the last decades, several research groups have used bisphosphonates for local application to counteract secondary bone resorption after bone grafting, to improve implant fixation or to control bone resorption caused by bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs). We focused on zoledronate (a bisphosphonate) due to its greater antiresorptive potential over other bisphosphonates. Recently, it has become obvious that the carrier is of importance to modulate the concentration and elution profile of the zoledronic acid locally. Incorporating one fifth of the recommended systemic dose of zoledronate with different apatite matrices and types of bone defects has been shown to enhance bone regeneration significantly in vivo. We expect the local delivery of zoledronate to overcome the limitations and side effects associated with systemic usage; however, we need to know more about the bioavailability and the biological effects. The local use of BMP-2 and zoledronate as a combination has a proven additional effect on bone regeneration. This review focuses primarily on the local use of zoledronate alone, or in combination with bone anabolic factors, in various preclinical models mimicking different orthopaedic conditions.

Cite this article: I. Qayoom, D. B. Raina, A. Širka, Š. Tarasevičius, M. Tägil, A. Kumar, L. Lidgren. Anabolic and antiresorptive actions of locally delivered bisphosphonates for bone repair: A review. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:548–560. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.710.BJR-2018-0015.R2.

Large bone defects remain a tremendous clinical challenge. There is growing evidence in support of treatment strategies that direct defect repair through an endochondral route, involving a cartilage intermediate. While culture-expanded stem/progenitor cells are being evaluated for this purpose, these cells would compete with endogenous repair cells for limited oxygen and nutrients within ischaemic defects. Alternatively, it may be possible to employ extracellular vesicles (EVs) secreted by culture-expanded cells for overcoming key bottlenecks to endochondral repair, such as defect vascularization, chondrogenesis, and osseous remodelling. While mesenchymal stromal/stem cells are a promising source of therapeutic EVs, other donor cells should also be considered. The efficacy of an EV-based therapeutic will likely depend on the design of companion scaffolds for controlled delivery to specific target cells. Ultimately, the knowledge gained from studies of EVs could one day inform the long-term development of synthetic, engineered nanovesicles. In the meantime, EVs harnessed from in vitro cell culture have near-term promise for use in bone regenerative medicine. This narrative review presents a rationale for using EVs to improve the repair of large bone defects, highlights promising cell sources and likely therapeutic targets for directing repair through an endochondral pathway, and discusses current barriers to clinical translation.

Cite this article: E. Ferreira, R. M. Porter. Harnessing extracellular vesicles to direct endochondral repair of large bone defects. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:263–273. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.74.BJR-2018-0006.