Citations

ABSTRACTPreservation of osteochondral allografts used for transplantation is critical to ensure favorable outcomes for patients after surgical treatment of cartilage defects. To study the biological effects of protocols currently used for cartilage storage, we investigated differences in gene expression between stored allograft cartilage and fresh cartilage from living donors using high throughput molecular screening strategies. We applied next generation RNA sequencing (RNA‐seq) and real‐time reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT‐qPCR) to assess genome‐wide differences in mRNA expression between stored allograft cartilage and fresh cartilage tissue from living donors. Gene ontology analysis was used to characterize biological pathways associated with differentially expressed genes. Our studies establish reduced levels of mRNAs encoding cartilage related extracellular matrix (ECM) proteins (i.e., COL1A1, COL2A1, COL10A1, ACAN, DCN, HAPLN1, TNC, and COMP) in stored cartilage. These changes occur concomitantly with increased expression of “early response genes” that encode transcription factors mediating stress/cytoprotective responses (i.e., EGR1, EGR2, EGR3, MYC, FOS, FOSB, FOSL1, FOSL2, JUN, JUNB, and JUND). The elevated expression of “early response genes” and reduced levels of ECM‐related mRNAs in stored cartilage allografts suggests that tissue viability may be maintained by a cytoprotective program that reduces cell metabolic activity. These findings have potential implications for future studies focused on quality assessment and clinical optimization of osteochondral allografts used for cartilage transplantation. © 2016 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 34:1950–1959, 2016.

ABSTRACTLike any foreign object, orthopaedic implants are susceptible to infection when introduced into the human body. Without additional preventative measures, the absolute number of annual prosthetic joint infections will continue to rise, and may exceed the capacity of health care systems in the near future. Bacteria are difficult to eradicate from synovial joints due to their exceptionally diverse taxonomy, complex mechanistic attachment capabilities, and tendency to evolve antibiotic resistance. When a primary orthopaedic implant fails from prosthetic joint infection, surgeons are generally challenged by limited options for intervention. In this review, we highlight the etiology and taxonomic groupings of bacteria known to cause prosthetic joint infections, and examine their key mechanisms of attachment. We propose that antimicrobial strategies should focus on the most harmful bacteria taxa within the context of occurrence, taxonomic diversity, adhesion mechanisms, and implant design. Patient‐specific identification of organisms that cause prosthetic joint infections will permit assessment of their biological vulnerabilities. The latter can be targeted using a range of antimicrobial techniques that exploit different colonization mechanisms including implant surface attachment, biofilm formation, and/or hematogenous recruitment. We anticipate that customized strategies for each patient, joint, and prosthetic component will be most effective at reducing prosthetic joint infections, including those caused by antibiotic‐resistant and polymicrobial bacteria. © 2015 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 34:177–186, 2016.

The biological interface between an orthopedic implant and the surrounding host tissue may have a dramatic effect upon clinical outcome. Desired effects include bony ingrowth (osseointegration), stimulation of osteogenesis (osteoinduction), increased vascularization, and improved mechanical stability. Implant loosening, fibrous encapsulation, corrosion, infection, and inflammation, as well as physical mismatch may have deleterious clinical effects. This is particularly true of implants used in the reconstruction of load-bearing synovial joints such as the knee, hip, and the shoulder. The surfaces of orthopedic implants have evolved from solid-smooth to roughened-coarse and most recently, to porous in an effort to create a three-dimensional architecture for bone apposition and osseointegration. Total joint surgeries are increasingly performed in younger individuals with a longer life expectancy, and therefore, the postimplantation lifespan of devices must increase commensurately. This review discusses advancements in biomaterials science and cell-based therapies that may further improve orthopedic success rates. We focus on material and biological properties of orthopedic implants fabricated from porous metal and highlight some relevant developments in stem-cell research. We posit that the ideal primary and revision orthopedic load-bearing metal implants are highly porous and may be chemically modified to induce stem cell growth and osteogenic differentiation, while minimizing inflammation and infection. We conclude that integration of new biological, chemical, and mechanical methods is likely to yield more effective strategies to control and modify the implant–bone interface and thereby improve long-term clinical outcomes.

Human adipose‐derived mesenchymal stromal cells (AMSCs) grown in platelet lysate are promising agents for therapeutic tissue regeneration. Here, we investigated whether manipulation of epigenetic events by the clinically relevant histone deacetylase inhibitor suberoylanilide hydroxamic acid (SAHA) alters differentiation of AMSCs. The multipotency of AMSCs was validated by their ability to differentiate into osteogenic, chondrogenic, and adipogenic lineages. High‐throughput RNA sequencing and RT‐qPCR established that human histone deacetylases (HDAC1 to HDAC11, and SIRT1 to SIRT7) are differentially expressed in AMSCs. SAHA induces hyper‐acetylation of histone H3 and H4, stimulates protein expression of the HDAC‐responsive gene SLC9A3R1/NHERF1 and modulates the AKT/FOXO1 pathway. Biologically, SAHA interferes with osteogenic, chondrogenic and adipogenic lineage commitment of multipotent AMSCs. Mechanistically, SAHA‐induced loss of differentiation potential of uncommitted AMSCs correlates with multiple changes in the expression of principal transcription factors that control mesenchymal or pluripotent states. We propose that SAHA destabilizes the multi‐potent epigenetic state of uncommitted human AMSCs by hyper‐acetylation and perturbation of key transcription factor pathways. Furthermore, AMSCs grown in platelet lysate may provide a useful biological model for screening of new HDAC inhibitors that control the biological fate of human mesenchymal stromal cells. J. Cell. Physiol. 230: 52–62, 2015. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

AbstractImproving the effectiveness of adipose‐tissue derived human mesenchymal stromal/stem cells (AMSCs) for skeletal therapies requires a detailed characterization of mechanisms supporting cell proliferation and multi‐potency. We investigated the molecular phenotype of AMSCs that were either actively proliferating in platelet lysate or in a basal non‐proliferative state. Flow cytometry combined with high‐throughput RNA sequencing (RNASeq) and RT‐qPCR analyses validate that AMSCs express classic mesenchymal cell surface markers (e.g., CD44, CD73/NT5E, CD90/THY1, and CD105/ENG). Expression of CD90 is selectively elevated at confluence. Self‐renewing AMSCs express a standard cell cycle program that successively mediates DNA replication, chromatin packaging, cyto‐architectural enlargement, and mitotic division. Confluent AMSCs preferentially express genes involved in extracellular matrix (ECM) formation and cellular communication. For example, cell cycle‐related biomarkers (e.g., cyclins E2 and B2, transcription factor E2F1) and histone‐related genes (e.g., H4, HINFP, NPAT) are elevated in proliferating AMSCs, while ECM genes are strongly upregulated (>10‐fold) in quiescent AMSCs. AMSCs also express pluripotency genes (e.g., POU5F1, NANOG, KLF4) and early mesenchymal markers (e.g., NES, ACTA2) consistent with their multipotent phenotype. Strikingly, AMSCs modulate expression of WNT signaling components and switch production of WNT ligands (from WNT5A/WNT5B/WNT7B to WNT2/WNT2B), while upregulating WNT‐related genes (WISP2, SFRP2, and SFRP4). Furthermore, post‐proliferative AMSCs spontaneously express fibroblastic, osteogenic, chondrogenic, and adipogenic biomarkers when maintained in confluent cultures. Our findings validate the biological properties of self‐renewing and multi‐potent AMSCs by providing high‐resolution quality control data that support their clinical versatility. J. Cell. Biochem. 115: 1816–1828, 2014. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

ABSTRACTThe bone marrow provides a protective environment for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) cells that often allows leukemic stem cells to survive standard chemotherapeutic regimens. Targeting these leukemic stem cells within the bone marrow is critical for preventing relapse. We recently demonstrated that SDF‐1, a chemokine abundant in the bone marrow, induces apoptosis in AML cell lines and in patient samples expressing high levels of its receptor, CXCR4. Here we show that a subset of osteoblast lineage cells within the bone marrow can protect AML cells from undergoing apoptosis in response to the SDF‐1 naturally present in that location. In co‐culture systems, osteoblasts at various stages of differentiation protected AML cell lines and patient isolates from SDF‐1‐induced apoptosis. The differentiation of the osteoblast cell lines, MC3T3 and W‐20‐17, mediated this protection via a cell contact‐independent mechanism. In contrast, bone marrow‐derived mesenchymal cells, the precursors of osteoblasts, induced apoptosis in AML cells via a CXCR4‐dependent mechanism and failed to protect AML cells from exogenously added SDF‐1. These results indicate that osteoblasts in the process of differentiation potently inhibit the SDF‐1‐driven apoptotic pathway of CXCR4‐expressing AML cells residing in the bone marrow. Drugs targeting this protective mechanism could potentially provide a new approach to treating AML by enhancing the SDF‐1‐induced apoptosis of AML cells residing within the bone marrow microenvironment. J. Cell. Biochem. 115: 1128–1137, 2014. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.