Advanced Techniques in Biology & Medicine

Advanced Techniques in Biology & Medicine
Open Access

ISSN: 2379-1764

Commentary - (2015) Volume 3, Issue 2

Current Challenges in Bone Biology

Hemanth Akkiraju and Anja Nohe*
University of Delaware, Newark, 19716, Delaware, USA
*Corresponding Author: Anja Nohe, Director, Department of Biological Sciences, he Laboratory of Cellular Signaling and Dynamics, University of Delaware, 321 Wolf Hall University Of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA, Tel: 302-831-2959, Fax: 302-831-2281 Email:

The bone is a very important organ that supports is one of the many bodily functions. It has very diverse functions from the general support of the human body to energy regulation and balance [1]. Bones are formed during the development either through intramembranous (flat bones) ossification or endochondral ossification (long bones) [2-4]. The human body is composed of over 270 bones at birth and fuse to become 206 in totals at adulthood that all hold crucial functions. Bones consisting of mineralized bone tissue also consists of bone marrow, nerves and blood vessels and the communication between cells in the tissues is tightly regulated by the bone environment. Bone is an active tissue that is maintained by bone cells such as osteoblasts that form bone and osteoclasts that resorb bone [5]. Additionally, within the collagen and mineral matrix osteocytes are also embedded and respond to the bone environment [6,7]. The balance between these cells is necessary to maintain bone function. Bone research is considerably a challenging field due to the intricately dense structural composition of the bone morphology. While other tissues can be easily processed and prepared for experiments, working with bone is difficult [8,9]. Due to its composition of collagen fibers and minerals, bone creates a very dense structure, in which the bone cells are embedded [10]. Therefore, studying intracellular dynamics of the bone cells embedded within the mineralized tissue has proven to be challenging a task.

Tissues embedded within the bone itself such as the bone marrow niche and blood vessels are easier to analyze. For example real time imaging of the bone marrow niche within bone was recently achieved [14,15]. Similarly, fluorescent imaging of cells within the bone marrow niche was also achieved [16]. However, determining the localization of cell types and protein expression dynamics of single cells within the bone is still very difficult. Recent advancements in imaging techniques allows for the identification of osteocytes embedded in the bone matrix [17]. However, more research is needed to identify intracellular protein activities of the cell bodies embedded within mineralized matrix.

Alternatively, researchers study cell dynamics in ex vivo models. Several ex vivo models of bone are developed to study cellular dynamics of bone [18-21]. These novels ex vivo bone cultures are proposed for studying inflammatory responses, cancer metastasis, and also Zetos bone bioreactor used to study bone growth utilizing mechanosensitive loading are a few good examples [19,22,23]. These ex vivo models can overcome many ethical and clinical issues that are otherwise not permissive for animal or human trials. Such model systems also allow for the imaging of bone cells more feasible [24]. One model for example uses trabecular bone samples and replaces the cells in the 3D architecture with live cells. This allows for a controlled environment within the ex vivo model structure to study bone cell function [25]. Other researchers try to recreate specific bone environments for cells by using hydrogels or porous microspheres to support 3D growth of cells [26,27]. As these data show the cells in a 3D environment show often completely different cellular dynamics as compared to their 2D cultures [28]. Although mimicking the tissue environment through ex vivo model systems makes a significant breakthrough in testing cellular responses but it is still hard to replicate the exact environmental processes.

To better understand bone function we desperately need the development of new protocols and methods to drive bone research. This is especially important to address the cause of bone diseases and their possible treatment options. Bone diseases such as osteoporosis tremendously impact on the quality of life of individuals. Musculoskeletal diseases affect one out of every two people in the United States age 18 and over, and nearly three out of four age 65 and over [29]. However, in order to develop treatments one needs to understand the basic cellular mechanisms first.

Acknowledgement

We thank NIH/NIAMS for funding 5RO1AR06424302.

References

  1. Zhang Q, Riddle RC, Clemens TL (2015) Bone and the regulation of global energy balance. J Intern Med 277: 681-689.
  2. Raggatt LJ, Partridge NC (2010) Cellular and molecular mechanisms of bone remodeling. J BiolChem 285: 25103-25108.
  3. Mackie EJ, Ahmed YA, Tatarczuch L, Chen KS, Mirams M (2008) Endochondral ossification: How cartilage is converted into bone in the developing skeleton. Int J Biochem Cell Biol 40: 46-62.
  4. Opperman LA (2000) Cranial sutures as intramembranous bone growth sites. DevDyn 219: 472-485.
  5. Tanaka Y, Nakayamada S, Okada Y (2005) Osteoblasts and osteoclasts in bone remodeling and inflammation. Curr Drug Targets Inflamm Allergy 4: 325-328.
  6. Lanyon LE (1993) Osteocytes, strain detection, bone modeling and remodeling. Calcif Tissue Int 53 Suppl 1: S102-106.
  7. Aarden EM, Burger EH, Nijweide PJ (1994) Function of osteocytes in bone. J Cell Biochem 55: 287-299.
  8. Yang R, Davies CM, Archer CW, Richards RG (2003) Immunohistochemistry of matrix markers in Technovit 9100 New-embedded undecalcified bone sections. Eur Cell Mater 6: 57-71.
  9. Wittenburg G, Volkel C, Mai R, Lauer G (2009) Immunohistochemical comparison of differentiation markers on paraffin and plastic embedded human bone samples. J PhysiolPharmacol 60 Suppl 8: 43-49.
  10. Reddi AH, Anderson WA (1976) Collagenous bone matrix-induced endochondral ossification hemopoiesis. J Cell Biol 69: 557-572.
  11. Erben RG (1997) Embedding of bone samples in methylmethacrylate: An improved method suitable for bone histomorphometry, histochemistry, and immunohistochemistry. J HistochemCytochem 45: 307-313.
  12. Goldschlager T, Abdelkader A, Kerr J, Boundy I, Jenkin G (2010) Undecalcified bone preparation for histology, histomorphometry and fluorochrome analysis. J Vis Exp.
  13. Bengtsson NE, Kim S, Lin L, Walter GA, Scott EW (2011) Ultra-high-field MRI real-time imaging of HSC engraftment of the bone marrow niche. Leukemia 25: 1223-1231.
  14. Xie Y, Yin T, Wiegraebe W, He XC, Miller D, et al. (2009) Detection of functional haematopoietic stem cell niche using real-time imaging. Nature 457: 97-101.
  15. Lassailly F, Foster K, Lopez Onieva L, Currie E, Bonnet D (2013) Multimodal imaging reveals structural and functional heterogeneity in different bone marrow compartments: Functional implications on hematopoietic stem cells. Blood, 122:1730-1740.
  16. Morrison SJ, Scadden DT (2014) The bone marrow niche for haematopoietic stem cells. Nature 505: 327-334.
  17. Webster DJ, Schneider P, Dallas SL, Müller R (2013) Studying osteocytes within their environment. Bone 54: 285-295.
  18. Knothe Tate ML, Knothe U (2000) An ex vivo model to study transport processes and fluid flow in loaded bone. J Biomech 33: 247-254.
  19. Sloan AJ, Taylor SY, Smith EL, Roberts JL, Chen L, et al. (2013) A novel ex vivo culture model for inflammatory bone destruction. J Dent Res 92: 728-734.
  20. Mantalaris A, Keng P, Bourne P, Chang AY, Wu JH (1998) Engineering a human bone marrow model: A case study on ex vivo erythropoiesis. BiotechnolProg 14:126-1 33.
  21. Smith EL, Locke M, Waddington RJ, Sloan AJ (2010) An ex vivo rodent mandible culture model for bone repair. Tissue Eng Part C Methods 16: 1287-1296.
  22. Endres S, Kratz M, Wunsch S, Jones DB (2009) Zetos: A culture loading system for trabecular bone. Investigation of different loading signal intensities on bovine bone cylinders. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact 9:173-183.
  23. Curtin P, H Youm, E Salih (2012) Three-dimensional cancer-bone metastasis model using ex-vivo co-cultures of live calvarial bones and cancer cells. Biomaterials 33:1065-1078.
  24. Chan ME, Lu XL, Huo B, Baik AD, Chiang V, et al. (2009) A Trabecular Bone Explant Model of Osteocyte-Osteoblast Co-Culture for Bone Mechanobiology. Cell MolBioeng 2: 405-415.
  25. Cartmell SH, Porter BD, García AJ, Guldberg RE (2003) Effects of medium perfusion rate on cell-seeded three-dimensional bone constructs in vitro. Tissue Eng 9: 1197-1203.
  26. Liu X, Ma PX (2004) Polymeric scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Ann Biomed Eng 32: 477-486.
  27. Kim J, Kim IS, Cho TH, Lee KB, Hwang SJ, et al. (2007) Bone regeneration using hyaluronic acid-based hydrogel with bone morphogenic protein-2 and human mesenchymal stem cells. Biomaterials 28: 1830-1837.
  28. Pampaloni F, Reynaud EG, Stelzer EH (2007) The third dimension bridges the gap between cell culture and live tissue. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 8: 839-845.
Citation: Akkiraju H, Nohe A (2015) Current Challenges in Bone Biology. Adv Tech Biol Med 3:132. doi:10.4172/2379-1764.1000132

Copyright: © 2015 Akkiraju H, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Top