Advertisement
JBC

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Originally published In Press as doi:10.1074/jbc.M302822200 on June 25, 2003 Originally published In Press as doi:10.1074/jbc.M302822200 on June 24, 2003

J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 278, Issue 36, 34018-34025, September 5, 2003
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
278/36/34018    most recent
M302822200v2
M302822200v1
Right arrow Submit a Letter to Editor
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rubin, J.
Right arrow Articles by Fan, X.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Rubin, J.
Right arrow Articles by Fan, X.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Mechanical Strain Differentially Regulates Endothelial Nitric-oxide Synthase and Receptor Activator of Nuclear {kappa}B Ligand Expression via ERK1/2 MAPK*

Janet Rubin {ddagger}, Tamara C. Murphy, Liping Zhu, Eileen Roy, Mark S. Nanes and Xian Fan

From the Department of Medicine, Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia 30033

Received for publication, March 19, 2003 , and in revised form, May 30, 2003.


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Exercise promotes positive bone remodeling through controlling cellular processes in bone. Nitric oxide (NO), generated from endothelial nitric-oxide synthase (eNOS), prevents resorption, whereas receptor activator of nuclear {kappa}B ligand (RANKL) promotes resorption through regulating osteoclast activity. Here we show that mechanical strain differentially regulates eNOS and RANKL expression from osteoprogenitor stromal cells in a magnitude-dependent fashion. Strain (0.25–2%) induction of eNOS expression was magnitude-dependent, reaching a plateau at 218 ± 36% of control eNOS. This was accompanied by increases in eNOS protein and a doubling of NO production. Concurrently, 0.25% strain inhibited RANKL expression with increasing response up to 1% strain (44 ± 3% of control RANKL). These differential responses to mechanical input were blocked when an ERK1/2 inhibitor was present during strain application. Inhibition of NO generation did not prevent strain-activated ERK1/2. To confirm the role of ERK1/2, cells were treated with an adenovirus encoding a constitutively activated MEK; Ad.caMEK significantly increased eNOS expression and NO production by more than 4-fold and decreased RANKL expression by half. In contrast, inhibition of strain-activated c-Jun kinase failed to prevent strain effects on either eNOS or RANKL. Our data suggest that physiologic levels of mechanical strain utilize ERK1/2 kinase to coordinately regulate eNOS and RANKL in a manner leading to positive bone remodeling.


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
The capacity of bone to remodel to meet functional structural demands was recognized by Wolff in 1892 as the "law of bone transformation" (1). Studies in humans (2, 3) and animals (4, 5) have shown that applied loads are associated with changes in bone density as well as skeletal macro- and microstructure (6, 7). Removing load results in bone loss (8, 9), whereas application of load causes bone apposition (10–12), confirming that normal bone recognizes its loading environment and adapts to maintain an optimal functional structure. Only recently has understanding of the cellular processes underlying the ability of the skeleton to remodel (i.e. to serve Wolff's Law) made possible a search for the specific mechanisms by which mechanical force is translated into alterations in bone structure.

Studying cellular response to mechanical strain in vitro, we have previously shown that murine osteoprogenitor cells respond to the application of strain by decreasing the expression of receptor activator of NF-{kappa}B ligand (RANKL)1 mRNA (13). RANKL is the dominant molecule controlling osteoclastogenesis (14) and is up-regulated in response to hormones and factors that are known to promote bone resorption (15, 16). We then showed that strain-induced reduction in RANKL expression required activation of ERK1/2 kinase, which was rapidly and sensitively activated by mechanical strain (17). This process in bone mirrors a signal cascade known to be pertinent to many of the responses of vascular tissue to shear forces (18–21) as well as to strain (22, 23). Since the diminished expression of RANKL by bone cells is inextricably linked to a repression of osteoclast formation, we wondered whether other "proformative" events might be associated with signals initiated by mechanical factors.

In this work, we show that endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) is regulated by strain in a divergent fashion; strain induces the expression of eNOS at the same time that this mechanical input decreases expression of RANKL. eNOS, which generates nitric oxide (NO), appears to promote an anabolic picture in bone (24, 25). NO has been shown to have an inhibitory effect on both osteoclast formation and activation (26, 27). There is also growing evidence that NO (and eNOS specifically) has roles in bone formation during growth (28, 29) and in response to loading (30). We will show in this work that induction of eNOS expression, similarly to mechanical regulation of RANKL, also requires activation of ERK1/2 kinase. To confirm the role of ERK1/2 in these mechanically controlled events, we utilize an adenovirus causing constitutive ERK1/2 activity and show both that eNOS is up-regulated and that RANKL is down-regulated in the presence of an activated MAPK signaling system.


   EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Materials and Reagents—Antibodies to total ERK1/2 were purchased from Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Inc. (Santa Cruz, CA), and those to phosphorylated ERK1/2 were from New England Biolabs (Beverly, MA). ERK1/2 inhibitor PD98059 was obtained from Calbiochem, as was the JNK inhibitor (JNKi; SP600125). Fetal bovine serum was from Hyclone (Logan, UT). Other chemicals and supplies were purchased from Sigma.

Cell Culture—To generate primary stromal cell cultures, murine marrow cells collected from the tibiae and femurs of 3–5-week-old male C57BL/6 mice were plated in 6-well plates at 1.6 x 106 cells/cm2 as previously published (17). After 60 min, nonadherent cells containing the stromal elements were transferred to Bioflex collagen I-coated plates (Flexcell Corp., McKeesport, PA) in {alpha}-minimal essential medium plus 10% fetal bovine serum. The next day nonadherent cells were discarded; adherent stromal cells were cultured with 10 nM 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D added to stimulate RANKL expression on day 4. Strain regimens were applied on day 6.

For experiments where lysates were made for Western analyses, inhibitors were added 30 min prior to strain, and the experiment was stopped as indicated. When the end point was to measure mRNA species, total mRNA was isolated 24 h after beginning strain induction.

Application of Mechanical Strain—Uniform equibiaxial mechanical strain was generated using a Flexcell Bioflex instrument (Flexcell Corp., McKeesport, PA) as previously described (13). Strain magnitudes were as noted from 0.25 to 2%, with strain frequency fixed at 10 cycles/min (0.17 Hz). Similar plates containing control cultures were kept in the same incubator but were not subjected to strain regimens.

Measurement of NO—A fluorometric assay was used to measure nitrite in samples using the reagent 2,3-diaminonaphthalene with comparison with a NaNO2 standard curve (0–10 µM) as described previously (31, 32). Briefly, 100 µl of standards and samples were added to microtiter 96-well plates (DYNEX Technologies, Inc.) and mixed with 10 µl of fresh 2,3-diaminonaphthalene (prepared in 0.62 M HCl) for 10 min at room temperature. The reactions were terminated with 5 µl of 2.8 N NaOH. Formation of the 2,3-diaminonaphthotriazole end product was measured using an LB 50 plate reader (PerkinElmer Life Sciences) with excitation at 360 nm and emission at 440 nm. All standards and samples were measured in triplicate.

Western Blot Analysis—For NOS expression, proteins were extracted from stromal cells in boiling lysis buffer (10 mM Tris, pH 7.4, 1% SDS, and 1 mM sodium orthovanadate). Cell lysates were boiled for an additional 5 min and passed three times through a 26-gauge needle. After centrifugation at 16,000 x g for 5 min to remove insoluble material, protein concentrations in the supernatant were determined using the Bio-Rad DC protein assay kit. Samples containing 200 µg of total protein were electrophoresed through a 7.5% SDS-PAGE and transferred to a 0.45-µm polyvinylidene difluoride membrane. Membranes were immersed in blocking buffer containing TBS with 0.1% Tween 20 (TBST) and 5% nonfat milk overnight at 4 °C. The eNOS and inflammatory NOS (iNOS) isoforms were identified using respective polyclonal antibodies (1:1000; Transduction Laboratories, Lexington, KY); membranes were washed three times with TBST and then incubated with second antibody conjugated with horseradish peroxidase (1:1500). The proteins were detected by ECL plus chemiluminescence kit (Amersham Biosciences).

Real Time PCR to Assess mRNA Species—Analysis of eNOS, RANKL, and 18 S mRNA was performed as in Refs. 17 and 33 using the iCycler (Bio-Rad). Briefly, reverse transcription of 0.5 µg of total RNA treated with DNase I was performed with random decamers (Ambion, Austin, TX) and superscript II reverse transcriptase (Invitrogen). For real time PCR, amplification reactions were performed in 25 µl containing primers at 0.5 µM and dNTPs (0.2 mM each) in PCR buffer and 0.03 units of Taq polymerase (Invitrogen) along with SYBR-green (Molecular Probes, Inc., Eugene, OR) at 1:150,000. Aliquots of cDNA were diluted 10–10,000-fold for 18 S and 5–625-fold for eNOS, iNOS, and RANKL to generate relative standard curves with which sample cDNA was compared (34). For eNOS, forward and reverse primers were 5'-AAC CAG CGT CCT GCA AAC C-3' and 5'-CAA TGT GAG TCC GAA AAT GTC C-3', respectively, creating an amplicon of 133 bp. For iNOS, forward primer 5'-GCA TGG ACC AGT ATA AGG CAA GCA-3' and reverse primer 5'-GCT TCT GGT CGA TGT CAT GAG CAA-3' amplified a 222-base pair amplicon (35). RANKL primers were reported in Ref. 17. Standards and samples were run in triplicate. Dilution curves showed that PCR efficiency was more than 90% for all species including 18 S.

Adenovirus Preparation—The adenovirus carrying the constitutively activated mitogen-activated protein kinase/extracellular signal-regulated kinase kinase (MEK) (Ad.caMEK) was generated in our laboratory beginning with the pMCL-MKK1 plasmid carrying the caMEK sequence generously provided by Dr. Natalie Ahn (University of Colorado). As published (36), the MEK was constitutively activated by removal of the coding sequence for amino acids 32–51 and alteration of the nucleotides encoding two serine regulatory sites at 218 and 221 to glutamic and aspartic acid, respectively. The caMEK sequence was removed with XbaI and HindIII and inserted into the pShuttle vector as per the Stratagene protocol (Stratagene, La Jolla, CA). The pShuttle now carrying the caMEK sequence was linearized with PmeI and co-transformed with pAdEasy in recA-proficient bacteria. Small kanamycin resistant colonies were selected and digested with PacI. After confirmation of appropriate band patterns, the viral DNA was used to transform recA-deficient bacteria. Colonies containing the desired gene as analyzed by PCR were selected, and the DNA was linearized with PacI and purified before calcium phosphate transfection of HEK293 cells. After transduction, HEK293 cell layers were overlaid with agarose and assessed for viral plaque formation at 10 days. Viruses were eluted from plaques and amplified in HEK293 cells; infected cells were subjected to three freeze/thaw cycles, and the supernatants were collected for use in experiments.

For virus applications, viral lysates were added with 10 µg/ml LipofectAMINE in serum-free medium at the indicated MOIs, with an equal volume of media containing 20% fetal bovine serum added at 5 h. Cellular responses were studied at 24 h.

Assessment of MAPKs—Western blotting for MAPK phosphorylation was performed as detailed in Ref. 17. Briefly, the supernatants of cell lysates were concentrated, and 10 µg of protein was chromatographed and transferred to polyvinylidene difluoride membrane. Primary and secondary antibody incubation was followed by measurement of chemiluminescence (ECL-plus; Amersham Biosciences).

Assessment of JNK and ERK Activation—To visualize the ability of the Ad.caMEK to activate ERK1/2, we utilized Western analysis to see the 42- and 44-kDa phosphorylated bands as in Ref. 17. To assess c-Jun N-terminal protein kinase (JNK) activity, a c-Jun phosphorylation assay was utilized as previously; briefly, soluble cell lysates in cold Triton lysis buffer with proteinase inhibitors were incubated with 2.5 µg of agarose-bound glutathione S-transferase-c-Jun-(1–79) (Calbiochem) in a total volume of 400 µl of Triton lysis buffer overnight at 4 °C on rotating platform (17, 37). Washed agarose beads were mixed with 100 µM ATP and 5 µCi of [{gamma}-32P]ATP, and reactions were carried out at 30 °C for 30 min. Phosphoproteins were separated on a 15% SDS-PAGE gel, and phosphorylated glutathione S-transferase-c-Jun-(1–79) was visualized at ~37 kDa.

Statistical Analysis—Results are expressed as the mean ± S.E. Statistical significance was evaluated by Dunnett or Bonferroni's post hoc one-way analysis of variance (GraphPad Prism).


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Mechanical Strain Induces eNOS Expression in Murine Stromal Cells—Bone cells express multiple forms of NOS, with eNOS being the most prominent isoform. iNOS and neuronal NOS (nNOS) have both been described in bone during growth and fracture healing but are clearly present in lower amounts than eNOS in bone cells themselves (38, 39). Using Western blotting to identify species in C57BL/6 murine stromal cells, we were able to identify eNOS protein in samples where 200 µg of lysate protein was loaded. To assess whether the NOS might be residing in the membrane component, we also separated membrane protein and found that similar loading of 200 µg of membrane protein did not alter the amount of eNOS reacting with the antibody. In cells exposed to 2% magnitude mechanical strain overnight, eNOS increased, as shown in a representative blot (Fig. 1a). iNOS was not visible in Western blots from these lysates, despite successful blotting of an assay positive control for the iNOS species.



View larger version (25K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 1.
Strain increases eNOS expression in stromal cells. a, mouse stromal cells were strained on the last 24 h of cultures. Protein was extracted and run at 200 µg/lane on 7.5% SDS-PAGE. Western blot showed that eNOS synthesis significantly increased after 24 h of mechanical strain. The positive control was purchased from Transduction Laboratories (eNOS). The experiment was repeated twice, confirming elevated eNOS protein after strain. b, real-time PCR for eNOS expression in cells strained for 24 h shows that eNOS mRNA from strained cells significantly increased 2-fold (218 ± 36% of control; *, p < 0.05 by t test). Three experiments grouped (mean ± S.E.) for statistical analysis are shown in the graph.

 

Because of sensitivity in assessing amounts of eNOS protein, we confirmed the strain inductive response using a sensitive real time PCR assay for eNOS mRNA. This assay was designed to recognize only eNOS, and not iNOS or nNOS, on the basis of primer specificity. In Fig. 1b, compiled from three separate experiments where cells were exposed to 24 h of 2% strain, eNOS mRNA significantly increased by more than 2-fold. Using primers specific for murine iNOS, we demonstrated a lack of response to strain of this NOS isoform; we performed real time PCR on control and cells strained for 24 h. Grouped real time PCR data from three experiments showed no significant difference in levels of iNOS mRNA between control (100 ± 10%) and strained cells (90 ± 25%). These data ruled out a contribution from iNOS to the strain-induced increase in nitric oxide described below.

Gene Expression Is Differentially Sensitive to Strain Magnitude—The response of eNOS was in the opposite direction to the strain-induced decrease in RANKL gene expression, which we had explored previously (17). To understand better the differences in mechanical regulation of these two genes, eNOS and RANKL, we performed a series of experiments where strain magnitude was varied. Our current strain instrumentation allowed application of uniform strain as low as 0.25%, and we studied four different strain regimens up to 2% magnitude. At least three separate experiments were performed at each strain magnitude and compiled in Fig. 2. For each sample, eNOS, RANKL, and 18 S were amplified from samples subjected to reverse transcription with random decamers as described under "Experimental Procedures." The data was expressed as percentage of target control mRNA compared with 18 S in the sample. eNOS mRNA responded to 0.25% strain, rising to 120%, and continued to increase, reaching a plateau at 161 ± 28% compared with eNOS mRNA measured in unstrained cells (p < 0.001), a rise comparable with the previous series shown in Fig. 1b. RANKL also responded to application of 0.25% strain, reaching a nadir by 1% strain, as shown in Fig. 2. This result can be compared with previous results where strains less than or equal to 1% were not effective when dosed for only 6 h (17). In the experiments presented here, application of strain for 24 h allowed us to generate reproducible mechanical effects on both eNOS and RANKL gene expression with strains significantly lower than 1%. Results showing that strain caused a divergent response of these two genes at all magnitudes studied suggested that mechanical regulation of eNOS and RANKL share a proximal signaling pathway.



View larger version (28K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 2.
Strain magnitude dose-dependently regulates eNOS and RANKL gene expression. Real time PCR data shown in the graph ± S.E. is compiled from 16 experiments. Each experiment included strained and unstrained wells, with strain in each experiment limited to a single magnitude. Three separate experiments were run for each strain magnitude, with magnitude chosen in no special order. Total RNA was collected from three wells/sample, two samples/condition for real time assessment of eNOS, RANKL, and 18 S. eNOS, shown in gray bars, increased in response to strain in a magnitude-dependent fashion, becoming significant by 1% strain magnitude (#, p < 0.01; ##, p < 0.001). For strain-induced inhibition of RANKL mRNA expression, all strain magnitudes examined were significant (*, p < 0.001), and the 1% magnitude was significantly more inhibited than the 0.25% (**, p < 0.05).

 

NO Release Is Stimulated by Strain and Reflects Increases in eNOS—We next measured nitric oxide production from murine cells during strain. NO did not rise immediately, in contrast to the immediate activation in response to fluid shear in cellular NOS of both osteocytes and osteoblasts (40, 41). Even at 60 min, as measured by a more sensitive assay (31, 32) than used in the latter studies, NO was not significantly different from that secreted into media by unstrained cell cultures (Fig. 3a). However, NO was significantly increased by 2-fold after 24 h of strain, as shown in Fig. 3b. Furthermore, the strain induction of NO required the activity of endogenous NOS, as the competitive inhibitor, L-NAME, blocked the effect of strain on NO production, shown in Fig. 3c. Because iNOS was not affected by the strain protocol (see Fig. 1c), we inferred that the increased NO resulted from increased gene and protein expression of the endothelial form of NOS.



View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 3.
Strain increases NO production in stromal cultures. a, stromal cells were subjected to strain regimen for the times designated, and medium was collected for NO measurement. There was no change from control values of nitrite (32.8 ± 9 nM averaged over 10 experiments) in cultures strained for 60 min or less. b, strain application for 24 h doubles NO levels where strain was applied to stromal cells for 8 h followed by rest, for 4 h at the end of culture, or for a continuous 24 h. Medium was collected for nitrite assay at the 24-h point. Continuous strain caused a doubling of NO production, significant at p < 0.05 (*) by analysis of variance. Shown is a compilation of three experiments. c, strain increase in NO production requires the action of an endogenous nitric oxide synthase. The NOS inhibitor, L-NAME (300 µM), was added to unstrained and strained cells for 24 h, and NO production was measured. The graph is a compilation of three experiments and shows that L-NAME inhibited the strain-induced NO. The only group significantly different from control was strain in the absence of L-NAME (p < 0.05).

 

Inhibition of ERK Activation Indicates That ERK Has Primary Effects on Both eNOS and RANKL—We had previously shown that straining cells at magnitudes less than 2% caused activation of both ERK1/2 and JNK (17). Here we set out to prove that strain induction of eNOS expression is blocked by inhibition of ERK1/2 activation. The effect of overnight strain in this series of five experiments was to increase eNOS expression to 195 ± 26% of the unstrained control, as expected (Fig. 4a). Treatment with ERKi during the strain protocol prevented any strain-induced increase in eNOS as shown in the second gray bar in Fig. 4a, which shows an insignificant difference between the unstrained and strained cultures in the presence of ERKi. Exposure of unstrained controls overnight to an efficacious concentration of ERK inhibitor (ERKi) unexpectedly increased eNOS expression to 136 ± 8% of unstrained control levels, suggesting that basal ERK1/2 activity operates some regulatory control over eNOS expression in bone cells. However, when ERK1/2 was inhibited, application of strain failed to cause further increases in eNOS mRNA levels.



View larger version (23K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 4.
ERK inhibitor blocks strain effect for both RANKL and eNOS. a, ERKi was added (right set of bars) to cultures one-half hour before application of strain (gray bar in each set; data compiled from six experiments). Strain was applied overnight (~16 h), and total RNA was assayed. eNOS increased significantly in strained cultures as expected (a different from b, p < 0.0001). ERKi caused significant increases in eNOS compared with unstrained controls, but the addition of strain to ERKi-treated wells did not further increase eNOS (p = 0.129). Using analysis of variance, all bars are different from control (i.e. a != b != c; p < 0.05). b, this graph shows RANKL mRNA in the same experimental design as a above. As shown in the graph, strain inhibited RANKL expression significantly (*, p = 0.0038) but did not affect RANKL expression when ERKi was present in the culture (p = 0.1065). Using analysis of variance, all bars are different from control (i.e. a != b != c; p < 0.05). c, inhibition of NO production does not prevent strain-induced ERK activation. Cultures of stromal cells were treated with or without L-NAME at 300 µM for 1 h prior to applying strain. After 10 min of strain, cell lysates were collected, and ERK1/2 was assessed. Phosphorylated ERK (ERK~P) is shown in the top row and total ERK in the bottom. Strain increased, an effect that was not altered by the presence of L-NAME.

 

The effect of strain on control cells in this series of experiments was to diminish RANKL expression to 58 ± 4% of control (Fig. 4b). The strain inhibition was ablated in cultures where ERK1/2 activation was blocked by treatment with ERKi; RANKL expression was not significantly different from that in unstrained cells treated with ERKi. However, as shown in Fig. 4, when primary stromal cultures were exposed to the ERKi for 16 h, RANKL expression increased significantly to 144 ± 25% of that of control stromal cells. Compared with our previous experiments, ERKi applied for only 6 h during the straining protocol was shown to prevent strain-induced decrements in RANKL mRNA expression but did not affect basal RANKL expression (17). That a longer exposure to ERKi raised RANKL mRNA expression suggests that RANKL expression is affected by ERK1/2 even in the absence of mechanical input, indicating that ERK activation may tonically limit RANKL expression. In sum, inhibition of ERK activation blocks strain effects on both eNOS and RANKL.

We showed, in Fig. 3b, that NO did not rise until 24 h later, and this rise was preceded by an increase in eNOS expression and protein. Since nitric-oxide synthase is known to be activated acutely by strain (40), and Jessop et al. (42) have suggested that of the activation of ERK1/2 in osteoblast-like cells may be dependent on immediate NO production, we considered whether ERK1/2 activation required rapid NO generation during strain. Cells were cultured overnight with L-NAME and then subjected to strain regimen for 10 min. ERK1/2 activation was measured as shown in Fig. 4c. Strain activation of ERK1/2 was not altered in cells where endogenous NO production was prevented by the competitive inhibitor, L-NAME. This indicated that NO does not have an acute role in strain activation of ERK1/2.

Constitutive Activation of MEK Reproduces the Strain Effect on Both Genes—To further understand the relationship between ERK activation and its divergent regulation of eNOS and RANKL, we generated an adenovirus to deliver a constitutively activated MEK to cells. The use of adenovirus to transfer the gene was necessitated because these primary stromal cells are not very susceptible to infection by retro- and adeno-associated viruses as well as to liposome enhanced transient transfection (data not shown). We designed an infection protocol using a type 5 replication-deficient adenovirus encoding a green fluorescent protein driven by the strong cytomegalovirus promoter (Ad.GFP) (gift of Dr. Peter Thule, Emory University). Ad.GFP virus combined with LipofectAMINE infected more than 60% of the stromal cells in culture as assessed by percentage of green fluorescence-positive cells measured by fluorescence-activated cell sorting analysis (data not shown). To study the effect of activated ERK in culture, we thus selected adenovirus as the means of gene delivery.

The Ad.caMEK virus was used after amplification and titering in H293 cells by viral cytopathology. Plaque-purified empty adenovirus (Ad.empty) was used as a control. 24 h after infection with viruses, cell lysates were made to examine activation of ERK1/2. As shown in Fig. 5a, an MOI of 2 was sufficient to cause ERK phosphorylation. Increases in MOI above 4 did not further increase ERK activation. This may be due to other distal and unexplained effects of highly activated ERK systems, such as a balancing check on the MAPK system.



View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 5.
Constitutive activation of MEK reproduces the strain effect. a, Ad.caMEK increases levels of stromal cell ERK~P as shown in the Western blot. Phosphorylated ERK1/2 appears in the upper row (42- and 44-kDa bands); the first lane shows stromal cells infected 24 h previously with an empty adenovirus. Phosphorylated ERK increases after infection with Ad.caMEK. Total ERK, show in the bottom row, does not change. b, stromal cells were infected with empty Ad (4 MOI, represented as "0" Ad.caMEK on the x-axis) or the indicated doses of Ad.caMEK, and total RNA was assayed for eNOS levels 24 h later. eNOS rose significantly in the presence of activated MEK (the asterisks show significance at p < 0.05). c, RANKL was examined in the same samples as for b showing a dose-dependent decrease in RANKL expression in the presence of the Ad.caMEK viral infection. An asterisk shows significance at p < 0.01. d, stromal cells infected with increasing MOI of Ad.caMEK showed a dose-dependent increase in NO production as assayed in the media using the sensitive nitrite assay. Empty adenovirus was used as control (there was no difference between nitrite in media of uninfected and Ad.empty-infected cells; data not shown). The asterisks show significant difference from Ad.empty at p < 0.05.

 

In compiled experiments where stromal cells were infected with Ad.caMEK virus and eNOS and RANKL mRNA was assessed 24 h after infection, the effect of mechanical strain was reproduced. As shown in Fig. 5b, Ad.caMEK stimulated eNOS expression by more than 4-fold at an MOI of 4 (423 ± 117% of that expressed in cultures infected with Ad.empty).

Also, Ad.caMEK inhibited RANKL mRNA expression to a nadir of 56 ± 12% as shown in Fig. 5c. Interestingly, the effect of this sustained ERK1/2 phosphorylation had a reproducibly equivalent effect to the plateau effect of strain on RANKL mRNA inhibition.

To further explore the effect of the Ad.caMEK on eNOS and to prove that NO production increased as a distal result, we also were able to show that NO was altered by ERK1/2 activation. As shown in Fig. 5d, Ad.caMEK caused a dose-dependent increase in NO release into the medium (measured as nitrite). Compiling three experiments where Ad.empty was used as control (100%) for comparison with Ad.caMEK infection, we found that an MOI of 5 increased cell-generated nitrite to 397 ± 87% of that of control cells, and an MOI of 10 caused increases to 374 ± 66% of Ad.empty control (p < 0.01 for both conditions). Thus, caMEK delivery reproduced the effects of strain to cause divergent responses in eNOS and RANKL expression.

Inhibition of JNK Does Not Prevent the Strain Response— Strain also causes a sustained activation of JNK, specifically JNK2 kinase (17). With the current availability of a JNKi, we were able to examine the role that strain-induced JNK might play in the differential effects of mechanical factors on eNOS and RANKL. We first replicated our data showing that c-jun phosphorylation was increased after 15 min of strain, as shown in Fig. 6a. Also shown in this figure is a demonstration that 50 µM concentration of the JNKi, SP600125, was able to inhibit the strain-induced increase in c-jun phosphorylation. Thus, we were able to inhibit JNK during the application of mechanical strain.



View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 6.
JNKi does not block strain-associated regulation of gene expression. a, JNKi inhibited strain-induced increases in JNK activity. JNKi (50 µM) was added to cell cultures 1 h prior to applying strain for 15 min. JNK activity was assayed in cell lysates. The figure shows phosphorylation of glutathione S-transferase-c-Jun. The third and fourth lanes are from cells where strain has been applied, and the second and fourth lanes are taken from cultures treated with JNKi. JNK is activated by strain, and JNKi prevents strain activation. b, two sets of bars are shown, representing variation from control levels of eNOS; the gray bars represent cells exposed to strain overnight. The right set of bars show cells where 30 µM JNKi was added. In this set of six experiments, strain again increased eNOS (a != unstrained control, p < 0.0001). In the presence of JNKi, the strained condition continues to be significantly different from its JNKi-treated control, reaching significance at b (p = 0.0005). c, RANKL mRNA was assayed similarly to eNOS in b. Strain inhibited RANKL; a shows a significant decrease compared with unstrained control (p = 0.0038). The strain effect prevailed in the presence of the JNKi; JNKi did not prevent strain-induced inhibition of RANKL mRNA expression; b is different from JNKi-treated control (p = 0.0071).

 

As shown in Fig. 6b, eNOS responded to overnight strain with a doubling of expression and continued to respond significantly to strain even in the presence of JNKi, although the effect was blunted. The question of whether this blunting was due to an already nearly maximal stimulation of eNOS expression or JNK represents a separate pathway by which strain up-regulates eNOS expression remains for future investigation. Similarly to effects on basal cultures caused by inhibition of ERK1/2, JNKi generated an increase in basal eNOS mRNA expression to 168 ± 28% of basal levels.

JNKi also caused a significant increase in basal expression of RANKL as shown in Fig. 6c. In contrast to the effect of inhibition of the ERK signaling pathway, the strain effect prevailed in the presence of JNKi, as shown by the significant difference between control and strain cultures treated with the JNKi (right set of bars).


   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
Complex interactions between signals controlling both osteoblast and osteoclast functions are ultimately responsible for the adaptive response of the skeleton to its loading environment. In data presented here, we have shown that application of mechanical strain to bone stromal cells induces a coordinate regulation through MAPK of two genes, eNOS and RANKL, which are predicted to work in synergy to promote positive bone remodeling. The effective levels of strain (~0.25%) in bone stromal cells are far below those affecting vascular tissue, which continue to increase response until at least 20% strain (22), a level well above the fracture threshold of the hard skeleton (43).

Strain, through activation of ERK1/2, caused a doubling in the amount of eNOS expressed and NO generated by primary bone stromal cells. NO has long been implicated as one of the signals transducing mechanical stress in cells (25, 44). In the vasculature, both shear (18) and strain (23, 45, 46) induce nitric oxide, and blocking NO synthesis prevents many of the downstream effects of biophysical inputs. Skeletal response to biophysical input also appears to involve NO metabolism. One of the earliest reports linking NO to bone remodeling showed that NOS inhibitors potentiated ovariectomized bone resorption in rats (27). Since then, studies have shown that NO can slow bone loss in animals (47) and even humans (48, 49). Mechanical stimulation has been shown to initiate NO production: loading rat vertebrae and ulnae causes activation of NOS and NO release (50). Inhibition of NO production further appears to impair response to loading: in rats treated with an inhibitor of NOS, a regimen of four-point bending of tibiae induced less new bone formation than in controls (51). Further studies in rats showed that mechanically induced osteogenesis required and was enhanced by endogenous NO production, whereas inhibition of NO production decreased bone apposition (52). In vitro, studies of the effects of mechanical stimulation on osteoblast NO production have shown that both shear and deformation (strain) increase NO production (40, 50, 53–55) and that nitric oxide causes proliferation of bone-forming cells (56). NO is likely to affect bone remodeling, therefore, through targeting the formation and function of both osteoclasts and osteoblasts.

NO in bone is largely generated through eNOS, which is the predominant isoform expressed in skeletal tissue (38, 39, 57). Transgenic mice lacking eNOS show decreased bone volume and formation until at least 12 weeks, when other adaptive processes must overcome the deficiencies caused by the absence of eNOS (29). eNOS null mice are furthermore unable to respond to estrogen with an anabolic response (58). In terms of the mechanical response, studies have implicated iNOS as also being involved in the reloading bone apposition after loss through hind limb raising; in the iNOS null transgenic, bone loss was similar to control during the unweighting protocol, but reloading failed to induce bone formation in the transgenic animal (5). In our studies, we did not see a response of iNOS to strain. The roles of eNOS and iNOS and their production by the many cells involved in bone remodeling will be important to explore in future studies.

Whereas eNOS is induced by strain, RANKL is coordinately repressed, as demonstrated by the divergence of response during the strain magnitude-dosing protocol (Fig. 3). RANKL inhibition by strain in vitro is discrete, rarely dropping below 50% of control levels, an effect faithfully replicated by activating ERK1/2 through delivery of an adenovirus encoding constitutively active MEK. In contrast, where strain induction of eNOS caused less than a doubling response, constitutive activation of MEK induced anywhere between 2- and 10-fold increases in eNOS expression, reflected in much greater increases in NO generation. This suggests that whereas eNOS response to strain appears to require similar activated MAPK pathways, a constitutively activated ERK1/2 might lead to additional pathways affecting eNOS expression.

Since strain also induces JNK activation, indeed prolonged beyond the transient activation of ERK1/2 (17), we tested the role of JNK in strain-induced increases in eNOS and decreases in RANKL. The JNKi used in these studies was shown to inhibit strain-induced JNK activation. Overnight application of JNKi had significant effects on basal levels of both eNOS and RANKL, suggesting that JNK is involved in regulating the expression of important genes in bone cells. However, JNKi failed to prevent either strain induction of eNOS or strain inhibition of RANKL expression. While not ruling out subtle differences between the ability of JNK to regulate basal levels of either gene, our data indicate that strain's control of eNOS and RANKL expression operates almost exclusively through the ERK1/2 pathway.

Our results do not rule out modulation of the ERK1/2 pathway by other signaling pathways that are known to be activated by mechanical factors. Shear stress, another relevant mechanical factor in the skeleton, is also known to activate ERK1/2 (42, 59) as well as nitric-oxide synthase (40, 60). Differences between those signaling pathways activated by shear and stress are subtle; for instance, both shear and strain activate ERK in osteoblast-like cells but through putatively divergent upstream pathways (18, 42). Recent papers underline the complexity of shear-induced signaling in osteoblasts in terms of proliferative and differentiative responses, including cyclooxygenase, G-proteins, and nitric-oxide synthases (61, 62). This level of complexity is almost certain to be present in the cellular response to mechanical strain. It is possible that many signaling pathways will impact on both the upstream and downstream pathways involving ERK1/2 that regulate eNOS and RANKL expression.

The mechanisms by which ERK1/2 regulates eNOS and RANKL gene expression in bone cells are currently unknown. In the case of endothelial cell eNOS, mechanical shear is known to transiently increase gene transcription, a process dependent on the Src-Ras-MEK-ERK cascade, as well as to invoke a non-ERK-dependent increase in eNOS mRNA stability (18). We were not able to measure strain induction of eNOS in the presence of ERK inhibition, suggesting that strain, at least at magnitudes relevant in skeletal physiology, may be effected largely through increases in eNOS transcription. In terms of RANKL, mechanistic control of this important transcript has so far eluded analysis. Whereas endogenous RANKL expression is acutely sensitive to osteotropic factors (15, 16, 63), transient transfection of up to 7000 nucleotides of the promoter does not respond to agents known to effectively increase expression (64, 65). Understanding RANKL regulation will require novel techniques to probe endogenous gene activity.

Thus, we have shown that strain has a magnitude-specific ability to control two genes in entirely divergent fashions, one inhibitory and one stimulatory. For regulation of eNOS and RANKL, this ability relies on activation of the ERK1/2 signaling cascade, suggesting that ERK represents a common distal pathway where multiple mechanical signals converge. The difference in effect suggests that the final regulatory result is determined by recruitment of specific co-regulators. In total, in vitro strain represents a paradigm for understanding how loading the skeleton results in positive bone remodeling.


   FOOTNOTES
 
* This work was supported by NIAMS, National Institutes of Health, Grant AR42360 and Merit and Research Enhancement Award Program grants from the Veterans Administration. The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact. Back

{ddagger} To whom correspondence should be addressed: VAMC-151, 1670 Clairmont Rd., Decatur, GA 30033. Tel.: 404-321-6111 (ext. 2080); Fax: 404-235-3011; E-mail: jrubi02{at}emory.edu.

1 The abbreviations used are: RANKL, receptor activator of nuclear {kappa}B ligand; NOS, nitric-oxide synthase; eNOS, endothelial NOS; iNOS, inflammatory NOS; nNOS, neuronal NOS; ERK, extracellular signal-regulated kinase; JNK, c-Jun N-terminal kinase; JNKi, JNK inhibitor; ERKi, ERK inhibitor; MAPK, mitogen-activated protein kinase; MEK, mitogen-activated protein kinase/extracellular signal-regulated kinase kinase; MOI, multiplicity of infection; L-NAME, N{omega}–nitro-L-arginine methyl ester. Back



   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Wolff, J. (1892) Verlag August Hirschwald
  2. Bennell, K. L., Malcolm, S. A., Khan, K. M., Thomas, S. A., Reid, S. J., Brukner, P. D., Ebeling, P. R., and Wark, J. D. (1997) Bone 20, 477–484[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  3. Judex, S., Gross, T. S., and Zernicke, R. F. (1997) J. Bone Miner. Res. 12, 1737–1745[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  4. Rubin, C., Xu, G., and Judex, S. (2001) FASEB J. 15, 2225–2229[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Watanuki, M., Sakai, A., Sakata, T., Tsurukami, H., Miwa, M., Uchida, Y., Watanabe, K., Ikeda, K., and Nakamura, T. (2002) J. Bone Miner. Res. 17, 1015–1025[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  6. Haapasalo, H., Sievanen, H., Kannus, P., Heinonen, A., Oja, P., and Vuori, I. (1996) J. Bone Miner. Res. 11, 864–872[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  7. Haapasalo, H., Kontulainen, S., Sievanen, H., Kannus, P., Jarvinen, M., and Vuori, I. (2000) Bone 27, 351–357[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  8. Uebelhart, D., Demiaux-Domenech, B., Roth, M., and Chantraine, A. (1995) Paraplegia 33, 669–673[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  9. Rubin, C., and Lanyon, L. (1984) J. Bone Joint Surg. 66, 397–402[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Srinivasan, S., Weimer, D. A., Agans, S. C., Bain, S. D., and Gross, T. S. (2002) J. Bone Miner. Res. 17, 1613–1620[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  11. Gross, T. S., Srinivasan, S., Liu, C. C., Clemens, T. L., and Bain, S. D. (2002) J. Bone Miner. Res. 17, 493–501[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  12. Hsieh, Y. F., Robling, A. G., Ambrosius, W. T., Burr, D. B., and Turner, C. H. (2001) J. Bone Miner. Res. 16, 2291–2297[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  13. Rubin, J., Murphy, T., Nanes, M. S., and Fan, X. (2000) Am. J. Physiol. 278, C1126–C1132
  14. Fan, X., Fan, D., Gewant, H., Royce, C., Nanes, M., and Rubin, J. (2001) Am. J. Physiol. Endocrinol. Metab. 280, E103–E111[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Lee, S. K., and Lorenzo, J. A. (1999) Endocrinology 140, 3552–3561[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Yasuda, H., Shima, N., Nakagawa, N., Yamaguchi, K., Kinosaki, M., Mochizuki, S., Tomoyasu, A., Yano, K., Goto, M., Murakami, A., Tsuda, E., Morinaga, T., Higashio, K., Udagawa, N., Takahashi, N., and Suda, T. (1998) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 95, 3597–3602[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Rubin, J., Murphy, T., Fan, X., Goldschmidt, M., and Taylor, W. (2002) J. Bone Miner. Res. 17, 1452–1460[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  18. Davis, M. E., Cai, H., Drummond, G. R., and Harrison, D. G. (2001) Circ. Res. 89, 1073–1080[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Jo, H., Sipos, K., Go, Y. M., Law, R., Rong, J., and McDonald, J. M. (1997) J. Biol. Chem. 272, 1395–1401[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Li, Y. S., Shyy, J. Y., Li, S., Lee, J., Su, B., Karin, M., and Chien, S. (1996) Mol. Cell Biol. 16, 5947–5954[Abstract]
  21. Yan, C., Takahashi, M., Okuda, M., Lee, J. D., and Berk, B. C. (1999) J. Biol. Chem. 274, 143–150[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Li, C., Hu, Y., Mayr, M., and Xy, Q. (1999) J. Biol. Chem. 274, 25273–25380[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Standley, P. R., Cammarata, A., Nolan, B. P., Purgason, C. T., Stanley, M. A., and Camaratta, A. (2002) Am. J. Physiol. 283, H1907–H1914
  24. Koyama, A., Otsuka, E., Inoue, A., Hirose, S., and Hagiwara, H. (2000) Eur. J. Pharmacol. 391, 225–231[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  25. Ralston, S. H. (1997) Br. J. Rheumatol. 36, 831–838[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Collin-Osdoby, P., Rothe, L., Bekker, S., Anderson, F., and Osdoby, P. (2000) J. Bone Miner. Res. 15, 474–488[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  27. Kasten, T. P., Collin-Osdoby, P., Patel, N., Osdoby, P., Krukowski, M., Misko, T. P., Settle, S. L., Currie, M. G., and Nickols, G. A. (1994) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 91, 3569–3573[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Armour, K. E., Armour, K. J., Gallagher, M. E., Godecke, A., Helfrich, M. H., Reid, D. M., and Ralston, S. H. (2001) Endocrinology 142, 760–766[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Aguirre, J., Buttery, L., O'Shaughnessy, M., Afzal, F., Fernandez De Marticorena, I., Hukkanen, M., Huang, P., MacIntyre, I., and Polak, J. (2001) Am. J. Pathol. 158, 247–257[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. van't Hof, R. J., and Ralston, S. H. (2001) Immunology 103, 255–261[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  31. Misko, T. P., Schilling, R. J., Salvemini, D., Moore, W. M., and Currie, M. G. (1993) Anal. Biochem. 214, 11–16[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  32. Kleinhenz, D., Fan, X., Rubin, J., and Hart, C. (2003) Free Radic. Biol. Med. 34, 856–861[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  33. Fan, X., Roy, E., Zhu, L., Murphy, T. C., Kozlowski, M., Nanes, M. S., and Rubin, J. (2003) J. Biol. Chem. 278, 10232–10238[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  34. Johnson, M. R., Wang, K., Smith, J. B., Heslin, M. J., and Diasio, R. B. (2000) Anal. Biochem. 278, 175–184[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  35. Riancho, J. A., Salas, E., Zarrabeitia, M. T., Olmos, J. M., Amado, J. A., Fernandez-Luna, J. L., and Gonzalez-Macias, J. (1995) J. Bone Miner. Res. 10, 439–446[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  36. Mansour, S. J., Matten, W. T., Hermann, A. S., Candia, J. M., Rong, S., Fukasawa, K., Vande Woude, G. F., and Ahn, N. G. (1994) Science 265, 966–970[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  37. Whitmarsh, A. J., and Davis, R. J. (2001) Methods Enzymol. 332, 319–336[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  38. Helfrich, M. H., Evans, D. E., Grabowski, P. S., Pollock, J. S., Ohshima, H., and Ralston, S. H. (1997) J. Bone Miner. Res. 12, 1108–1115[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  39. MacPherson, H., Noble, B. S., and Ralston, S. H. (1999) Bone 24, 179–185[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  40. Klein-Nulend, J., Helfrich, M. H., Sterck, J. G., MacPherson, H., Joldersma, M., Ralston, S. H., Semeins, C. M., and Burger, E. H. (1998) Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 250, 108–114[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  41. Smalt, R., Mitchell, F. T., Howard, R. L., and Chambers, T. J. (1997) Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 433, 311–314[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  42. Jessop, H. L., Rawlinson, S. C., Pitsillides, A. A., and Lanyon, L. E. (2002) Bone 31, 186–194[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  43. Rubin, C., and Rubin, J. (1999) in Primers on the Metabolic Bone Diseases and Disorders of Mineral Metabolism (Favus, M., ed) pp. 39–44, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia
  44. Lane, P., and Gross, S. S. (1999) Semin. Nephrol. 19, 215–229[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  45. Awolesi, M. A., Widmann, M. D., Sessa, W. C., and Sumpio, B. E. (1994) Surgery 116, 439–444[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  46. Awolesi, M. A., Sessa, W. C., and Sumpio, B. E. (1995) J. Clin. Invest. 96, 1449–1454[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  47. Wimalawansa, S., Chapa, T., Fang, L., Yallampalli, C., and Simmons, D. (2000) J. Bone Miner. Res. 15, 1119–1125[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  48. Wimalawansa, S. J. (2000) J. Bone Miner. Res. 15, 2240–2244[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  49. Jamal, S. A., Browner, W. S., Bauer, D. C., and Cummings, S. R. (1998) J. Bone Miner. Res. 13, 1755–1759[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  50. Pitsillides, A. A., Rawlinson, S. C., Suswillo, R. F., Bourrin, S., Zaman, G., and Lanyon, L. E. (1995) FASEB J. 9, 1614–1622[Abstract]
  51. Turner, C. H., Takano, Y., Owan, I., and Murrell, G. A. (1996) Am. J. Physiol. 270, E634–E639
  52. Chow, J. W., Fox, S. W., Lean, J. M., and Chambers, T. J. (1998) J. Bone Miner. Res. 13, 1039–1044[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  53. McAllister, T. N., and Frangos, J. A. (1999) J. Bone Miner. Res. 14, 930–936[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  54. Smalt, R., Mitchell, F., Howard, R., and Chambers, T. (1997) Am. J. Physiol. 273, E751–E758
  55. Zaman, G., Pitsillides, A. A., Rawlinson, S. C., Suswillo, R. F., Mosley, J. R., Cheng, M. Z., Platts, L. A., Hukkanen, M., Polak, J. M., and Lanyon, L. E. (1999) J. Bone Miner. Res. 14, 1123–1131[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  56. Kanamaru, Y., Takada, T., Saura, R., and Mizuno, K. (2001) Kobe J. Med. Sci. 47, 1–11[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  57. Hukkanen, M. V., Platts, L. A., Fernandez De Marticorena, I., O'Shaughnessy, M., MacIntyre, I., and Polak, J. M. (1999) J. Bone Miner. Res. 14, 868–877[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  58. Armour, K. E., and Ralston, S. H. (1998) Endocrinology 139, 799–802[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  59. Li, S., Kim, M., Hu, Y. L., Jalali, S., Schlaepfer, D. D., Hunter, T., Chien, S., and Shyy, J. Y. (1997) J. Biol. Chem. 272, 30455–30462[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  60. Drummond, G. R., Cai, H., Davis, M. E., Ramasamy, S., and Harrison, D. G. (2000) Circ. Res. 86, 347–354[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  61. Kapur, S., Baylink, D. J., and William Lau, K. H. (2003) Bone 32, 241–251[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  62. Weyts, F. A., Li, Y. S., van Leeuwen, J., Weinans, H., and Chien, S. (2002) J. Cell Biochem. 87, 85–92[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  63. Rubin, J., Ackert-Bicknell, C., Zhu, L., Fan, X., Murphy, T., Nanes, M., Marcus, R., Holloway, L., Beamer, W., and Rosen, C. (2002) J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 87, 4273–4279[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  64. O'Brien, C. A., Kern, B., Gubrij, I., Karsenty, G., and Manolagas, S. C. (2002) Bone 30, 453–462[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  65. Kitazawa, R., Kitazawa, S., and Maeda, S. (1999) Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1445, 134–141[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Biol. Chem.Home page
N. Case, M. Ma, B. Sen, Z. Xie, T. S. Gross, and J. Rubin
{beta}-Catenin Levels Influence Rapid Mechanical Responses in Osteoblasts
J. Biol. Chem., October 24, 2008; 283(43): 29196 - 29205.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Physiol. Lung Cell. Mol. Physiol.Home page
K. A. Mohammed, N. Nasreen, R. S. Tepper, and V. B. Antony
Cyclic stretch induces PlGF expression in bronchial airway epithelial cells via nitric oxide release
Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol, February 1, 2007; 292(2): L559 - L566.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 EndocrinologyHome page
F. Grassi, X. Fan, J. Rahnert, M. N. Weitzmann, R. Pacifici, M. S. Nanes, and J. Rubin
Bone Re/Modeling Is More Dynamic in the Endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase(-/-) Mouse
Endocrinology, September 1, 2006; 147(9): 4392 - 4399.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 HypertensionHome page
P. M. Abadir, A. Periasamy, R. M. Carey, and H. M. Siragy
Angiotensin II Type 2 Receptor-Bradykinin B2 Receptor Functional Heterodimerization
Hypertension, August 1, 2006; 48(2): 316 - 322.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 EndocrinologyHome page
R. Salingcarnboriboon, K. Tsuji, T. Komori, K. Nakashima, Y. Ezura, and M. Noda
Runx2 Is a Target of Mechanical Unloading to Alter Osteoblastic Activity and Bone Formation in Vivo
Endocrinology, May 1, 2006; 147(5): 2296 - 2305.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Biol. Chem.Home page
J. Rubin, T. C. Murphy, J. Rahnert, H. Song, M. S. Nanes, E. M. Greenfield, H. Jo, and X. Fan
Mechanical Inhibition of RANKL Expression Is Regulated by H-Ras-GTPase
J. Biol. Chem., January 20, 2006; 281(3): 1412 - 1418.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 EndocrinologyHome page
A. M. Osyczka and P. S. Leboy
Bone Morphogenetic Protein Regulation of Early Osteoblast Genes in Human Marrow Stromal Cells Is Mediated by Extracellular Signal-Regulated Kinase and Phosphatidylinositol 3-Kinase Signaling
Endocrinology, August 1, 2005; 146(8): 3428 - 3437.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
L. L. Tosi, B. D. Boyan, and A. L. Boskey
Does Sex Matter in Musculoskeletal Health? The Influence of Sex and Gender on Musculoskeletal Health
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., July 1, 2005; 87(7): 1631 - 1647.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Biol. Chem.Home page
W. Yang, Y. Lu, I. Kalajzic, D. Guo, M. A. Harris, J. Gluhak-Heinrich, S. Kotha, L. F. Bonewald, J. Q. Feng, D. W. Rowe, et al.
Dentin Matrix Protein 1 Gene Cis-regulation: USE IN OSTEOCYTES TO CHARACTERIZE LOCAL RESPONSES TO MECHANICAL LOADING IN VITRO AND IN VIVO
J. Biol. Chem., May 27, 2005; 280(21): 20680 - 20690.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 HypertensionHome page
J.-W. Xu, K. Ikeda, and Y. Yamori
Upregulation of Endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase by Cyanidin-3-Glucoside, a Typical Anthocyanin Pigment
Hypertension, August 1, 2004; 44(2): 217 - 222.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JDRHome page
H. Watarai, H. Warita, and K. Soma
Effect of Nitric Oxide on the Recovery of the Hypofunctional Periodontal Ligament
Journal of Dental Research, April 1, 2004; 83(4): 338 - 342.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
278/36/34018    most recent
M302822200v2
M302822200v1
Right arrow Submit a Letter to Editor
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rubin, J.
Right arrow Articles by Fan, X.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Rubin, J.
Right arrow Articles by Fan, X.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 All ASBMB Journals   Molecular and Cellular Proteomics 
 Journal of Lipid Research   ASBMB Today 
Copyright © 2003 by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
Advertisement
spacer
Advertisement
Advertisement