Advertisement
JBC

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


     

Originally published In Press as doi:10.1074/jbc.M705064200 on July 17, 2007

J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 282, Issue 37, 26656-26664, September 14, 2007
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplemental Data
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
282/37/26656    most recent
M705064200v1
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 Zhu, J.
Right arrow Articles by Qin, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Zhu, J.
Right arrow Articles by Qin, L.
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?

IMPLICATIONS FOR OSTEOLYTIC BONE METASTASES*Formula

Ji Zhu{ddagger}, Xun Jia{ddagger}, Guozhi Xiao§, Yibin Kang, Nicola C. Partridge{ddagger}, and Ling Qin{ddagger}1

From the {ddagger}Department of Physiology and Biophysics, UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway, New Jersey 08854, the §Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15240, and the Department of Molecular Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544

Received for publication, June 20, 2007 , and in revised form, July 17, 2007.


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Epidermal growth factor (EGF)-like ligands and their receptors constitute one of the most important signaling networks functioning in normal tissue development and cancer biology. Recent in vivo mouse models suggest this signaling network plays an essential role in bone metabolism. Using a coculture system containing bone marrow macrophage and osteoblastic cells, here we report that EGF-like ligands stimulate osteoclastogenesis by acting on osteoblastic cells. This stimulation is not a direct effect because osteoclasts do not express functional EGF receptors (EGFRs). Further studies reveal that EGF-like ligands strongly regulate the expression of two secreted osteoclast regulatory factors in osteoblasts by decreasing osteoprotegerin (OPG) expression and increasing monocyte chemoattractant protein 1 (MCP1) expression in an EGFR-dependent manner and consequently stimulate TRAP-positive osteoclast formation. Addition of exogenous OPG completely inhibited osteoclast formation stimulated by EGF-like ligands, while addition of a neutralizing antibody against MCP-1 exhibited partial inhibition. Coculture with bone metastatic breast cancer MDA-MB-231 cells had similar effects on the expression of OPG and MCP1 in the osteoblastic cells, and those effects could be partially abolished by the EGFR inhibitor PD153035. Because a high percentage of human carcinomas express EGF-like ligands, our findings suggest a novel mechanism for osteolytic lesions caused by cancer cells metastasizing to bone.


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
The adult human skeleton continuously undergoes remodeling, namely, being resorbed by osteoclasts and renewed by osteoblasts. The maintenance of the skeleton requires the coordinated activity and constant generation of these cells. Osteoblasts are derived from mesenchymal stromal stem cells and, along with their precursors, are the major sources for regulating osteoclast formation by producing several cytokines, including receptor activator of NF-{kappa}B ligand (RANKL),2 osteoprotegerin (OPG), and macrophage colony-stimulating factor (M-CSF). RANKL is the key mediator for osteoclast formation and activation (1, 2). OPG acts as a soluble decoy receptor by blocking the interaction of RANKL with its receptor (RANK) on osteoclasts, thereby inhibiting osteoclastogenesis (2, 3). M-CSF mainly contributes to proliferation, survival, and differentiation of early osteoclast precursors (4). Recently, monocyte chemoattractant protein 1 (MCP1), a CC chemokine, was shown to have the ability to induce tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase (TRAP)-positive multinucleated osteoclastic cells and to stimulate osteoclast fusion and activity (5, 6). Studies in our laboratory indicate that MCP1 is expressed in osteoblasts and exhibits chemoattractant activity toward osteoclasts.3

The epidermal growth factor (EGF)-like ligands and their cognate receptors constitute one of the best-studied signaling networks. This network modulates cell functions in a variety of ways, including proliferation, survival, adhesion, migration, and differentiation. There are four distinct receptors in this family: EGF receptor (EGFR, also known as ErbB-1/HER1), ErbB-2 (HER2), ErbB-3 (HER3), and ErbB-4 (HER4). The EGF-like ligands consist of EGF, amphiregulin, and transforming growth factor {alpha} (TGF{alpha}), which only bind to the EGFR, and heparin-binding EGF (HB-EGF), betacellulin, and epiregulin, which can bind to both the EGFR and ErbB4. The EGFR is a receptor-tyrosine kinase. Upon ligand binding, it undergoes dimerization and phosphorylation at tyrosine residues in its intracellular domain, thus activating several important cellular signal transduction pathways, such as Ras-Raf-MAP-kinase, PI3-kinase-Akt, and PLC{gamma}-PKC pathways etc (reviewed in Ref. 8).

Epidermal growth factor receptor signaling contributes to bone metabolism by affecting both osteoblasts and osteoclasts. Although most EGFR-null mice die within the first postnatal week, surviving animals display craniofacial alterations and cleft palate (9). Overexpression of EGF-like ligands in mouse, such as betacellulin, EGF, and TGF{alpha}, all resulted in stunted growth (10–12). Histology studies revealed there is abnormal overproliferation of osteoblasts in EGF transgenic mice (12). On the other hand, mice humanized for the EGFR (the endogenous mouse EGFR gene was replaced by human EGFR cDNA) exhibit low EGFR activity in bone and display accelerated osteoblast differentiation (13). We have shown that amphiregulin-null mice displayed significantly less tibial trabecular bone than wild-type mice (14). Consistent with these in vivo results, in vitro cell culture experiments suggest that EGF and amphiregulin stimulate proliferation of preosteoblastic cells but inhibit their further differentiation into osteoblastic cells (14–17).

Beside these effects on osteoblasts, EGF and TGF{alpha} have the ability to strongly stimulate bone resorption in cultured fetal rat long bones, newborn mouse calvarial cultures, and long term human marrow culture (18–20), suggesting these growth factors participate in regulating osteoclastogenesis and bone resorption. A recent study of neonatal EGFR-null mice revealed that EGFR deficiency causes delayed primary ossification of the cartilage anlage and delayed osteoclast and osteoblast recruitment. Further studies have suggested that primary osteoclastic cultures express the EGFR (21). However, the detailed mechanism of how EGF-like ligands stimulate bone resorption is still largely unknown.

Bone is the preferred metastasis site for many cancer cells, such as breast, lung, and prostate cancers, etc. The metastasized tumors result in osteolytic lesions, osteoblastic lesions, or both. In all cases, especially in osteolytic lesions, the osteoclast formation and activity are greatly stimulated by tumor invasion. The prevailing view is that PTH-related protein (PTHrP), secreted by tumor cells, plays a major role in this process by acting on osteoblasts in bone to increase the expression of RANKL (reviewed in Ref. 22). The EGFR family plays indispensable roles in the pathogenesis of many human carcinomas. Many studies suggest that the majority of cancers express at least one, or in many cases coexpress, several EGF-like ligands. The autocrine loop consisting of tumor-derived EGF-like ligands and their overexpressed receptors on tumor cells are essential for tumor growth and progression (reviewed in Ref. 23). It raises the question of whether bone-metastasized tumors utilize EGF-like ligands to facilitate bone destruction by osteoclasts.

Here we report that EGF-like ligands strongly stimulate osteoclast formation in the coculture of osteoblastic cells and bone marrow macrophages (BMMs), the precursors for osteoclasts, by regulating the expression of OPG and MCP-1 in osteoblastic cells. Because coculture with bone metastatic breast cancer MDA-MB-231 cells had similar effects on the expression of OPG and MCP1 in the osteoblastic cells, and those effects could be partially abolished by EGFR inhibitor, we reason that EGF-like ligands, similar to PTHrP secreted by tumors cells, may contribute to osteolytic lesions in bone metastases.


   EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Chemicals—Recombinant human EGF, TGF{alpha}, HB-EGF, amphiregulin, heregulin were purchased from R&D Systems (Minneapolis, MN). PD153035 was obtained from Calbiochem. Murine secreted RANKL (sRANKL), M-CSF, human OPG, and neutralizing antibody against mouse MCP-1 were obtained from PeproTech (Rocky Hill, NJ). Human PTHrP and phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate (PMA) were purchased from Sigma. Antibodies against RANKL (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Santa Cruz, CA), EGFR, and beta-actin (Cell Signaling Technology, Danvers, MA) were used for immunoblotting experiments.

Cell Culture—MC3T3-E1 subclone 4 cells (24, 25) were maintained in growth medium ({alpha}MEM supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum plus 100 international units/ml penicillin and 100 µg/ml streptomycin). For experiments, MC3T3 cells were seeded in either growth medium or osteoblast differentiation medium (growth medium with 50 µg/ml L-ascorbic acid) at a density of 50,000 cells/cm2. Media were changed every 2 days. To obtain primary osteoclastic cultures, bone marrow cells were flushed out from femora and tibiae of a 1–2-month-old mouse, plated in coculture medium ({alpha}MEM supplemented with 10% heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum, 100 international units/ml penicillin, 100 µg/ml streptomycin, and 2 mML-glutamine) in a 100-mm dish, and incubated at 37 °C in 5% CO2 overnight. The next day, the nonadherent cells were pelleted and seeded at a density of 200,000 cells/cm2. These cells are considered as BMM, the osteoclast precursors, and cultured in the presence of sRANKL (30 ng/ml) and M-CSF (30 ng/ml) for 5 days with a medium change at day 3 to obtain mature osteoclasts. In the presence of M-CSF but not RANKL, these cells became preosteoclastic cells, which would further differentiate into mature osteoclastic cells after addition of RANKL. To obtain primary bone marrow osteoblastic cultures, bone marrow cells were flushed out from femora and tibiae of 1–2-month-old mice and plated at a density of 300,000 cells/cm2 in growth medium. Media were changed to differentiation medium on day 5 and every 2–3 days afterward. For coculture experiments of MC3T3 cells and osteoclasts, MC3T3 cells were seeded on day 0 in coculture medium plus 50 µg/ml L-ascorbic acid. On day 2, freshly isolated BMMs were seeded on top of MC3T3 cells with addition of sRANKL (30 ng/ml) to promote osteoclast formation. Media were changed 3 days later, and cells were either harvested for RNA or stained to detect TRAP-positive osteoclastic cells on day 7. For coculture experiments of primary osteoblastic cells and osteoclasts, primary osteoblastic cells were cultured as described above. On day 12, BMMs were seeded on top of primary osteoblastic cells along with sRANKL (10 ng/ml). TRAP staining was performed 2 and 4 days later with one medium change on day 14. Breast cancer cell line MDA-MB-231 was obtained from ATCC and maintained in coculture medium. To coculture MC3T3, MDA-MB-231, and BMM cells, MC3T3 and MDA-MB-231 cells were seeded at the same density of 50,000 cells/cm2 in coculture medium at day 0. Two days later, freshly isolated BMMs were seeded in the same well in the presence of sRANKL (30 ng/ml). TRAP staining was performed on day 7 with a medium change at day 5. The animal protocol was approved by Robert Wood Johnson Medical School Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee.

TRAP Staining—The osteoclast preparations were stained for TRAP activity using a leukocyte acid phosphatase kit from Sigma.


Figure 1
View larger version (54K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 1.
EGF-like ligands stimulate osteoclastogenesis in cocultures of osteoblasts and BMMs. A, TRAP staining of cocultures of MC3T3 cells and mouse BMMs. MC3T3 cells were cultured in differentiation medium with or without EGF-like ligands for 2 days. Then, BMMs harvested from mouse long bones were seeded on top of MC3T3 cells along with 30 ng/ml RANKL. Cells were stained for TRAP activity after 5 days with a medium change at day 3. The concentration of all EGF-ligands was 8 x 10–9 M in this report unless otherwise specified. White arrows point to TRAP-positive osteoclastic cells. AR, amphiregulin. B, real-time RT-PCR analyses of TRAP mRNA levels in the above cocultures after 5 days. C, TRAP staining of cocultures of primary bone marrow osteoblastic cells and BMMs. Bone marrow cells harvested from mouse long bones were cultured in osteoblastic differentiation medium for 12 days. Control- or TGF{alpha}-containing media were added from day 5, with media changes every 2 days. Then, BMMs were seeded on top of these osteoblastic cells with RANKL (10 ng/ml). Cells were stained for TRAP activity after another 2 or 4 days. D, densitometric quantitation of TRAP staining in C.

 
Real-time RT-PCR—Total RNA from cell cultures was isolated using Tri Reagent (Sigma). TaqMan® Reverse Transcription kit (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA) was used to reverse-transcribe mRNA into cDNA. Following this, PCR was performed on Opticon (MJ Research) using a SYBR® Green PCR Core kit (Applied Biosystems). The primers used for the RT-PCR are summarized in the supplemental Table S1. Mouse beta-actin was used as an internal control for mouse genes. In the coculture experiments of MC3T3 and MDA-MB-231 cells in the same well, mouse ATF4 was used as an internal control because its primers only detect the mouse gene and not the human homolog, and ATF4 expression was not regulated by EGF-like ligands (data not shown).

EGF Ligand Binding and Autoradiography—Cells were cultured in 24-well plates and incubated with 0.8 µl/well mouse 125I-EGF (80–120 µCi/µg, 50 µCi/ml, GE Healthcare) with or without 250-fold cold EGF in {alpha}MEM containing 1 mg/ml bovine serum albumin for 2 h at 37 °C. After washing twice with phosphate-buffered saline, cells were lysed in 0.5 M NaOH and counted in a gamma counter (1282 CompuGamma CS, LKB Wallac). Alternatively, cells were cultured in 4-well chamber slides. After 125I-EGF binding as described above, slides were fixed, dried, and dipped into NTB emulsion solution (Eastman Kodak Company). After 6 weeks of exposure, slides were developed to view the silver grains and counterstained with cresyl violet.

Mineral Dissolution Assay—Mouse BMMs were plated onto 16-well BD BioCoatTM OsteologicTM Discs (BD Biosciences, Franklin Lakes, NJ) seeded at a density of 200,000 cells/cm2 in coculture medium plus sRANKL (30 ng/ml) and M-CSF (30 ng/ml). Two days later, media were changed to 50% fresh coculture medium and 50% conditioned medium from either control or EGF-treated MC3T3 cells for 4 days plus sRANKL. Similar medium changes were performed every 2 days until day 8 for quantitation of resorption areas using SPOT Advanced software under microscopy.

ELISA—The OPG and TGF{alpha} protein levels in media were determined using the mouse OPG Quantikine ELISA kit and human TGF{alpha} Quantikine ELISA kit from R&D Systems.

Statistical Analysis—All results are expressed as means ± S.E. of triplicate measurements with all experiments being repeated at least three times. Statistical analyses were carried out using the Student's t test (Microsoft Excel 2002).


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
EGF-like Ligands Stimulate Osteoclastogenesis in Cocultures of Osteoblastic Cells and BMMs—To study the ability of osteoblasts to support osteoclast formation, we cocultured mouse BMMs with differentiating MC3T3-E1 subclone 4 cells. MC3T3 is a preosteoblastic cell line, which undergoes osteoblastic differentiation in the presence of L-ascorbic acid. However, there were almost no TRAP-positive osteoclastic cells formed in the coculture system even in the presence of exogenous RANKL (Fig. 1A, left panel). Interestingly, addition of EGF-like ligands, such as EGF, TGF{alpha}, HB-EGF, and amphiregulin, strongly stimulated formation of TRAP-positive osteoclastic cells in this coculture system (Fig. 1A, right four panels). Real-time RT-PCR experiments further demonstrated that there were about 28-fold and 39-fold increases in TRAP mRNA expression levels in the EGF and TGF{alpha}-treated cocultures, respectively (Fig. 1B).

To further confirm this phenomenon, we repeated this coculture experiment using mouse primary bone marrow osteoblastic cells instead of MC3T3 cells. In our hands, it takes about 2–3 weeks for the primary bone marrow osteoblastic cells to form bone nodules as shown by von Kossa staining and to abundantly express osteoblastic markers, such as osteocalcin, integrin-binding bone sialoprotein, and alkaline phosphatase (data not shown). In this experiment, the primary osteoblastic cells were treated with or without TGF{alpha} from day 5, and BMMs were added into the culture at day 12. Fig. 1, C and D show that there were significantly more TRAP-positive osteoclastic cells formed in the TGF{alpha}-treated coculture system than in the control coculture 2 or 4 days later. Other EGF-like ligands exhibited similar effects (data not shown).

The above results clearly indicate a dramatic increase in osteoclastogenesis in the osteoblast-osteoclast coculture system when EGF-like ligands are present. Note that exogenous RANKL is indispensable for this phenomenon because both MC3T3 cells (Fig. 5B) and primary osteoblastic cells (data not shown) express very low levels of endogenous RANKL and those levels are not sufficient to support osteoclast formation.


Figure 2
View larger version (46K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 2.
Osteoblasts, but not osteoclasts, express functional EGFR. A, 125I-EGF ligand binding experiments demonstrate that osteoclast precursor cell line RAW264.7, primary preosteoclasts, and primary mature osteoclasts did not specifically bind 125I-EGF. Saos2 and ROS17/2.8 cells were used as positive and negative controls, respectively. B, autoradiographic images of 125I-EGF binding to Saos2 cells, RAW264.7 cells, and primary mature osteoclasts. The tiny dots overlaying Saos2 cells are silver grains indicating the presence of specifically bound 125I-EGF. C, real-time RT-PCR analysis of EGFR mRNA expression in MC3T3 cells. EGFR mRNA amount at day 1 was set as 1. D, immunoblotting of EGFR protein in MC3T3 and osteoclasts. Each lane was loaded with equal amount of protein lysates (40µg). E, 125I-EGF ligand binding experiments with MC3T3 cells. In C, D, and E, MC3T3 cells were cultured for indicated periods in either growth medium or differentiation medium. AA, L-ascorbic acid.

 
EGF-like Ligands Do Not Have Direct Effects on Osteoclastic Cells—The effects of EGF-like ligands on the osteoblast and osteoclast coculture could be caused by two possibilities: 1) EGF-like ligands have direct effects on osteoclastic cells, or 2) these peptides have indirect effects on osteoclastic cells by acting through osteoblastic cells. To investigate the first possibility, we studied whether osteoclastic cells express functional EGF binding sites. A previous report suggested that primary osteoclastic cells express EGFR mRNA (21). Our RT-PCR analyses with either bone marrow primary osteoclastic cells or RAW264.7 cells, a preosteoclast cell line, also indicated the existence of EGFR mRNA albeit at low abundance (data not shown). However, EGFR protein cannot be detected by Western blot (Fig. 2D, last lane). To further clarify it, we used radioisotope-labeled ligand binding experiments to detect the existence of functional EGFR in osteoclasts. When cells were incubated with 125I-EGF ligand, we found no strong binding in RAW264.7 cells, primary preosteoclastic cells (obtained by culturing BMMs with M-CSF), or primary mature osteoclastic cells (obtained by culturing BMMs with both M-CSF and RANKL) (Fig. 2A). In addition, the presence of 250-fold unlabeled EGF did not further decrease the 125I-EGF binding with the above cells, suggesting the binding observed with these cells is most likely due to nonspecific binding. ROS17/2.8 cells, an EGFR-deficient osteoblastic osteosarcoma cell line, were used as a negative control. In contrast, 125I-EGF bound strongly to Saos2 cells, an EGFR-positive osteoblastic cell line, and this binding was dramatically decreased by 250-fold unlabeled EGF.

To further confirm that osteoclasts lack functional EGF binding sites, we performed 125I-EGF ligand binding experiments with cells cultured on chamber slides. After exposing cells to emulsion for 6 weeks, we observed abundant silver grains, indicators of 125I-EGF binding, in the Saos2 cells, but few or no silver grains over either RAW264.7 or mature osteoclastic cells (Fig. 2B).

In summary, the above results demonstrate that both pre- and mature osteoclastic cells exhibit very low levels of EGF binding sites, namely, EGFRs. Our further experiments showed that EGF-like ligand treatment had no effects on osteoclast formation (supplemental Fig. S1A) or osteoclast-specific gene expression, such as TRAP, NFAT2, and cathepsin K (supplemental Fig. S1B). Therefore, it seems unlikely that EGF-like ligands have direct effects on osteoclasts.


Figure 3
View larger version (49K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 3.
EGF stimulates osteoclastogenesis through regulating secreted factors from osteoblasts. Differentiating MC3T3 cells were treated with either control or EGF for 4 days with medium change at day 2. Then, conditioned media were collected from the above cultures and used for culturing BMMs with the addition of RANKL (30 ng/ml). The media were changed after 3 days with new conditioned media. On day 5, cells were stained for TRAP activity (A), and TRAP-positive osteoclast cell numbers were counted (B). C, similar experiment was performed with BMMs seeded on BioCoatTM OsteologicTM discs and resorbed mineral areas were measured on day 8. Representative images of resorption pits in osteologics (white areas) are shown. D, quantitation of resorption areas. *, p < 0.05 versus control.

 
In contrast, EGFR was readily detectable in MC3T3 cells at both mRNA and protein levels (Fig. 2, C and D). MC3T3 cells also strongly bound 125I-EGF, and this was specific because it was completely inhibited by addition of excess cold EGF (Fig. 2E). Interestingly, while real-time RT-PCR and Western blot experiments indicated that EGFR expression decreases in differentiating MC3T3 cells, binding assays suggest that differentiating cells bind comparable amounts of 125I-EGF as the proliferating cells do. Note that this result does not indicate that differentiating and proliferating MC3T3 cells express a similar number of EGFR per cell because Scatchard analyses are needed to calculate receptor number but it is very difficult to count cell numbers of differentiating osteoblasts due to abundant extracellular matrix in the culture.

One possibility for why osteoclasts do not bind 125I-EGF while MC3T3 cells do, is that osteoclasts might express much more EGF-like ligands and therefore have already saturated their EGFR sites. However, real-time RT-PCR showed both osteoclasts and MC3T3 cells express low and comparable amounts of EGF-like ligands (supplemental Fig. S2). Taken together, these results clearly demonstrate that MC3T3 cells, but not osteoclasts, express functional EGFR and therefore EGF-like ligands must have indirect effects on osteoclastic cells by acting through osteoblastic cells. The existence of functional EGFR in osteoblasts has been well documented in osteoblastic cell lines, such as UMR 106-01, primary osteoblastic cell cultures (26) and in vivo osteoblasts using in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry (27).

EGF-like Ligands Regulate the Expression of Secreted Osteoclast Regulatory Factors in Osteoblastic Cells—To study how EGF-like ligands regulate osteoclast formation indirectly, conditioned media were collected from either control or EGF-treated MC3T3 cells after 4 days of differentiation and were used to culture mouse BMMs for 5 days with one medium change on day 3. As shown in Fig. 3, A and B, multinucleated osteoclasts formed in control-treated conditioned medium were generally small and had less than 30 nuclei per cell. In contrast, osteoclasts formed in EGF-treated MC3T3-conditioned medium were much larger and many of them had more than 30 nuclei per cell. Mineral dissolution assay further indicates that osteoclasts cultured with EGF-treated conditioned medium resorbed about 5-fold more mineralized surface on osteologic discs than that cultured in control-treated conditioned medium (Fig. 3, C and D). Note that exogenous RANKL was required in this experiment because MC3T3 cells do not express sufficient RANKL and most RANKL molecules exist in a transmembrane form. This result clearly indicates that EGF regulates expression of certain secreted factor(s) in MC3T3 cells, and those factors have the ability to regulate osteoclastogenesis.

EGF-like Ligands Decrease OPG Expression and Increase MCP1 Expression but Have No Effect on RANKL Expression in Osteoblastic Cells—Many secreted factors are known to influence osteoclast formation, such as OPG, M-CSF, MCP1, and IL-6, etc. Next we studied whether EGF treatment regulates expression of those genes in MC3T3 cells. Using real-time RT-PCR, we measured the mRNA levels of OPG during MC3T3 cell differentiation in the absence or in the presence of EGF treatment. Addition of L-ascorbic acid strongly stimulates osteoblastic differentiation of MC3T3 cells and bone nodules are normally abundant in the culture after 8 days. Interestingly, we found differentiating MC3T3 cells expressed much more OPG mRNA than non-differentiating MC3T3, and EGF treatment completely abolished this increase. As shown in Fig. 4A, MC3T3 cells cultured in growth medium expressed similar levels of OPG during the 8 days of culture. In contrast, MC3T3 cells cultured in differentiation medium (growth medium plus L-ascorbic acid) expressed highest levels of OPG after 4 days (6.2-fold at day 4, 5.4-fold at day 6, 6.8-fold at day 8 comparing MC3T3 cells at day 2 in growth medium), and these increases in OPG levels were completely abolished by addition of EGF. These results were further confirmed by measuring OPG protein concentration in the culture medium by ELISA (Fig. 4B). While MC3T3 cells cultured in growth medium only secreted about 5–10 ng/ml OPG in the medium, osteoblastic MC3T3 cells secreted high amounts of OPG (135, 165, 150 ng/ml at days 4, 6, and 8, respectively) but EGF treatment strongly inhibited OPG production to 6, 18, and 19 ng/ml at days 4, 6, and 8, respectively. Apart from EGF, other EGF-like ligands, TGF{alpha}, HB-EGF, and amphiregulin, also exhibited similarly strong inhibitory effects on OPG production (Fig. 4C). Because OPG is a decoy receptor for RANKL, a decrease in OPG expression by EGF-like ligands will definitely lead to an increase in osteoclast formation. We also measured RANKL expression in differentiating MC3T3 cells. Real-time RT-PCR indicated RANKL was expressed at low levels (the relative mRNA abundance to beta-actin is about 6 x 10–6) and neither L-ascorbic acid nor TGF{alpha} treatment affected its expression (Fig. 5A). Western blotting did not reveal any RANKL protein in cell lysates of MC3T3 cells with or without TGF{alpha} treatment while the positive control did show RANKL protein (Fig. 5B). Therefore, the above results demonstrate that EGF-like ligands mainly regulate OPG, but not RANKL, expression in these osteoblastic cells. This is also consistent with our previous observation that EGF regulates osteoclastogenesis by regulating secreted factors from osteoblastic cells while RANKL is a transmembrane protein.


Figure 4
View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 4.
EGF-like ligands inhibit OPG production in MC3T3 cells. MC3T3 cells were cultured in growth medium, differentiation medium or differentiation medium with EGF-like ligands. Media were changed every 2 days with addition of EGF. A, time course of OPG mRNA levels was measured by real-time RT-PCR. The OPG mRNA level in cells cultured in growth medium on day 2 was set as 1. B, time course of medium OPG concentrations measured by ELISA. C, all EGF-like ligands greatly inhibit media OPG concentrations measured by ELISA on day 4.

 


Figure 5
View larger version (37K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 5.
RANKL expression is not stimulated by EGF-like ligands in MC3T3 cells. MC3T3 cells were cultured in growth medium or differentiation medium with or without TGF{alpha}. A, real-time RT-PCR analyses were performed with RNA harvested on indicated times to measure RANKL expression. The amount of RANKL expression in RNA harvested at day 2 in growth medium was set as 1. B, immunoblotting of RANKL protein expression in MC3T3. A1.1, a murine T cell hybridoma, was treated with anti-CD3 for 6 h and used as a positive control for RANKL protein (7). Each lane was loaded with equal amounts of protein (40 µg).

 
In addition to OPG, we also analyzed the mRNA levels of MCP1, M-CSF, and IL-6 in MC3T3 cells after EGF treatment using real-time RT-PCR. Fig. 6 shows that both MCP1 and M-CSF expression were increased by EGF treatment. MCP1 expression was increased about 2–3-fold during the whole culture period, and M-CSF expression was increased about 3–5-fold. We did not find EGF treatment altered IL-6 mRNA levels (data not shown).

To study whether OPG, MCP1, and M-CSF are target genes for EGF-like ligands in primary osteoblastic cells, we examined their expression in mouse bone marrow primary osteoblastic cultures. Treatment of differentiating primary osteoblastic cultures with EGF-like ligands dramatically inhibited OPG expression both at the mRNA (Fig. 7A) and protein (Fig. 7C) levels. Furthermore, EGF-like ligands also significantly increased MCP1 expression in primary osteoblastic cells (Fig. 7B). However, we found that these ligands had no effect on M-CSF expression (data not shown), indicating that up-regulation of M-CSF by EGF may not be a ubiquitous event.

EGF-like Ligands Regulate OPG and MCP1 Expression in an EGFR-dependent Manner—Four ErbB receptors can form either homodimers or heterodimers to transduce signaling. To test whether the EGFR is the main receptor involved in the regulation of OPG and MCP1 expression by EGF-like ligands, we added EGFR-specific tyrosine kinase inhibitor PD153035 in the medium before TGF{alpha} treatment of MC3T3 cells. As shown in Fig. 8, PD153035 completely abolished the effects of TGF{alpha} on OPG and MCP1 expression. Furthermore, heregulin, a peptide that activates ErbB3 and ErbB4 but not EGFR (8), had no effect on OPG and MCP1 expression in MC3T3 cells. These data suggest that regulation of OPG and MCP1 requires EGFR tyrosine kinase activity.


Figure 6
View larger version (10K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 6.
EGF stimulates MCP1 and M-CSF expression in MC3T3 cells. MC3T3 cells were cultured in differentiation medium with or without EGF. RNAs were harvested on days 2, 4, 6, and 8 and real-time RT-PCR analyses were performed to measure MCP1 and M-CSF expression. The ratios of EGF-treated versus control (con) at each time point are depicted.

 


Figure 7
View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 7.
EGF-like ligands inhibit OPG expression and stimulate MCP1 expression in primary osteoblastic cells. Mouse bone marrow primary osteoblastic cells were cultured in differentiation medium for 14 days. EGF-like ligands were added to the media from day 5. RNAs were harvested on day 14 and real-time RT-PCR analyses were performed to measure the OPG (A) and MCP1 (B) mRNA levels. The mRNA levels in the control-treated cells were set as 1. C, time course of medium OPG concentrations with or without TGF{alpha} treatment as measured by ELISA.

 
Regulation of Osteoclastogenesis by EGF-like Ligands Is Mainly through OPG and Partially through MCP1 Pathways—To investigate whether regulation of OPG and MCP1 expression in osteoblasts by EGF-like ligands results in stimulation of osteoclastogenesis in the coculture system, we blocked the OPG decrease by adding exogenous OPG or prevented MCP1 action by adding neutralizing anti-MCP1 antibody to the cocultures of MC3T3 and BMM cells. Similar to our previous results, EGF treatment greatly stimulated osteoclast formation in the coculture system, while there were almost no TRAP-positive cells in the absence of EGF (Fig. 9A). Addition of exogenous OPG completely eliminated EGF effects, resulting in no TRAP-positive cells formed. Note the concentration of OPG used in this experiment is 30 ng/ml, which is much lower than the medium OPG concentration in MC3T3 cells after 4 days of differentiation (140–170 ng/ml). In contrast, addition of neutralizing anti-MCP1 antibody in the coculture significantly decreased, but did not completely eliminate, the number of TRAP-positive cells in the coculture compared with the IgG control. Analyses of TRAP mRNA levels further confirmed the above observation (Fig. 9B). In summary, it seems that EGF stimulation of osteoclast formation in the coculture system is mainly through inhibiting OPG and partially through stimulating MCP1.


Figure 8
View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 8.
EGFR is required for regulation of OPG and MCP1 expression by EGF-like ligands. MC3T3 cells were cultured in the differentiation medium in the presence of TGF{alpha} or heregulin (Her) or PD153035 (10 µM) for 4 days with a medium change at day 2. Then RNAs were harvested, and real-time RT-PCR analyses were performed to measure the OPG (A) and MCP1 (B) mRNA levels. The mRNA levels in the control-treated cells were set as 1.

 


Figure 9
View larger version (12K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 9.
EGF stimulates osteoclastogenesis through regulating OPG and MCP1 pathways in osteoblastic cells. MC3T3 cells were cocultured with BMMs as described in Fig. 1 in the presence of the indicated factors. OPG, 30 ng/ml; rabbit IgG,10 µg/ml; rabbit anti-MCP1 neutralizing antibody,10 µg/ml; con, control. After 5 days of coculture, cells were stained for TRAP activity, and TRAP-positive cell numbers were counted (A). TRAP mRNA levels were also quantified using real-time RT-PCR (B).

 
EGFR Signaling Contributes to Regulation of OPG and MCP1 in MC3T3 Cells by MDA-MB-231 Cells—EGF-like ligands are expressed or overexpressed in most human tumors. Because osteolytic bone metastases strongly stimulate osteoclast formation, we reasoned that EGF-like ligands expressed by metastasizing tumor cells might contribute to this process by acting on osteoblasts and regulating their expression of OPG and MCP1 to stimulate osteoclast formation. To test this hypothesis, we studied the effects of coculturing MDA-MB-231 cells on the osteoclastogenesis stimulated by osteoblasts. We chose MDA-MB-231 cells because these breast cancer cells have strong bone metastatic osteolytic activity. Preliminary real-time RT-PCR revealed that these cells express high levels of TGF{alpha}, HB-EGF and amphiregulin mRNA but low levels of EGF and PTHrP mRNA (Fig. 10A). We also used ELISA to measure TGF{alpha} levels in the culture medium (Table 1). While conditioned medium from MDA-MB-231 cells contained TGF{alpha} (about 6 pg/ml), 4 h of PMA treatment caused release of cleaved transmembrane TGF{alpha} into the medium and increased its concentration to about 55 pg/ml, indicating the majority of TGF{alpha} exists in a transmembrane form. PMA was used previously for TGF{alpha} shedding (28) and itself had no effect on ELISA measurement (Table 1, conditioned medium +PMA) or TGF{alpha} mRNA expression (data not shown). Next, we cocultured MDA-MB-231, MC3T3, and BMMs in the same well. As shown in Fig. 10B, similar to TGF{alpha}, MDA-MB-231 cells stimulate TRAP-positive osteoclast formation. To study the underlying molecular mechanisms, we further investigated whether MDA-MB-231 cells regulate OPG and MCP1 expression in MC3T3 cells and whether this regulation is through the EGFR pathway. For this experiment, we cocultured MDA-MB-231 cells with MC3T3 cells for 2 days. Because MDA-MB-231 cells were derived from human cancer tissue and MC3T3 cells were derived from mouse tissue, we designed PCR primers that specifically detected mouse OPG and MCP1 but not human OPG and MCP1. Real-time RT-PCR revealed that the presence of MDA-MB-231 cells strongly inhibited mouse OPG expression (about 10-fold) and dramatically increased mouse MCP1 expression (about 50-fold) by MC3T3 cells (Fig. 10C). PD153035, a specific inhibitor of the EGFR tyrosine kinase, was added to the coculture medium to test whether this regulation is EGFR-dependent or not. This compound partially eliminated inhibition of OPG expression (92% decrease in OPG in the presence of Me2SO versus 80% decrease in the presence of PD153035, Fig. 10C). The stimulation of MCP1 expression was also significantly decreased by addition of PD153035 (about 50-fold increase in MCP1 in the presence of Me2SO versus 35-fold increase in the presence of PD153035, Fig. 10C). Note PD153035 itself has no effect on either EGF-like ligand production in MDA-MB-231 or OPG and MCP1 expression in MC3T3 cells (data not shown). These results imply the importance of EGFR signaling in mediating regulation of osteoclast regulatory factors in osteoblasts by breast cancer cells and also indicate that other unknown signaling pathways are involved.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 1
TGF{alpha} amount in MDA-MB-231-conditioned media measured by ELISA

 


Figure 10
View larger version (45K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 10.
EGFR signaling contributes to regulation of OPG and MCP1 expression in MC3T3 cells by MDA-MB-231 cells. A, mRNA levels of EGF-like ligands and PTHrP in MDA-MB-231 cells were quantitated by real-time RT-PCR. B, TRAP staining shows that MDA-MB-231 cells stimulate osteoclastogenesis in the cocultures of MC3T3 and BMMs in the presence of RANKL (30 ng/ml). Left panel, coculture of MC3T3 and BMMs. Middle panel, coculture of MC3T3 and BMMs in the presence of 10 ng/ml TGF{alpha}. Right panel, coculture of MC3T3, BMMs, and MDA-MB-231 cells. C, MDA-MB-231 cells inhibit OPG expression and increase MCP1 expression in MC3T3 cells partially through the EGFR pathway. MC3T3 and MDA-MB-231 cells were seeded at densities of 50,000 cells/cm2 and 25,000 cells/cm2, respectively, in the same well in the presence of Me2SO (DMSO, 0.1% v/v) or 10 µM PD153035. Two days later, RNAs were harvested to measure the mouse OPG and MCP1 mRNA expression using real-time RT-PCR. The mRNA level in Me2SO-treated MC3T3 cells in the absence of MDA-MB-231 cells was set as 1.

 

   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
In this report, we demonstrate that EGF-like ligands have the ability to strongly stimulate osteoclastogenesis by regulating OPG and MCP1 expression in osteoblastic cells in an EGFR-dependent manner. We also provide evidence that cancer cells that can metastasize to bone may utilize this EGFR signaling pathway to promote osteoclast formation. Therefore, these data suggest a novel mechanism for osteolytic lesions caused by cancer bone metastases. Because of a relatively large selection of EGFR antagonists available as pharmaceuticals, we think that this finding is particularly worthy of further investigation.

EGF and TGF{alpha} have long been recognized as bone resorption factors. In mouse neonatal calvarial cultures, EGF or TGF{alpha}-stimulated resorption is dependent on prostaglandin (PG) synthesis and is inhibited by indomethacin (20, 29). In contrast, in fetal long bone cultures, EGF or TGF{alpha}-stimulated resorption is not inhibited by indomethacin (29, 30). EGF has been shown to prominently enhance endogenous PGE2 synthesis in the parental cell line (MC3T3-E1) of the MC3T3-E1 subclone 4 used in this current study (31). The RANKL/OPG ratio is the ultimate determinant of osteoclastogenesis in bone. Like other bone resorption hormones and cytokines, such as 1,25(OH)2D3, PTH, and IL-11 etc, PGE2 regulates osteoclastogenesis through stimulation of RANKL and inhibition of OPG expression in osteoblast/stromal cells (32). Our data clearly demonstrate that EGF-like ligands dramatically decrease OPG production but have no apparent effect on RANKL expression in osteoblastic cells and hence result in stimulation of osteoclast formation. One possibility is that EGF down-regulates OPG through the PGE2 pathway.

In addition, our study also indicates that MCP1 partially mediates the osteoclastogenic effect of the EGF-like ligands. MCP1 was recently identified as an important factor acting directly on pre/osteoclasts to stimulate osteoclast formation and activity in the presence of RANKL (5). Moreover, MCP1 is a chemoattractant for pre/osteoclasts. Because RANKL is a transmembrane protein, this chemoattractant feature of MCP1 could be useful to attract osteoclast precursors to osteoblasts and to locate the resorption site. Interestingly, we found that the breast cancer cell line MDA-MB-231 is able to dramatically stimulate MCP1 expression about 50-fold in MC3T3 cells through both EGFR-dependent and -independent pathways, implying MCP1 might play an important role in mediating osteoclast activation in breast cancer bone metastases.

Bone is a common site for cancer metastasis, especially for breast cancer cells. PTHrP is considered to be the major cancersecreted factor that mediates the osteolytic lesions by stimulating RANKL expression in osteoblasts (22). In addition, another tumor-produced factor, IL-8, has been reported to be correlated with metastatic potential of cancer cell lines in vivo and its action is not through the RANKL/OPG pathway (33). A majority of solid neoplasms overexpress EGF-like ligands and their cognate receptors (23). The expression of TGF{alpha} has been demonstrated in all carcinoma types, with many tumors showing overexpression of this peptide as compared with normal tissue (34). In particular, 40–70% breast cancers, 60–100% lung cancers, 50–90% colon cancers, 55–100% ovarian cancers, 40–100% head and neck cancers have been found to express TGF{alpha} (23). It is worth noting that MDA-231 cells express much more EGF-like ligands than PTHrP at mRNA level (Fig. 10A). These facts, taken together with our data that EGF-like ligands stimulate osteoclastogenesis through osteoblastic cells, lead us to hypothesize that EGFR signaling contributes to osteolytic bone metastasis. Because we did not observe that RANKL expression is enhanced by EGF-like ligands, we consider the role of EGFR signaling as facilitating PTHrP action. Indeed, we find that cotreatment of osteoblastic cells with TGF{alpha} and PTHrP has additive or synergistic effects on decreasing OPG and increasing MCP1 expression (data not shown).

Interestingly, a recent report suggests a similar role for EGFR signaling in bone metastasis but with different mechanisms. In this report (35), it was found that gefitinib, an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, inhibited M-CSF and RANKL expression in two human mesenchymal stem cell-like cell lines, HDS-1 and -2. The discrepancy on RANKL expression may be caused by the different differentiation stages of the cells used in this report. HDS cells are more like mesenchymal stem cells and are able to differentiate into both adipocytes and osteoblasts. However, we performed our experiments in osteoblastic differentiating MC3T3 cells, which have undetectable levels of RANKL. Nevertheless, both reports suggest that EGFR signaling contributes to cancer cell-mediated osteolytic lesions through acting on osteoblasts.

EGFR signaling plays multiple roles in cancer pathogenesis. EGF-like ligands and their receptors are important to the growth and survival of tumor cells via paracrine and/or autocrine pathways. All these proteins exhibit transforming ability both in vivo and in vitro (23). A recent study demonstrated that EGFR signaling is involved in tumor invasive ability by crosstalk with the urokinase-type plasminogen activator (uPA)/uPA receptor (uPAR) system (36). EGFR signaling has also been shown to be involved in tumor angiogenesis (37, 38). Here, our results implicate another important role of EGFR signaling on bone metastasis. In addition to their indirect effects on osteoclastogenesis, EGF-like ligands may also have direct effects on osteoblastogenesis because they are potent inhibitors of osteoblast differentiation (14, 39). Dramatically decreased mature osteoblast number was recently recognized as a phenomenon associated with osteolytic lesions (40). Previous clinical studies mostly focused on the importance of EGFR signaling in tumor cells. Our studies highlight the role of EGFR signaling in osteoblasts and therefore suggest a novel mechanism for the application of anti-EGFR drugs in the treatment of bone metastasis of cancer cells.


   FOOTNOTES
 
* This work was supported in part by National Institutes of Health Grant K01DK071988 (to L. Q.), the National Osteoporosis Foundation (to L. Q.), and a New Jersey Stem Cell Research grant (to L. Q.). 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

Formula The on-line version of this article (available at http://www.jbc.org) contains supplemental Table S1 and Figs. S1 and S2. Back

1 To whom correspondence should be addressed: Dept. of Physiology and Biophysics, UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, 675 Hoes Lane, Piscataway, NJ 08854. Tel.: 732-235-2821; Fax: 732-235-5038; E-mail: qinl1{at}umdnj.edu.

2 The abbreviations used are: RANKL, receptor activator of nuclear factor-{kappa}B ligand;EGF,epidermalgrowthfactor;HB-EGF,heparinbinding-EGF;EGFR,EGF receptor; OPG, osteoprotegerin; M-CSF, macrophage colony-stimulating factor; MCP1, monocyte chemoattractant protein 1; PI 3-kinase, phosphoinositide 3-kinase; PMA, phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate; ELISA, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; BMM, bone marrow macrophages; TGF, transforming growth factor; TRAP, tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase. Back

3 Xin, L., Qin, L., Bergenstock, M., Bevelock, L. M., Novack, D. V., and Partridge, N. C. (2007) J. Biol. Chem., in press. Back


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We thank Dr. Eric Richfield at UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School for help with autoradiography. We thank Liying Zhang at UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School for providing cell lysates of A1.1 cells treated with anti-CD3.



   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Kong, Y. Y., Yoshida, H., Sarosi, I., Tan, H. L., Timms, E., Capparelli, C., Morony, S., Oliveira-dos-Santos, A. J., Van, G., Itie, A., Khoo, W., Wake-ham, A., Dunstan, C. R., Lacey, D. L., Mak, T. W., Boyle, W. J., and Penninger, J. M. (1999) Nature 397, 315–323[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  2. 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]
  3. Simonet, W. S., Lacey, D. L., Dunstan, C. R., Kelley, M., Chang, M. S., Luthy, R., Nguyen, H. Q., Wooden, S., Bennett, L., Boone, T., Shimamoto, G., DeRose, M., Elliott, R., Colombero, A., Tan, H. L., Trail, G., Sullivan, J., Davy, E., Bucay, N., Renshaw-Gegg, L., Hughes, T. M., Hill, D., Pattison, W., Campbell, P., Sander, S., Van, G., Tarpley, J., Derby, P., Lee, R., and Boyle, W. J. (1997) Cell 89, 309–319[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  4. Ross, F. P. (2006) Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1068, 110–116[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  5. Kim, M. S., Day, C. J., and Morrison, N. A. (2005) J. Biol. Chem. 280, 16163–16169[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Kim, M. S., Day, C. J., Selinger, C. I., Magno, C. L., Stephens, S. R., and Morrison, N. A. (2006) J. Biol. Chem. 281, 1274–1285[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Wang, R., Zhang, L., Zhang, X., Moreno, J., Celluzzi, C., Tondravi, M., and Shi, Y. (2002) Eur. J. Immunol. 32, 1090–1098[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  8. Yarden, Y. (2001) Eur. J. Cancer 37, S3–8
  9. Miettinen, P. J., Chin, J. R., Shum, L., Slavkin, H. C., Shuler, C. F., Derynck, R., and Werb, Z. (1999) Nat. Genet. 22, 69–73[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  10. Sandgren, E. P., Luetteke, N. C., Qiu, T. H., Palmiter, R. D., Brinster, R. L., and Lee, D. C. (1993) Mol. Cell. Biol. 13, 320–330[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Schneider, M. R., Dahlhoff, M., Herbach, N., Renner-Mueller, I., Dalke, C., Puk, O., Graw, J., Wanke, R., and Wolf, E. (2005) Endocrinology 146, 5237–5246[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Chan, S. Y., and Wong, R. W. (2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275, 38693–38698[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Sibilia, M., Wagner, B., Hoebertz, A., Elliott, C., Marino, S., Jochum, W., and Wagner, E. F. (2003) Development 130, 4515–4525[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Qin, L., Tamasi, J., Raggatt, L., Li, X., Feyen, J. H., Lee, D. C., DiciccoBloom, E., and Partridge, N. C. (2005) J. Biol. Chem. 280, 3974–3981[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Hata, R., Hori, H., Nagai, Y., Tanaka, S., Kondo, M., Hiramatsu, M., Utsumi, N., and Kumegawa, M. (1984) Endocrinology 115, 867–876[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Kumegawa, M., Hiramatsu, M., Hatakeyama, K., Yajima, T., Kodama, H., Osaki, T., and Kurisu, K. (1983) Calcif. Tissue Int. 35, 542–548[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  17. Ng, K. W., Partridge, N. C., Niall, M., and Martin, T. J. (1983) Calcif. Tissue Int. 35, 624–628[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  18. Lorenzo, J. A., Quinton, J., Sousa, S., and Raisz, L. G. (1986) J. Clin. Investig. 77, 1897–1902[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  19. Takahashi, N., MacDonald, B. R., Hon, J., Winkler, M. E., Derynck, R., Mundy, G. R., and Roodman, G. D. (1986) J. Clin. Investig. 78, 894–898[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  20. Ibbotson, K. J., Harrod, J., Gowen, M., D'Souza, S., Smith, D. D., Winkler, M. E., Derynck, R., and Mundy, G. R. (1986) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 83, 2228–2232[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Wang, K., Yamamoto, H., Chin, J. R., Werb, Z., and Vu, T. H. (2004) J. Biol. Chem. 279, 53848–53856[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Kozlow, W., and Guise, T. A. (2005) J. Mammary Gland Biol. Neoplasia 10, 169–180[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  23. Normanno, N., Bianco, C., Strizzi, L., Mancino, M., Maiello, M. R., De Luca, A., Caponigro, F., and Salomon, D. S. (2005) Curr. Drug Targets 6, 243–257[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  24. Wang, D., Christensen, K., Chawla, K., Xiao, G., Krebsbach, P. H., and Franceschi, R. T. (1999) J. Bone Miner Res. 14, 893–903[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  25. Xiao, G., Cui, Y., Ducy, P., Karsenty, G., and Franceschi, R. T. (1997) Mol. Endocrinol. 11, 1103–1113[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Ng, K. W., Partridge, N. C., Niall, M., and Martin, T. J. (1983) Calcif, Tissue Int. 35, 298–303[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  27. Davideau, J. L., Sahlberg, C., Thesleff, I., and Berdal, A. (1995) Connect. Tissue Res. 32, 47–53[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  28. Pandiella, A., and Massague, J. (1991) J. Biol. Chem. 266, 5769–5773[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Stern, P. H., Krieger, N. S., Nissenson, R. A., Williams, R. D., Winkler, M. E., Derynck, R., and Strewler, G. J. (1985) J. Clin. Investig. 76, 2016–2019[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  30. Raisz, L. G., Simmons, H. A., Sandberg, A. L., and Canalis, E. (1980) Endocrinology 107, 270–273[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Yokota, K., Kusaka, M., Ohshima, T., Yamamoto, S., Kurihara, N., Yoshino, T., and Kumegawa, M. (1986) J. Biol. Chem. 261, 15410–15415[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  32. Aubin, J. E., and Bonnelye, E. (2000) Osteoporos Int. 11, 905–913[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  33. Bendre, M. S., Margulies, A. G., Walser, B., Akel, N. S., Bhattacharrya, S., Skinner, R. A., Swain, F., Ramani, V., Mohammad, K. S., Wessner, L. L., Martinez, A., Guise, T. A., Chirgwin, J. M., Gaddy, D., and Suva, L. J. (2005) Cancer Res. 65, 11001–11009[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  34. Salomon, D. S., Brandt, R., Ciardiello, F., and Normanno, N. (1995) Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol. 19, 183–232[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  35. Normanno, N., De Luca, A., Aldinucci, D., Maiello, M. R., Mancino, M., D'Antonio, A., De Filippi, R., and Pinto, A. (2005) Endocr. Relat. Cancer 12, 471–482[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. Angelucci, A., Gravina, G. L., Rucci, N., Millimaggi, D., Festuccia, C., Muzi, P., Teti, A., Vicentini, C., and Bologna, M. (2006) Endocr. Relat. Cancer 13, 197–210[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  37. Hirata, A., Ogawa, S., Kometani, T., Kuwano, T., Naito, S., Kuwano, M., and Ono, M. (2002) Cancer Res. 62, 2554–2560[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  38. Younes, M. N., Yigitbasi, O. G., Park, Y. W., Kim, S. J., Jasser, S. A., Hawthorne, V. S., Yazici, Y. D., Mandal, M., Bekele, B. N., Bucana, C. D., Fidler, I. J., and Myers, J. N. (2005) Cancer Res. 65, 4716–4727[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  39. Krampera, M., Pasini, A., Rigo, A., Scupoli, M. T., Tecchio, C., Malpeli, G., Scarpa, A., Dazzi, F., Pizzolo, G., and Vinante, F. (2005) Blood 106, 59–66[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  40. Phadke, P. A., Mercer, R. R., Harms, J. F., Jia, Y., Frost, A. R., Jewell, J. L., Bussard, K. M., Nelson, S., Moore, C., Kappes, J. C., Gay, C. V., Mastro, A. M., and Welch, D. R. (2006) Clin. Cancer Res. 12, 1431–1440[Abstract/Free Full Text]

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
 JBJSHome page
T. A. Guise, R. O'Keefe, R. L. Randall, and R. M. Terek
Molecular Biology and Therapeutics in Musculoskeletal Oncology
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., March 1, 2009; 91(3): 724 - 732.
[Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplemental Data
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
282/37/26656    most recent
M705064200v1
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 Zhu, J.
Right arrow Articles by Qin, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Zhu, J.
Right arrow Articles by Qin, L.
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 © 2007 by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
Advertisement
spacer
Advertisement
Advertisement