-
Osteoarthritis and Cartilage Mar 2007Osteophytes are common features of osteoarthritis. This review summarizes the current understanding of the clinical relevance and biology of osteophytes. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Osteophytes are common features of osteoarthritis. This review summarizes the current understanding of the clinical relevance and biology of osteophytes.
METHOD
This review summarizes peer-reviewed articles published in the PubMed database before May 2006. In addition this review is supplemented with own data and theoretical considerations with regard to osteophyte formation.
RESULTS
Osteophytes can contribute both to the functional properties of affected joints and to clinical relevant symptoms. Osteophyte formation is highly associated with cartilage damage but osteophytes can develop without explicit cartilage damage. Osteophytes are mainly derived from precursor cells in the periosteum and growth factors of the TGFbeta superfamily appear to play a crucial role in their induction.
CONCLUSION
Osteophyte formation is an integral component of OA pathogenesis and understanding the biology of osteophyte formation can give insights in the disturbed homeostasis in OA joints.
Topics: Animals; Cartilage, Articular; Mice; Osteoarthritis; Periosteum; Transforming Growth Factor beta
PubMed: 17204437
DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2006.11.006 -
Journal of Cellular Physiology May 2017Five to ten percent of fractures fail to heal normally leading to additional surgery, morbidity, and altered quality of life. Fracture healing involves the coordinated... (Review)
Review
Five to ten percent of fractures fail to heal normally leading to additional surgery, morbidity, and altered quality of life. Fracture healing involves the coordinated action of stem cells primarily coming from the periosteum which differentiate into the chondrocytes and osteoblasts, forming first the soft (cartilage) callus followed by the hard (bone) callus. These stem cells are accompanied by a vascular invasion that appears critical for the differentiation process and which may enable the entry of osteoclasts necessary for the remodeling of the callus into mature bone. However, more research is needed to clarify the signaling events that activate the osteochondroprogenitor cells of periosteum and stimulate their differentiation into chondrocytes and osteoblasts. Ultimately a thorough understanding of the mechanisms for differential regulation of these osteochondroprogenitors will aid in the treatment of bone healing and the prevention of delayed union and nonunion of fractures. In this review, evidence supporting the concept that the periosteal cells are the major cell sources of skeletal progenitors for the fracture callus will be discussed. The osteogenic differentiation of periosteal cells manipulated by Wnt/β-catenin, TGF/BMP, Ihh/PTHrP, and IGF-1/PI3K-Akt signaling in fracture repair will be examined. The effect of physical (hypoxia and hyperoxia) and chemical factors (reactive oxygen species) as well as the potential coordinated regulatory mechanisms in the periosteal progenitor cells promoting osteogenic differentiation will also be discussed. Understanding the regulation of periosteal osteochondroprogenitors during fracture healing could provide insight into possible therapeutic targets and thereby help to enhance future fracture healing and bone tissue engineering approaches. J. Cell. Physiol. 232: 913-921, 2017. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Topics: Animals; Cell Differentiation; Fracture Healing; Humans; Models, Biological; Osteogenesis; Periosteum; Signal Transduction
PubMed: 27731505
DOI: 10.1002/jcp.25641 -
Developmental Cell May 2024Bone is regarded as one of few tissues that heals without fibrous scar. The outer layer of the periosteum is covered with fibrous tissue, whose function in bone...
Bone is regarded as one of few tissues that heals without fibrous scar. The outer layer of the periosteum is covered with fibrous tissue, whose function in bone formation is unknown. We herein developed a system to distinguish the fate of fibrous-layer periosteal cells (FL-PCs) from the skeletal stem/progenitor cells (SSPCs) in the cambium-layer periosteum and bone marrow in mice. We showed that FL-PCs did not participate in steady-state osteogenesis, but formed the main body of fibrocartilaginous callus during fracture healing. Moreover, FL-PCs invaded the cambium-layer periosteum and bone marrow after fracture, forming neo-SSPCs that continued to maintain the healed bones throughout adulthood. The FL-PC-derived neo-SSPCs expressed lower levels of osteogenic signature genes and displayed lower osteogenic differentiation activity than the preexisting SSPCs. Consistent with this, healed bones were thinner and formed more slowly than normal bones. Thus, the fibrous periosteum becomes the cellular origin of bones after fracture and alters bone properties permanently.
Topics: Animals; Periosteum; Mice; Osteogenesis; Fracture Healing; Cell Differentiation; Fractures, Bone; Stem Cells; Mice, Inbred C57BL; Bony Callus; Male
PubMed: 38554700
DOI: 10.1016/j.devcel.2024.03.019 -
BioMed Research International 2016The treatment of bone defects is challenging and controversial. As a new technology, periosteal distraction osteogenesis (PDO) uses the osteogenicity of periosteum,... (Review)
Review
The treatment of bone defects is challenging and controversial. As a new technology, periosteal distraction osteogenesis (PDO) uses the osteogenicity of periosteum, which creates an artificial space between the bone surface and periosteum to generate new bone by gradually expanding the periosteum with no need for corticotomy. Using the newly formed bone of PDO to treat bone defects is effective, which can not only avoid the occurrence of immune-related complications, but also solve the problem of insufficient donor. This review elucidates the availability of PDO in the aspects of mechanisms, devices, strategies, and measures. Moreover, we also focus on the future prospects of PDO and hope that PDO will be applied to the clinical treatment of bone defects in the future.
Topics: Animals; Bone Regeneration; Humans; Mandible; Osteogenesis, Distraction; Periosteum; Rabbits; Rats
PubMed: 28078283
DOI: 10.1155/2016/2075317 -
Cells, Tissues, Organs 2011This study was undertaken to determine whether periosteum from different bone sources in a donor results in the same formation of bone and cartilage. In this case,...
This study was undertaken to determine whether periosteum from different bone sources in a donor results in the same formation of bone and cartilage. In this case, periosteum obtained from the cranium and mandible (examples of tissue supporting intramembranous ossification) and the radius and ilium (examples of tissues supporting endochondral ossification) of individual calves was used to produce tissue-engineered constructs that were implanted in nude mice and then retrieved after 10 and 20 weeks. Specimens were compared in terms of their osteogenic and chondrogenic potential by radiography, histology, and gene expression levels. By 10 weeks of implantation and more so by 20 weeks, constructs with cranial periosteum had developed to the greatest extent, followed in order by ilium, radius, and mandible periosteum. All constructs, particularly with cranial tissue although minimally with mandibular periosteum, had mineralized by 10 weeks on radiography and stained for proteoglycans with safranin-O red (cranial tissue most intensely and mandibular tissue least intensely). Gene expression of type I collagen, type II collagen, runx2, and bone sialoprotein (BSP) was detectable on QRT-PCR for all specimens at 10 and 20 weeks. By 20 weeks, the relative gene levels were: type I collagen, ilium >> radial ≥ cranial ≥ mandibular; type II collagen, radial > ilium > cranial ≥ mandibular; runx2, cranial >>> radial > mandibular ≥ ilium; and BSP, ilium ≥ radial > cranial > mandibular. These data demonstrate that the osteogenic and chondrogenic capacity of the various constructs is not identical and depends on the periosteal source regardless of intramembranous or endochondral ossification. Based on these results, cranial and mandibular periosteal tissues appear to enhance bone formation most and least prominently, respectively. The appropriate periosteal choice for bone and cartilage tissue engineering and regeneration should be a function of its immediate application as well as other factors besides growth rate.
Topics: Animals; Bone Regeneration; Cartilage; Cattle; Collagen Type I; Collagen Type II; Core Binding Factor Alpha 1 Subunit; Gene Expression Regulation; Integrin-Binding Sialoprotein; Mice; Mice, Nude; Periosteum; Prosthesis Implantation; Radiography; Tissue Engineering; Tissue Scaffolds
PubMed: 21597269
DOI: 10.1159/000324642 -
PloS One 2022Segmental bone defects present complex clinical challenges. Nonunion, malunion, and infection are common sequalae of autogenous bone grafts, allografts, and synthetic...
Segmental bone defects present complex clinical challenges. Nonunion, malunion, and infection are common sequalae of autogenous bone grafts, allografts, and synthetic bone implants due to poor incorporation with the patient's bone. The current project explores the osteogenic properties of periosteum to facilitate graft incorporation. As tissue area is a natural limitation of autografting, mechanical strain was implemented to expand the periosteum. Freshly harvested, porcine periosteum was strained at 5 and 10% per day for 10 days with non-strained and free-floating samples serving as controls. Total tissue size, viability and histologic examination revealed that strain increased area to a maximum of 1.6-fold in the 10% daily strain. No change in tissue anatomy or viability via MTT or Ki67 staining and quantification was observed among groups. The osteogenic potential of the mechanical expanded periosteum was then examined in vivo. Human cancellous allografts were wrapped with 10% per day strained, fresh, free-floating, or no porcine periosteum and implanted subcutaneously into female, athymic mice. Tissue was collected at 8- and 16-weeks. Gene expression analysis revealed a significant increase in alkaline phosphatase and osteocalcin in the fresh periosteum group at 8-weeks post implantation compared to all other groups. Values among all groups were similar at week 16. Additionally, histological assessment with H&E and Masson-Goldner Trichrome staining showed that all periosteal groups outperformed the non-periosteal allograft, with fresh periosteum demonstrating the highest levels of new tissue mineralization at the periosteum-bone interface. Overall, mechanical expansion of the periosteum can provide increased area for segmental healing via autograft strategies, though further studies are needed to explore culture methodology to optimize osteogenic potential.
Topics: Mice; Female; Humans; Animals; Swine; Periosteum; Osteogenesis; Transplantation, Homologous; Transplantation, Autologous; Bone Transplantation
PubMed: 36584151
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279519 -
Stem Cells Translational Medicine Jun 2012Elucidation of the periosteum and its regenerative potential has become a hot topic in orthopedics. Yet few review articles address the unique features of... (Review)
Review
Elucidation of the periosteum and its regenerative potential has become a hot topic in orthopedics. Yet few review articles address the unique features of periosteum-derived cells, particularly in light of translational therapies and engineering solutions inspired by the periosteum's remarkable regenerative capacity. This review strives to define periosteum-derived cells in light of cumulative research in the field; in addition, it addresses clinical translation of current insights, hurdles to advancement, and open questions in the field. First, we examine the periosteal niche and its inhabitant cells and the key characteristics of these cells in the context of mesenchymal stem cells and their relevance for clinical translation. We compare periosteum-derived cells with those derived from the marrow niche in in vivo studies, addressing commonalities as well as features unique to periosteum cells that make them potentially ideal candidates for clinical application. Thereafter, we review the differentiation and tissue-building properties of periosteum cells in vitro, evaluating their efficacy in comparison with marrow-derived cells. Finally, we address a new concept of banking periosteum and periosteum-derived cells as a novel alternative to currently available autogenic umbilical blood and perinatal tissue sources of stem cells for today's population of aging adults who were "born too early" to bank their own perinatal tissues. Elucidating similarities and differences inherent to multipotent cells from distinct tissue niches and their differentiation and tissue regeneration capacities will facilitate the use of such cells and their translation to regenerative medicine.
Topics: Biomarkers; Bone Marrow Cells; Cell Differentiation; Cell Proliferation; Cell Shape; Chondrogenesis; Humans; Osteogenesis; Periosteum; Regeneration; Regenerative Medicine; Stem Cells; Tissue Banks; Tissue Engineering
PubMed: 23197852
DOI: 10.5966/sctm.2011-0056 -
Anatomical Record (Hoboken, N.J. : 2007) Dec 2016In addition to conveying the forces of attaching muscles and ligaments to the zygomatic and temporal bones, the arch periosteum is responsible for lateral apposition and...
In addition to conveying the forces of attaching muscles and ligaments to the zygomatic and temporal bones, the arch periosteum is responsible for lateral apposition and medial resorption during the growth period. In this contribution, we describe the vasculature of the zygomatic arch in young pigs (Sus scrofa dom.) in order to understand the relationship of osseous and periosteal vessels to each other, to surrounding tissues, and to patterns of modeling. Subjects 2-6 weeks of age were perfused with vascular fill; some also received the vital bone label calcein. Whole mounts were prepared of the decalcified bony arch and of its lateral periosteum. Undecalcified arches were plastic-embedded and thick-sectioned. Additional observations on cell replication were made using material from a previous study. The osseous and periosteal vascular supplies were largely independent, joined only by a fine network at the tissue interface. Osseous vessels entered the medial side of the arch through clusters of nutrient foramina. The intraosseous branching pattern resembled the direction of appositional growth, which in turn describes the disposition of bony trabeculae in older pigs. In contrast, vessels arrived at the periosteum via muscles and ligaments and thus its perfusion may partially depend on functional activity. The open weave of periosteal vessels bore little similarity to bone architecture, especially for the temporal bone, but the appositional lateral periosteum showed indications of angiogenesis, whereas the thinner, resorptive periosteum on the medial side featured composite, possibly fusing vessels at the bone surface. Anat Rec, 299:1661-1670, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Topics: Animals; Neovascularization, Physiologic; Periosteum; Sus scrofa; Zygoma
PubMed: 27870350
DOI: 10.1002/ar.23482 -
Current Osteoporosis Reports Aug 2018The identity and functional roles of stem cell population(s) that contribute to fracture repair remains unclear. This review provides a brief history of mesenchymal stem... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
The identity and functional roles of stem cell population(s) that contribute to fracture repair remains unclear. This review provides a brief history of mesenchymal stem cell (MSCs) and provides an updated view of the many stem/progenitor cell populations contributing to fracture repair.
RECENT FINDINGS
Functional studies show MSCs are not the multipotential stem cell population that form cartilage and bone during fracture repair. Rather, multiple studies have confirmed the periosteum is the primary source of stem/progenitor cells for fracture repair. Newer work is also identifying other stem/progenitor cells that may also contribute to healing. Although the heterogenous periosteal cells migrate to the fracture site and contribute directly to callus formation, other cell populations are involved. Pericytes and bone marrow stromal cells are now thought of as key secretory centers that mostly coordinate the repair process. Other populations of stem/progenitor cells from the muscle and transdifferentiated chondroctyes may also contribute to repair, and their functional role is an area of active research.
Topics: Bone and Bones; Bony Callus; Cartilage; Chondrocytes; Fracture Healing; Humans; Mesenchymal Stem Cells; Muscle, Skeletal; Pericytes; Periosteum; Stem Cells
PubMed: 29959723
DOI: 10.1007/s11914-018-0458-4 -
Aging Feb 2020
Topics: Animals; Bone Diseases; Humans; Mesenchymal Stem Cells; Periosteum
PubMed: 32090980
DOI: 10.18632/aging.102869