4.8 Article

Effect of a CCR1 receptor antagonist on systemic trafficking of MSCs and polyethylene particle-associated bone loss

期刊

BIOMATERIALS
卷 33, 期 14, 页码 3632-3638

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.02.003

关键词

Arthroplasty; Wear debris; CCR1 receptor; Mesenchymal stem cells chemotaxis; Osteolysis

资金

  1. Ellenburg Chair in Surgery at Stanford University
  2. National Institute of Health [1R01AR055650-8 04]
  3. French Granting Agency

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Particle-associated periprosthetic osteolysis remains a major issue in joint replacement. Ongoing bone loss resulting from wear particle-induced inflammation is accompanied by continued attempts at bone repair. Previously we showed that mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are recruited systemically to bone exposed to continuous infusion of ultra high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) particles. The chemokine-receptor axis that mediates this process is unknown. We tested two hypotheses: (1) the CCR1 receptor mediates the systemic recruitment of MSCs to UHMWPE particles and (2) recruited MSCs are able to differentiate into functional mature osteoblasts and decrease particle-associated bone loss. Nude mice were allocated randomly to four groups. UHMWPE particles were continuously infused into the femoral shaft using a micro-pump. Genetically modified murine wild type reporter MSCs were injected systemically via the left ventricle. Non-invasive imaging was used to assay MSC migration and bone mineral density. Bioluminescence and immunohistochemistry confirmed the chemotaxis of reporter cells and their differentiation into mature osteoblasts in the presence of infused particles. Injection of a CCR1 antagonist decreased reporter cell recruitment to the UHMWPE particle infusion site and increased osteolysis. CCR1 appears to be a critical receptor for chemotaxis of MSCs in the presence of UHMWPE particles. Interference with CCR1 exacerbates particle-induced bone loss. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据