Osteocytes: a proposed multifunctional bone cell.

University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
Journal of musculoskeletal & neuronal interactions (Impact Factor: 2.45). 04/2002; 2(3):239-41.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Most cell types are ascribed a single function. The osteoclast holds the unique distinction of performing only one function in the body - that of resorbing bone. The osteoblast has been ascribed the major function of bone matrix production. Other less well-defined cell types include progenitor cells and the nebulous cell type that can support osteoclast formation upon stimulation with various bone resorbing cytokines. Obviously, these cells could have other functions. The definition of an osteocyte is descriptive of its location - cells surrounded by mineralized matrix - not its function. For this year's Sun Valley Workshop on osteocytes, several proposed functions will be presented. First, a general consensus exists that osteocytes are most likely sensitive to mechanotransduction and translate mechanical strain into biochemical signals. Consensus does not exist on the nature of the mechanical strain, the form of the biochemical signals, the target cell(s), or the viability status of the osteocyte. Second, it is also proposed that this cell is incredibly adaptable and expresses plasticity in response to mechanical stimuli. In other words, this cell can readjust its responses to strain in the presence of other bone agents such as hormones and bone factors. Third, it will also be presented that osteocytes maintain systemic mineral homeostasis by regulating mineral release and deposition over the enormous surface area over which these cells interface with the surrounding matrix. Although osteocytes are terminally differentiated osteoblasts, they appear to have separate and distinct properties from their predecessors. Bone cell biologists loaded with an arsenal of bone anabolic and catabolic factors are examining the expression and effects of these factors on osteocytes. Engineers trained in mathematical modeling have generated new models of strain and connectivity to be tested. The unique morphology of osteocytes suggests that the cytoskeleton in these cells may function differently from osteoblasts and other cell types. Osteocytes may consist of different subpopulations; some that possess receptors for parathyroid hormone (PTH) and others that only express receptors for carboxyl terminal PTH suggesting different functions and responses. Osteocytes may respond rapidly to strain through glutamate receptor-like mechanisms, through calcium influxes, through gap junctions, and less rapidly through the production of small molecules and factors. Strain may take the form of substrate stretching and/or fluid flow. Osteocytes may communicate with other osteocytes and/or bone surface cells such as lining cells, stromal cells, osteoblasts, and/or osteoclasts and their precursors. The viability status of the osteocyte may determine the type of signals sent from these cells. If the cells are deprived of oxygen or nutrients, the apoptotic cells may send signals for initiation of resorption. If the cells and/or their dendritic process are ripped or torn by microdamage, they may send signals of both resorption and formation. If the majority of these theories are correct, then the osteocyte is the 'smart' cell that can direct or orchestrate the bone resorbing and bone forming cells even in its death and dying.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Osteoporosis is characterised by low bone mass and structural deterioration of bone tissue, resulting in increased fragility and susceptibility to fracture. Osteoporotic fractures are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. Direct medical costs from such fractures in the UK are currently estimated at over two billion pounds per year, resulting in a substantial healthcare burden that is expected to rise exponentially due to increasing life expectancy. Currently bone mineral density is the WHO standard for diagnosis of osteoporosis, but poor sensitivity means that potential fractures will be missed if it is used alone. During the past decade considerable progress has been made in the identification and characterisation of specific biomarkers to aid the management of metabolic bone disease. Technological developments have greatly enhanced assay performance producing reliable, rapid, non-invasive cost effective assays with improved sensitivity and specificity. We now have a greater understanding of the need to regulate pre-analytical sample collection to minimise the effects of biological variation. However, bone turnover markers (BTMs) still have limited clinical utility. It is not routinely recommended to use BTMs to select those at risk of fractures, but baseline measurements of resorption markers are useful before commencement of anti-resorptive treatment and can be checked 3--6 months later to monitor response and adherence to treatment. Similarly, formation markers can be used to monitor bone forming agents. BTMs may also be useful when monitoring patients during treatment holidays and aid in the decision as to when therapy should be recommenced. Recent recommendations by the Bone Marker Standards Working Group propose to standardise research and include a specific marker of bone resorption (CTX) and bone formation (P1NP) in all future studies. It is hoped that improved research in turn will lead to optimised markers for the clinical management of osteoporosis and other bone diseases.
    Journal of Translational Medicine 08/2013; 11(1):201. · 3.46 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PHEX or DMP1 mutations cause hypophosphatemic-rickets and altered energy metabolism. PHEX binds to DMP1-ASARM-motif to form a complex with α5β3 integrin that suppresses FGF23 expression. ASARM-peptides increase FGF23 by disrupting the PHEX-DMP1-Integrin complex. We used a 4.2 kDa peptide (SPR4) that binds to ASARM-peptide/motif to study the DMP1-PHEX interaction and to assess SPR4 for the treatment of energy metabolism defects in HYP and potentially other bone-mineral disorders.
    PLoS ONE 01/2014; 9(5):e97326. · 3.73 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Statement of problem: Osseointegration is the more stable situation and results in a high success rate of dental implants. Heat generation during rotary cutting is one of the important factors influencing the development of osseointegration. Purpose: To assess the various factors related to implant drills responsible for heat generation during osteotomy. Materials and Methods: To identify suitable literature, an electronic search was performed using Medline and Pubmed database. Articles published in between 1960 to February 2013 were searched. The search is focused on heat generated by dental implant drills during osteotomy. Various factors related to implant drill such effect of number of blades; drill design, drill fatigue, drill speed and force applied during osteotomies which were responsible for heat generation were reviewed. Titles and abstracts were screened, and literature that fulfilled the inclusion criteria was selected for a full-text reading. Results: The initial literature search resulted in 299 articles out of which only 70 articles fulfils the inclusion criteria and were included in this systematic review. Many factors related to implant drill responsible for heat generation were found. Successful preparation of an implant cavity with minimal damage to the surrounding bone depends on the avoidance of excessive temperature generation during surgical drilling. Conclusion: The relationship between heat generated and implant drilling osteotomy is multifactorial in nature and its complexity has not been fully studied. Lack of scientific knowledge regarding this issue still exists. Further studies should be conducted to determine the various factors which generate less heat while osteotomy such as ideal ratio of force and speed in vivo, exact time to replace a drill, ideal drill design, irrigation system, drill-bone contact area.
    The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society 06/2014; 14(2):131-143.