|
1
|
Thottappillil N, Gomez-Salazar MA, Xu M, Qin Q, Xing X, Xu J, Broderick K, Yea JH, Archer M, Ching-Yun Hsu G, Péault B, James AW. ZIC1 Dictates Osteogenesis Versus Adipogenesis in Human Mesenchymal Progenitor Cells Via a Hedgehog Dependent Mechanism. Stem Cells 2023; 41:862-876. [PMID: 37317792 PMCID: PMC10502786 DOI: 10.1093/stmcls/sxad047] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/03/2023] [Accepted: 05/23/2023] [Indexed: 06/16/2023]
Abstract
Numerous intrinsic factors regulate mesenchymal progenitor commitment to a specific cell fate, such as osteogenic or adipogenic lineages. Identification and modulation of novel intrinsic regulatory factors represent an opportunity to harness the regenerative potential of mesenchymal progenitors. In the present study, the transcription factor (TF) ZIC1 was identified to be differentially expressed among adipose compared with skeletal-derived mesenchymal progenitor cells. We observed that ZIC1 overexpression in human mesenchymal progenitors promotes osteogenesis and prevents adipogenesis. ZIC1 knockdown demonstrated the converse effects on cell differentiation. ZIC1 misexpression was associated with altered Hedgehog signaling, and the Hedgehog antagonist cyclopamine reversed the osteo/adipogenic differentiation alterations associated with ZIC1 overexpression. Finally, human mesenchymal progenitor cells with or without ZIC1 overexpression were implanted in an ossicle assay in NOD-SCID gamma mice. ZIC1 overexpression led to significantly increased ossicle formation in comparison to the control, as assessed by radiographic and histologic measures. Together, these data suggest that ZIC1 represents a TF at the center of osteo/adipogenic cell fate determinations-findings that have relevance in the fields of stem cell biology and therapeutic regenerative medicine.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Mingxin Xu
- Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Qizhi Qin
- Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Xin Xing
- Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Jiajia Xu
- Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Kristen Broderick
- Department of Plastic Surgery, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Ji-Hye Yea
- Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Mary Archer
- Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Ginny Ching-Yun Hsu
- Department of Orthodontics, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA
| | - Bruno Péault
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Orthopaedic Hospital Research Center, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA
- Center for Cardiovascular Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Aaron W James
- Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
2
|
Freeman FE, Burdis R, Kelly DJ. Printing New Bones: From Print-and-Implant Devices to Bioprinted Bone Organ Precursors. Trends Mol Med 2021; 27:700-711. [PMID: 34090809 DOI: 10.1016/j.molmed.2021.05.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/08/2021] [Revised: 05/04/2021] [Accepted: 05/05/2021] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
Regenerating large bone defects remains a significant clinical challenge, motivating increased interest in additive manufacturing and 3D bioprinting to engineer superior bone graft substitutes. 3D bioprinting enables different biomaterials, cell types, and growth factors to be combined to develop patient-specific implants capable of directing functional bone regeneration. Current approaches to bioprinting such implants fall into one of two categories, each with their own advantages and limitations. First are those that can be 3D bioprinted and then directly implanted into the body and second those that require further in vitro culture after bioprinting to engineer more mature tissues prior to implantation. This review covers the key concepts, challenges, and applications of both strategies to regenerate damaged and diseased bone.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fiona E Freeman
- Trinity Centre for Biomedical Engineering, Trinity Biomedical Sciences Institute, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland; Department of Mechanical, Manufacturing, and Biomedical Engineering, School of Engineering, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland; Institute for Medical Engineering and Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA; Department of Medicine, Division of Engineering in Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Ross Burdis
- Trinity Centre for Biomedical Engineering, Trinity Biomedical Sciences Institute, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland; Department of Mechanical, Manufacturing, and Biomedical Engineering, School of Engineering, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland; Advanced Materials and Bioengineering Research Centre (AMBER), Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland and Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Daniel J Kelly
- Trinity Centre for Biomedical Engineering, Trinity Biomedical Sciences Institute, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland; Department of Mechanical, Manufacturing, and Biomedical Engineering, School of Engineering, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland; Advanced Materials and Bioengineering Research Centre (AMBER), Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland and Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland; Department of Anatomy, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland.
| |
Collapse
|