A role for G protein-coupled receptor 137b in bone remodeling in mouse and zebrafish

G protein-coupled receptor 137b (GPR137b) is an orphan seven-pass transmembrane receptor of unknown function. In mouse, Gpr137b is highly expressed in osteoclasts in vivo and is upregulated during in vitro differentiation. To elucidate the role that GPR137b plays in osteoclasts, we tested the effect of GPR137b deficiency on osteoclast maturation and resorbing activity. We used CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing in mouse-derived ER-Hoxb8 immortalized myeloid progenitors to generate GPR137b-deficient osteoclast precursors. Decreasing Gpr137b in these precursors led to increased osteoclast differentiation and bone resorption activity. To explore the role of GPR137b during skeletal development, we generated zebrafish deficient for the ortholog gpr137ba. Gpr137ba-deficient zebrafish are viable and fertile and do not display overt morphological defects as adults. However, analysis of osteoclast function in gpr137ba^-/- mutants demonstrated increased bone resorption. Micro-computed tomography evaluation of vertebral bone mass and morphology demonstrated that gpr137ba-deficiency altered the angle of the neural arch, a skeletal site with high osteoclast activity. Vital staining of gpr137ba^-/- fish with calcein and alizarin red indicated that bone formation in the mutants is also increased, suggesting high bone turnover. These results identify GPR137b as a conserved negative regulator of osteoclast activity essential for normal resorption and patterning of the skeleton. Further, these data suggest that coordination of osteoclast and osteoblast activity is a conserved process among vertebrates and may have similar regulation.

Effects of Teriparatide on Joint Erosions in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

Articular erosions correlate with disability in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Biologic agents reduce erosion progression in RA, but erosion healing occurs infrequently. This study was undertaken to assess the effects of the anabolic agent teriparatide on joint erosion volume in RA patients treated with a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi).

METHODS

We conducted a randomized controlled trial in 24 patients with erosive RA, osteopenia, and disease activity controlled by TNFi treatment for at least 3 months. Half were randomized to receive teriparatide for 1 year and the others constituted a wait-list control group. Subjects and primary rheumatologists were not blinded with regard to treatment assignment, but all outcomes were assessed in a blinded manner. The primary outcome measure was change in erosion volume determined by computed tomography at 6 anatomic sites. Significance within each hand and anatomic site was based on a 2-tailed test, with P values less than 0.05 considered significant.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics of the treatment groups were well balanced. After 52 weeks, the median change in erosion volume in the teriparatide group was -0.4 mm³ (interquartile range [IQR] -34.5, 29.6) and did not differ significantly from that in controls (median change +9.1 mm³ [IQR -29.6, 26.4]) (P = 0.28). No significant difference in change in erosion volume was noted at the radius, ulna, or metacarpophalangeal joints. Bone mineral density improved at the femoral neck and lumbar spine in the teriparatide group.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate that teriparatide treatment for 1 year does not significantly reduce erosion volume in the hands or wrists of patients with established RA with disease activity controlled by TNFi treatment.

Safety in magnetic resonance units: an update

The number of anaesthetists who are involved in magnetic resonance (MR) units is increasing. Magnetic resonance systems are becoming more powerful and interventional procedures are now possible. This paper updates information relating to safety terminology, occupational exposure, reactions to gadolinium-based contrast agents and the risk of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. Magnetic resonance examinations of patients with pacemakers are still generally contra-indicated but have been carried out in specialist centres under strictly controlled conditions. As availability of MR increases, so the education of anaesthetists, who are occasionally required to provide a service, must be considered.

Anaesthesia in MR units was first described in the 1980s. Guidelines on the provision of anaesthetic services in MR units were published by the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland (AAGBI) in 2002 [1]. Since then, the number of hospitals with MR units, and hence the number of patients requiring anaesthesia for MR, has increased. While the issues relating to setting up anaesthetic services in MR have not changed, there have been a number of developments that warrant this update:

Safety terminology and guidelines have changed.

MR systems utilise higher magnetic-field strengths and more open designs are available.

Interventional and intra-operative MR are now routine in some centres.

Mobile MR scanners are increasingly used to reduce waiting lists.

Although still generally contra-indicated, some patients with pacemakers have been scanned under strictly controlled conditions in specialist centres.

‘MR safe’ medical implants are now being produced.

New equipment is now available for use in MR.

Out-of-hours availability of MR investigations has increased.

Reports of allergic reactions to MR contrast media have increased.

Gadolinium based contrast agents (Gd-CAs) are associated with a varying degree of risk of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis in patients with impaired renal function.