Systemic mesenchymal stem cell administration enhances bone formation in fracture repair but not load-induced bone formation

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) were shown to support bone regeneration, when they were locally transplanted into poorly healing fractures. The benefit of systemic MSC transplantation is currently less evident. There is consensus that systemically applied MSC are recruited to the site of injury, but it is debated whether they actually support bone formation. Furthermore, the question arises as to whether circulating MSC are recruited only in case of injury or whether they also participate in mechanically induced bone formation. To answer these questions we injected green fluorescent protein (GFP)-labelled MSC into C57BL/6J mice, which were subjected either to a femur osteotomy or to non-invasive mechanical ulna loading to induce bone formation. We detected GFP-labelled MSC in the early (day 10) and late fracture callus (day 21) by immunohistochemistry. Stromal cell-derived factor 1 (SDF-1 or CXCL-12), a key chemokine for stem cell attraction, was strongly expressed by virtually all cells near the osteotomy--indicating that SDF-1 may mediate cell migration to the site of injury. We found no differences in SDF-1 expression between the groups. Micro-computed tomography (µCT) revealed significantly more bone in the callus of the MSC treated mice compared to untreated controls. The bending stiffness of callus was not significantly altered after MSC-application. In contrast, we failed to detect GFP-labelled MSC in the ulna after non-invasive mechanical loading. Histomorphometry and µCT revealed a significant load-induced increase in bone formation; however, no further increase was found after MSC administration. Concluding, our results suggest that systemically administered MSC are recruited and support bone formation only in case of injury but not in mechanically induced bone formation.

Small animal bone healing models: standards, tips, and pitfalls results of a consensus meeting

Small animal fracture models have gained increasing interest in fracture healing studies. To achieve standardized and defined study conditions, various variables must be carefully controlled when designing fracture healing experiments in mice or rats. The strain, age and sex of the animals may influence the process of fracture healing. Furthermore, the choice of the fracture fixation technique depends on the questions addressed, whereby intra- and extramedullary implants as well as open and closed surgical approaches may be considered. During the last few years, a variety of different, highly sophisticated implants for fracture fixation in small animals have been developed. Rigid fixation with locking plates or external fixators results in predominantly intramembranous healing in both mice and rats. Locking plates, external fixators, intramedullary screws, the locking nail and the pin-clip device allow different degrees of stability resulting in various amounts of endochondral and intramembranous healing. The use of common pins that do not provide rotational and axial stability during fracture stabilization should be discouraged in the future. Analyses should include at least biomechanical and histological evaluations, even if the focus of the study is directed towards the elucidation of molecular mechanisms of fracture healing using the largely available spectrum of antibodies and gene-targeted animals to study molecular mechanisms of fracture healing. This review discusses distinct requirements for the experimental setups as well as the advantages and pitfalls of the different fixation techniques in rats and mice.