The foreign body giant cell cannot resorb bone, but dissolves hydroxyapatite like osteoclasts

Bas Ten Harkel, Ton Schoenmaker, Daisy I. Picavet, Noel L. Davison, Teun J. De Vries, Vincent Everts

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

31 Citations (Scopus)
16 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Foreign body multinucleated giant cells (FBGCs) and osteoclasts share several characteristics, like a common myeloid precursor cell, multinuclearity, expression of tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase (TRAcP) and dendritic cell-specific transmembrane protein (DCSTAMP). However, there is an important difference: osteoclasts form and reside in the vicinity of bone, while FBGCs form only under pathological conditions or at the surface of foreign materials, like medical implants. Despite similarities, an important distinction between these cell types is that osteoclasts can resorb bone, but it is unknown whether FBGCs are capable of such an activity. To investigate this, we differentiated FBGCs and osteoclasts in vitro from their common CD14+ monocyte precursor cells, using different sets of cytokines. Both cell types were cultured on bovine bone slices and analyzed for typical osteoclast features, such as bone resorption, presence of actin rings, formation of a ruffled border, and characteristic gene expression over time. Additionally, both cell types were cultured on a biomimetic hydroxyapatite coating to discriminate between bone resorption and mineral dissolution independent of organic matrix proteolysis. Both cell types differentiated into multinucleated cells on bone, but FBGCs were larger and had a higher number of nuclei compared to osteoclasts. FBGCs were not able to resorb bone, yet they were able to dissolve the mineral fraction of bone at the surface. Remarkably, FBGCs also expressed actin rings, podosome belts and sealing zones-cytoskeletal organization that is considered to be osteoclast- specific. However, they did not form a ruffled border. At the gene expression level, FBGCs and osteoclasts expressed similar levels of mRNAs that are associated with the dissolution of mineral (e.g., anion exchange protein 2 (AE2), carbonic anhydrase 2 (CAII), chloride channel 7 (CIC7), and vacuolar-type H+-ATPase (v-ATPase)), in contrast the matrix degrading enzyme cathepsin K, which was hardly expressed by FBGCs. Functionally, the latter cells were able to dissolve a biomimetic hydroxyapatite coating in vitro, which was blocked by inhibiting v-ATPase enzyme activity. These results show that FBGCs have the capacity to dissolve the mineral phase of bone, similar to osteoclasts. However, they are not able to digest the matrix fraction of bone, likely due to the lack of a ruffled border and cathepsin K.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere0139564
JournalPLoS ONE
Volume10
Issue number10
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Oct 2015

Fingerprint

Foreign Body Giant Cells
hydroxyapatite
osteoclasts
foreign bodies
giant cells
Osteoclasts
Giant Cells
Durapatite
Bone
bones
Bone and Bones
Minerals
cathepsin K
Cathepsin K
cells
minerals
Vacuolar Proton-Translocating ATPases
biomimetics
Biomimetics
H-transporting ATP synthase

Cite this

Harkel, B. T., Schoenmaker, T., Picavet, D. I., Davison, N. L., De Vries, T. J., & Everts, V. (2015). The foreign body giant cell cannot resorb bone, but dissolves hydroxyapatite like osteoclasts. PLoS ONE, 10(10), [e0139564]. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139564
Harkel, Bas Ten ; Schoenmaker, Ton ; Picavet, Daisy I. ; Davison, Noel L. ; De Vries, Teun J. ; Everts, Vincent. / The foreign body giant cell cannot resorb bone, but dissolves hydroxyapatite like osteoclasts. In: PLoS ONE. 2015 ; Vol. 10, No. 10.
@article{82796f3366a744f4b5c81508c4db1634,
title = "The foreign body giant cell cannot resorb bone, but dissolves hydroxyapatite like osteoclasts",
abstract = "Foreign body multinucleated giant cells (FBGCs) and osteoclasts share several characteristics, like a common myeloid precursor cell, multinuclearity, expression of tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase (TRAcP) and dendritic cell-specific transmembrane protein (DCSTAMP). However, there is an important difference: osteoclasts form and reside in the vicinity of bone, while FBGCs form only under pathological conditions or at the surface of foreign materials, like medical implants. Despite similarities, an important distinction between these cell types is that osteoclasts can resorb bone, but it is unknown whether FBGCs are capable of such an activity. To investigate this, we differentiated FBGCs and osteoclasts in vitro from their common CD14+ monocyte precursor cells, using different sets of cytokines. Both cell types were cultured on bovine bone slices and analyzed for typical osteoclast features, such as bone resorption, presence of actin rings, formation of a ruffled border, and characteristic gene expression over time. Additionally, both cell types were cultured on a biomimetic hydroxyapatite coating to discriminate between bone resorption and mineral dissolution independent of organic matrix proteolysis. Both cell types differentiated into multinucleated cells on bone, but FBGCs were larger and had a higher number of nuclei compared to osteoclasts. FBGCs were not able to resorb bone, yet they were able to dissolve the mineral fraction of bone at the surface. Remarkably, FBGCs also expressed actin rings, podosome belts and sealing zones-cytoskeletal organization that is considered to be osteoclast- specific. However, they did not form a ruffled border. At the gene expression level, FBGCs and osteoclasts expressed similar levels of mRNAs that are associated with the dissolution of mineral (e.g., anion exchange protein 2 (AE2), carbonic anhydrase 2 (CAII), chloride channel 7 (CIC7), and vacuolar-type H+-ATPase (v-ATPase)), in contrast the matrix degrading enzyme cathepsin K, which was hardly expressed by FBGCs. Functionally, the latter cells were able to dissolve a biomimetic hydroxyapatite coating in vitro, which was blocked by inhibiting v-ATPase enzyme activity. These results show that FBGCs have the capacity to dissolve the mineral phase of bone, similar to osteoclasts. However, they are not able to digest the matrix fraction of bone, likely due to the lack of a ruffled border and cathepsin K.",
author = "Harkel, {Bas Ten} and Ton Schoenmaker and Picavet, {Daisy I.} and Davison, {Noel L.} and {De Vries}, {Teun J.} and Vincent Everts",
year = "2015",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0139564",
language = "English",
volume = "10",
journal = "PLoS ONE",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "10",

}

Harkel, BT, Schoenmaker, T, Picavet, DI, Davison, NL, De Vries, TJ & Everts, V 2015, 'The foreign body giant cell cannot resorb bone, but dissolves hydroxyapatite like osteoclasts' PLoS ONE, vol. 10, no. 10, e0139564. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139564

The foreign body giant cell cannot resorb bone, but dissolves hydroxyapatite like osteoclasts. / Harkel, Bas Ten; Schoenmaker, Ton; Picavet, Daisy I.; Davison, Noel L.; De Vries, Teun J.; Everts, Vincent.

In: PLoS ONE, Vol. 10, No. 10, e0139564, 01.10.2015.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - The foreign body giant cell cannot resorb bone, but dissolves hydroxyapatite like osteoclasts

AU - Harkel, Bas Ten

AU - Schoenmaker, Ton

AU - Picavet, Daisy I.

AU - Davison, Noel L.

AU - De Vries, Teun J.

AU - Everts, Vincent

PY - 2015/10/1

Y1 - 2015/10/1

N2 - Foreign body multinucleated giant cells (FBGCs) and osteoclasts share several characteristics, like a common myeloid precursor cell, multinuclearity, expression of tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase (TRAcP) and dendritic cell-specific transmembrane protein (DCSTAMP). However, there is an important difference: osteoclasts form and reside in the vicinity of bone, while FBGCs form only under pathological conditions or at the surface of foreign materials, like medical implants. Despite similarities, an important distinction between these cell types is that osteoclasts can resorb bone, but it is unknown whether FBGCs are capable of such an activity. To investigate this, we differentiated FBGCs and osteoclasts in vitro from their common CD14+ monocyte precursor cells, using different sets of cytokines. Both cell types were cultured on bovine bone slices and analyzed for typical osteoclast features, such as bone resorption, presence of actin rings, formation of a ruffled border, and characteristic gene expression over time. Additionally, both cell types were cultured on a biomimetic hydroxyapatite coating to discriminate between bone resorption and mineral dissolution independent of organic matrix proteolysis. Both cell types differentiated into multinucleated cells on bone, but FBGCs were larger and had a higher number of nuclei compared to osteoclasts. FBGCs were not able to resorb bone, yet they were able to dissolve the mineral fraction of bone at the surface. Remarkably, FBGCs also expressed actin rings, podosome belts and sealing zones-cytoskeletal organization that is considered to be osteoclast- specific. However, they did not form a ruffled border. At the gene expression level, FBGCs and osteoclasts expressed similar levels of mRNAs that are associated with the dissolution of mineral (e.g., anion exchange protein 2 (AE2), carbonic anhydrase 2 (CAII), chloride channel 7 (CIC7), and vacuolar-type H+-ATPase (v-ATPase)), in contrast the matrix degrading enzyme cathepsin K, which was hardly expressed by FBGCs. Functionally, the latter cells were able to dissolve a biomimetic hydroxyapatite coating in vitro, which was blocked by inhibiting v-ATPase enzyme activity. These results show that FBGCs have the capacity to dissolve the mineral phase of bone, similar to osteoclasts. However, they are not able to digest the matrix fraction of bone, likely due to the lack of a ruffled border and cathepsin K.

AB - Foreign body multinucleated giant cells (FBGCs) and osteoclasts share several characteristics, like a common myeloid precursor cell, multinuclearity, expression of tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase (TRAcP) and dendritic cell-specific transmembrane protein (DCSTAMP). However, there is an important difference: osteoclasts form and reside in the vicinity of bone, while FBGCs form only under pathological conditions or at the surface of foreign materials, like medical implants. Despite similarities, an important distinction between these cell types is that osteoclasts can resorb bone, but it is unknown whether FBGCs are capable of such an activity. To investigate this, we differentiated FBGCs and osteoclasts in vitro from their common CD14+ monocyte precursor cells, using different sets of cytokines. Both cell types were cultured on bovine bone slices and analyzed for typical osteoclast features, such as bone resorption, presence of actin rings, formation of a ruffled border, and characteristic gene expression over time. Additionally, both cell types were cultured on a biomimetic hydroxyapatite coating to discriminate between bone resorption and mineral dissolution independent of organic matrix proteolysis. Both cell types differentiated into multinucleated cells on bone, but FBGCs were larger and had a higher number of nuclei compared to osteoclasts. FBGCs were not able to resorb bone, yet they were able to dissolve the mineral fraction of bone at the surface. Remarkably, FBGCs also expressed actin rings, podosome belts and sealing zones-cytoskeletal organization that is considered to be osteoclast- specific. However, they did not form a ruffled border. At the gene expression level, FBGCs and osteoclasts expressed similar levels of mRNAs that are associated with the dissolution of mineral (e.g., anion exchange protein 2 (AE2), carbonic anhydrase 2 (CAII), chloride channel 7 (CIC7), and vacuolar-type H+-ATPase (v-ATPase)), in contrast the matrix degrading enzyme cathepsin K, which was hardly expressed by FBGCs. Functionally, the latter cells were able to dissolve a biomimetic hydroxyapatite coating in vitro, which was blocked by inhibiting v-ATPase enzyme activity. These results show that FBGCs have the capacity to dissolve the mineral phase of bone, similar to osteoclasts. However, they are not able to digest the matrix fraction of bone, likely due to the lack of a ruffled border and cathepsin K.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84947293872&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0139564

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0139564

M3 - Article

VL - 10

JO - PLoS ONE

JF - PLoS ONE

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 10

M1 - e0139564

ER -

Harkel BT, Schoenmaker T, Picavet DI, Davison NL, De Vries TJ, Everts V. The foreign body giant cell cannot resorb bone, but dissolves hydroxyapatite like osteoclasts. PLoS ONE. 2015 Oct 1;10(10). e0139564. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139564