HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

OPEN ACCESS ARTICLE

This Article Free via Open Access: OA OA Abstract Full Text (PDF) OA All Versions of this Article: 2006-0395v1 25/3/544    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints/Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Duplomb, L. Articles by Heymann, D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Duplomb, L. Articles by Heymann, D.

EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS: CHARACTERIZATION SERIES

Concise Review: Embryonic Stem Cells: A New Tool to Study Osteoblast and Osteoclast Differentiation

^aLaboratoire de Physiopathologie de la Résorption Osseuse et Thérapie des Tumeurs Osseuses Primitives, INSERM, ERI 7, Nantes, France;
^cINSERM U533, Institut du Thorax, Nantes, France;
^bUniversité de Nantes, Nantes Atlantique Universités, Laboratoire de Physiopathologie de la Résorption Osseuse et Thérapie des Tumeurs Osseuses Primitives, EA3822, Nantes, France

Key Words. Embryonic stem cells • Embryoid bodies • Osteoblasts • Osteoclasts

Correspondence: Laurence Duplomb, Ph.D., INSERM, ERI 7 Laboratoire de Physiopathologie de la Résorption Osseuse et Thérapie des Tumeurs Osseuses Primitives, EA3822, 1 rue Gaston Veil, 44035 Nantes Cedex 1. Telephone: 011-33-2-40-41-28-46; Fax: 011-33-2-40-41-28-60; e-mail: laurence.duplomb{at}univ-nantes.fr

Received June 28, 2006; accepted for publication November 4, 2006.
First published online in STEM CELLS EXPRESS   November 9, 2006.

	ABSTRACT

Top Abstract Introduction From ES Cells to... From ES Cells to... Perspectives Disclosures Acknowledgments References

 
Bone remodeling involves synthesis of organic matrix by osteoblasts and bone resorption by osteoclasts. A tight collaboration between these two cell types is essential to maintain a physiological bone homeostasis. Thus, osteoblasts control bone-resorbing activities and are also involved in osteoclast differentiation. Any disturbance between these effectors leads to the development of skeletal abnormalities and/or bone diseases. In this context, the determination of key genes involved in bone cell differentiation is a new challenge to treat any skeletal disorders. Different models are used to study the differentiation process of these cells, but all of them use pre-engaged progenitor cells, allowing us to study only the latest stages of the differentiation. Embryonic stem (ES) cells come from the inner mass of the blastocyst prior its implantation to the uterine wall. Because of their capacity to differentiate into all germ layers, and so into all tissues of the body, ES cells represent the best model by which to study earliest stages of bone cell differentiation. Osteoblasts are generated by two methods, one including the generation of embryoid body, the other not. Mineralizing cells are obtained after 2 weeks of culture and express all the specific osteoblastic markers (alkaline phosphatase, type I collagen, osteocalcin, and others). Osteoclasts are generated from a single-cell suspension of ES cells seeded on a feeder monolayer, and bone-resorbing cells expressing osteoclastic markers such as tartrate-resistant alkaline phosphatase or receptor activator of nuclear factor B are obtained within 11 days. The aim of this review is to present recent discoveries and advances in the differentiation of both osteoblasts and osteoclasts from ES cells.

	INTRODUCTION

Top Abstract Introduction From ES Cells to... From ES Cells to... Perspectives Disclosures Acknowledgments References

 
Bone is a specialized connective tissue with elastic and strength properties. Bone tissue has various functions, including mechanical properties (offering the site and support for insertion of skeletal muscle tissue), protective properties for vital organs (heart, brain, bone marrow, etc.), and a pivotal metabolic function. Indeed, bone mineral matrix represents the main reserve of mineral ions, especially calcium and phosphate. Bone is composed of two main cell populations (osteoblast and osteoclast lineages) and extracellular matrix-associating organic (noncollagen proteins, such as fibronectin, and growth factors, collagen types I and III, etc.) and mineral (hydroxyapatite crystals) phases. Bone undergoes cyclic modifications, named bone remodeling, that allow for adaptation to mechanical constraints and maintain homeostasis of phosphorus and calcium. These cyclic modifications correspond to coordinated phases of bone formation by osteoblasts [1] and bone resorption by osteoclasts [2]. Physiologically, osteoblast lineage differentiates from bone marrow MSC through a series of progenitor stages to form mature matrix-secreting osteoblasts, progressively transformed into osteocytes [3]. The presence of an extensive endoplasmic reticulum and numerous free ribosomes in the cytoplasms is the main cytologic characteristic of osteoblasts; it gives evidence in favor of a strong activity of protein synthesis. Osteoblasts and osteocytes connected by gap junctions constitute a cellular network allowing the communications between bone surface and mineral matrix [3]. Bone resorption is controlled by osteoclast activity. Osteoclasts differentiate from hematopoietic precursors located in bone marrow and are closely related to macrophages [4, 5]. They possess several cytological features (multinucleation, highly polarized morphology, and numerous mitochondria). Osteoclasts resorb mineralized matrix by attaching to the surface and then secreting protons into an extracellular compartment formed under their ruffled border. This secretion is necessary for bone mineral solubilization and the digestion of the organic matrix by acid proteases [2]. In 1965, Epker and Frost were among the first to show that osteoblasts and osteoclasts are closely associated in time and space [6]. Numerous factors contribute to these coordinated activities and include gap junctions [7], numerous cytokines, growth factors, vitamins, and hormones [8, 9]. Furthermore, any disruption in this balance results in pathological states leading to increase (i.e., osteopetrosis) or loss (osteolytic diseases and osteoporosis) of bone mass.

Embryonic stem (ES) cells come from the inner mass of the blastocyst prior to implantation into the uterine wall. ES cells have important characteristics: they are pluripotent, meaning that a single cell has the capability of developing cells of all germ layers (endoderm, ectoderm, and mesoderm) and can give rise to all tissues of the body. From the ectoderm, ES cells can generate cells of skin, brain, eyes, and neural tissue. From the mesoderm, they can generate bone, cartilage, muscle, heart, or kidneys, and from the endoderm, they can generate liver, pancreas, thymus, thyroid, lung, and so on. ES cells have the potential of long-self renewal in vitro and can be induced to differentiate with appropriate culture conditions and specific factors. In addition to their potential interest in regenerating bone tissue by transplantation, ES cells offer a strong advantage in fundamental research by permitting the study of osteoblast and osteoclast differentiations from the earliest differentiation state of the cell. Indeed, the other models in the literature (and described below) use cells already pre-engaged, and so early steps of the differentiation could not be studied. Furthermore, ES cells are the best model to study the differentiation into mesenchymal cells that give rise to osteoblasts. ES cells are thought to be a powerful system to decipher the molecular mechanisms involved in both osteoblast and osteoclast differentiation, and so from the earlier to the later stages of the differentiation. The present review focuses on the recent advances concerning osteoblast and osteoclast differentiation from ES cells.

	FROM ES CELLS TO OSTEOBLASTS

Top Abstract Introduction From ES Cells to... From ES Cells to... Perspectives Disclosures Acknowledgments References

 
Osteoblasts, which derive from the mesoderm, are cells that specialize in the production of extracellular matrix (which is mainly composed of type I collagen) and the mineralization process [10]. They also play an important but indirect role in bone resorption by closed contacts with osteoclasts and by secreting various factors, such as interleukin-6 [11], receptor activator of nuclear factor B ligand (RANKL) [9], and prostaglandin E₂ [12], which in turn stimulate osteoclasts and so bone resorption [13, 14]. A direct role of osteoblasts in bone degradation could also be suggested, as osteoblasts release matrix metalloproteases [15, 16]. Osteoblasts and osteoclasts also interact with cell-to cell contact. After a bone-forming phase, approximately 10%–20% of the osteoblasts become embedded in the bone and differentiate progressively into osteocytes [17]. Study of the differentiation of stem cells into osteoblasts is important for two main reasons. First, large amounts of active osteoblasts are necessary for bioengineering, such as in transplantation used in regenerative medicine. Second, understanding the differentiation program of a cell into osteoblast is of major interest for finding new key genes involved in this process, genes that could be deregulated during pathological processes (bone tumors, osteoporosis, etc.). Studies of osteoblast differentiation are usually performed with preosteoblastic cells, such as the MC3T3 cell line [18–23], or primary cells isolated from bone [24–28] or from mesenchymal stem cells isolated from bone marrow [3], adipose tissue [29, 30], placenta [31], cartilage [32], and others. All these different models permit the study of osteoblast differentiation and testing of the effects of different factors that may improve this process (Table 1). Thanks to their capacity for differentiation and their presence in adult tissues, MSC represent a good tool to regenerate bone in an autogenous bone graft. In this context, Bruder et al. showed the capacity of human MSC to increase bone formation when implanted onto ceramic carrier into rat femurs [33]. The same kinds of results have been obtained in a model of osteoporotic rabbit, in which implanted MSC were able to regenerate bone [34]. Others studies also demonstrated the capacity of MSC to generate bone, both in vitro [35] and in vivo, when implanted under the kidney capsule [36]. However, MSC are rare cells in adult tissues and need to be expanded in vitro prior to being used in therapy; the expansion can lead to cellular alterations. Furthermore, the number of divisions in vitro is not infinite. Indeed, Bonab et al. demonstrated that human MSC enter senescence after nine passages and consequently lose their stem cell characteristics and so their osteogenic potential [37]. Furthermore, MSC, as well as the calvaria model or MC3T3, can be considered osteoblastic progenitor cells or pre-engaged cells and so do not allow study of the early steps of osteoblastic differentiation. A new strategy is the use of ES cells, which are also considered new potential cells for transplantation.

Different mouse ES cells line are used to generate osteoblasts: D3 [45, 46]; CGR8 [47]; E14TG2a and its subclones, such as BK4 and HM1 [48]; EFC1 [43]; and R1 (current studies) [48]. The scheme shown in Figure 1 represents the protocol used in our laboratory to generate osteoblasts from R1 mouse ES cells. This protocol is the most commonly used one, and it is based on the "hanging drop" culture method. This culture system is composed of three steps. The first step is the hanging drop culture: R1 ES cells are seeded onto the inner side of the lid of a Petri dish and condense by gravitational force for 2 days. The cell aggregates, called EBs (Fig. 2A), are then transferred for 3 days into a new Petri dish, where they grow in suspension (second step). The third and last step consists of an adherence culture: the EBs are transferred into gelatin-coated tissue culture plate with or without differentiation factors (50 µg/ml ascorbic acid, 10 mM β-glycerophosphate, 5 x 10^–8 M 1,25-OH vitamin D3, and 10^–8 M dexamethasone). The complete program of differentiation usually takes place in 25–30 days. At the end of the differentiation time, mineralization is observed by Alizarin red staining, as shown in Figure 2B. In addition, analysis of the expression of osteoblastic markers (as described below) demonstrates the successful differentiation of ES cells into active osteoblasts. A second protocol to generate EBs had been established by Bronson et al. just by seeding ES cells directly into a Petri dish, without hanging drop [48]. In some studies, authors describe the necessity of culturing EBs with retinoic acid during the 3 days of growth [43, 47]. Retinoic acid is also known to influence cells to undergo to neurectoderm cells [49] and adipogenesis [50] but inhibits cardiogenesis, indicating that retinoic acid alters mesoderm formation in EBs. Thus, the role of retinoic acid appears to be crucial during the first stages of the culture, after EB formation but before differentiation.

View larger version (23K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. Differentiation of osteoblasts from ES cells. 750 R1 ES cells (provided by Dr. Nagy, Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada) were seeded in a 20-µl drop on the inner side of the cover of a bacteriological Petri dish filled with PBS and incubated at 37°C with 5% CO2. ES cells condensed by gravitational force into a three-dimensional sphere called the EB. After 2 days, EBs were transferred to a new bacteriological Petri dish and allowed to growth in suspension for 3 more days in culture medium. At day 5, EBs were plated in a 24-well plate (two or three EBs per well) in the presence or absence of osteogenic factors (50 µg/ml ascorbic acid, 10 mM β-glycerophosphate, 5 x 10–8 M 1,25-OH vitamin D3, and 10–8 M dexamethasone. At 30 days, the presence of osteoblasts was confirmed by mineralization staining and by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction analysis of the expression of specific osteoblastic markers, shown on the upper arrow. Abbreviations: ALP, alkaline phosphatase; BSP, bone sialoprotein; Cbfa 1, core binding factor 1; Coll I, type I collagen; D, day; ES, embryonic stem; OC, osteocalcin; OP, osteopontin; PBS, phosphate-buffered saline.

View larger version (63K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 2. Embryoid body at day 6, after plating for differentiation (A) and Alizarin red staining (B). (A): EB was generated by the hanging drop culture method, as described in Fig. 1. (B): Mineralization was visualized by Alizarin red staining after 30 days of culture of R1 cells in presence of ascorbic acid, β-glycerophosphate, 1,25-OH vitamin D3, and dexamethasone. Magnification, x100.

The effects of ascorbic acid, 1,25-OH vitamin D3, β-glycerophosphate, and dexamethasone have been studied in a temporal way. The addition of ascorbic acid, 1,25-OH vitamin D3, and β-glycerophosphate only during the formation of EBs does not induce the osteoblastic markers, and the best result is observed when these factors are added together after EB formation [45]. The addition of others cofactors, such as compactin or bone morphogenetic protein 2 (BMP-2), results in an increase of mineralization and a stimulatory effect on alkaline phosphatase and osteocalcin mRNA expression with BMP-2 [47]. BMP-2 expression in ES cells is consistent with the data observed on rat osteoblast-like cell lines (ROB-C20 and ROB-C26), in which BMP-2 stimulates differentiation into osteocalcin-producing osteoblasts [52]. However, the pro-osteogenic effect of BMP-2 is controversial; indeed, the real effect of BPM-2 seems to be in favor of chondrocyte differentiation and is crucial at earlier stages of the differentiation (during EB generation) [46, 53]. Other factors shown as strong activators in the other models of osteoblast differentiation, such as fibroblast growth factor-8 (FGF-8) in MSC model [54], BMP-6 and phenytoin in the calvaria model [24, 26], and adiponectin in MC3T3 model [22], could also be tested during the differentiation of ES cells. Furthermore, it will be interesting to know whether these factors could potentiate osteoblast differentiation as soon as the beginning of the process from the ES cells or whether they act in the later states of the differentiation, as with the pre-engaged models.

Generation of osteoblast has also been studied in human ES (hES) cells [55–59] and monkey ES cells [60]. Generation of EBs was obtained by aggregation of the ES cells without the hanging drop method. However, in a recent study, Karp et al. omitted the EB step and seeded ES cells directly to the dish [55]. Results obtained with hES cells are the same those for mouse ES cells; indeed, hES cells differentiate into osteoblast upon action of the same osteogenic factors as mouse ES cells. Mineralization and induction of osteoblastic markers were observed. According to Karp et al., without the EB step, the number of bone modules is higher; they were formed in 10 or 12 days instead of the 4 weeks that formation required with EB generation, and osteogenic markers (ALP and osteocalcin) appeared quickly [55]. Ahn et al. cocultured hES cells with primary bone-derived cells and showed that primary bone-derived cells are able to induce differentiation of hES cells into osteoblasts, without the addition of exogenous factors [58]. Indeed, primary bone-derived cells secrete BMP-2 and BMP-4, which are efficient to induce the ES cells differentiation, probably in combination with other pro-osteoblastic factors also secreted by the primary-bone cells but not yet characterized. Furthermore, cell-to-cell contacts with primary bone-derived cells may help the differentiation.

Osteoblasts can also be produced from ES cell-generated MSC. Indeed, two recent studies provided a model to generate MSC from human ES cells [41, 59]. By adding this "MSC step" to the differentiation process, these protocols permit large amounts of pure MSC to be obtained and consequently increase the number of osteoblasts obtained from these MSC and suitable for therapeutic applications. Moreover, these ES cell-derived MSC have the capacity to support the growth of undifferentiated ES cells, which is a real advance in stem cell research because it provides a source of autologous feeder for the culture of ES cells, which considerably increases the possibility of creating secure ES cells banks for therapeutic use.

Differentiation of mouse or human ES cells into osteoblasts is effective. Different approaches are used to achieve osteogenic differentiation: with or without EB generation and with various osteogenic molecules. Further work is needed to elucidate the potential role of other cytokines that could enhance osteogenic differentiation.

	FROM ES CELLS TO OSTEOCLASTS

Top Abstract Introduction From ES Cells to... From ES Cells to... Perspectives Disclosures Acknowledgments References

 
Osteoclasts are bone resorbing cells that derive from the hematopoietic mesodermal lineage. Different models, presented in Table 2, have been developed to study osteoclast differentiation: bone marrow/spleen cells with or without osteoblastic/stromal cells [61–64], calvaria [65, 66], CD14⁺ fraction of peripheral blood mononuclear cells [67–71], RAW 264.7 cell line [72], and so on. The main markers used to determine the presence of osteoclasts are tartrate-resistant alkaline phosphatase (TRAP), calcitonin receptor, vitronectin receptor, cathepsin K, and the capacity of the cells to resorb mineralized matrix. The two main factors in osteoclastogenesis are macrophage-colony-stimulating factor (M-CSF) and RANKL, which are both involved in the expansion of osteoclastic precursors and their maturation into osteoclasts [73, 74]. In the model of RAW 264.7, RANKL alone is able to induce differentiation into TRAP-positive osteoclast in 5 days [72]. In the coculture system of bone marrow cells with osteoblast or stromal cells, only dexamethasone [62] or 1,25-OH vitamin D3 [28, 64, 75, 76] is used. However, there are strong possibilities that other factors, such as interleukin (IL)-6, prostaglandin E₂, or RANKL, are secreted by the stromal cells or the osteoblasts upon the action of dexamethasone or 1,25-OH vitamin D3 and so are involved in the osteoclastogenesis [9, 11, 12].

View larger version (18K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 3. Protocols used to generate osteoclasts. A single-cell suspension of ES cells was cultured on ST2 or OP9 cell lines, with one- or multistep culture as described in the text. Cells were cultured in the presence or absence of 10–8 M VD3 and 10–7 M Dex. Generation of osteoclasts occurs around 11–14 days and is characterized by TRAP staining and RT-PCR. Abbreviations: D, day; Dex, dexamethasone; ES, embryonic stem; OP, osteopontin; RT-PCR, reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction; TRAP, tartrate-resistant alkaline phosphatase; VD3, 1,25-OH vitamin D3.

View larger version (84K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 4. Tartrate-resistant alkaline phosphatase (TRAP) staining after 11 days on a one-step culture on ST2 cell line. Colonies () obtained from R1 ES cells were cultured on the ST2 monolayer (*). (A): Control conditions; no TRAP staining is observed. (B): tartrate-resistant alkaline phosphatase-positive osteoclasts in the presence of 10–8 M 1,25-OH vitamin D3 and 10–7 M dexamethasone, as described by Hemmi et al. [79]. Magnification, x100.

View larger version (22K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 5. Osteoclastogenesis from ES cells to mature osteoclasts. Schema showing chronological apparition of some specific osteoclastic markers (above the arrow) and some factors involved in the differentiation (as described by Tsuneto et al. [81] and Yamane et al. [80]). Abbreviations: CTR, calcitonin receptor; ES, embryonic stem; M-CSF, macrophage-colony-stimulating factor; RANK, receptor activator of nuclear factor B; RANKL, receptor activator of nuclear factor B ligand; TRAP, tartrate-resistant alkaline phosphatase.

	PERSPECTIVES

Top Abstract Introduction From ES Cells to... From ES Cells to... Perspectives Disclosures Acknowledgments References

 
The treatment of osteoporosis, as well as other osteolytic bone diseases, is mainly based on bisphosphonate drugs, which are inhibitors of osteoclast-mediated bone resorption [84]. Alternative therapies for bone defects are bone transplantation using biomaterials such as alginate hydrogels [85–87] or calcium phosphate ceramics or cements [88, 89], which can be carriers of stem cells, mesenchymal or embryonic. Both kinds of cells can be induced to differentiate into mesenchymal tissues, such as bone, fat, cartilage, and so on [38], using different factors. As shown in Table 1, dexamethasone, ascorbic acid, and 1,25-OH vitamin D3 are the components of the main cocktail used to differentiate both ES cells and mesenchymal stem cells into osteoblasts. Furthermore, BMPs are molecules often used to control osteogenic differentiation. Interestingly, BMPs contribute to the maintenance of self-renewal of mouse ES cells in presence of leukemia inhibitory factor (LIF), whereas in the absence of LIF, BMPs induce mesoderm differentiation [90]. Indeed, BMPs, mainly BMP-2, activate Smad proteins (Smad 1 and 5) [91] which become phosphorylated and in turn activate the transcription factor Dlx5, followed by Cbfa1/Runx2 and Osterix, which are also transcription factors (reviewed by Ryoo et al. [92]). Cbfa1/Runx2 has been shown to preferentially initiate two steps of the differentiation process, stem cells into preosteoblasts and preosteoblasts into osteoblasts, whereas Osterix acts only during the preosteoblast/osteoblast step. BMPs are used by these two cellular targets for ES cell [43, 47, 60] or mesenchymal cell differentiations [29] into osteoblasts, first by inducing mesodermal differentiation and then by inducing the osteoblast lineage specifically.

The differentiation of osteoclasts from ES cells is also effective. It is interesting to note that generation of osteoblasts and osteoclasts could be realized with the same differentiating factors (dexamethasone and 1,25-OH vitamin D3, with or without ascorbic acid). The main difference between the two differentiations is the generation of EBs for osteoblasts (except in one study), which is not used to generate osteoclasts. For osteoclastogenesis, one possibility to explain this difference is the production of RANKL by ST2 cells upon dexamethasone stimulation and 1,25-OH vitamin D3 stimulation [9]. Indeed, ST2 cells treated with 1,25-OH vitamin D3 supported osteoclastogenesis [93]. Furthermore, some cell-to-cell contacts between ES cells and ST2/OP9 cells could also be crucial for the differentiation into osteoclasts. In conclusion, ES cells are the best tool to understand molecular mechanisms involved in osteoblast and osteoclast differentiations, and particularly during the earliest stages of the differentiation. Indeed, other models used to generate bone cells are realized with pre-engaged cells and so omit the earliest phases of the differentiation. ES cells are also a good model to understand the mechanisms involved during mesenchymal cell differentiation that then give rise to osteoblasts or other cell types, such as adipocytes. As osteogenic factors or adipogenic factors are added since the beginning of the culture of ES cells, it could be envisaged that different populations of mesenchymal cells can emerge from ES cells. Furthermore, ES cells are also the best model to uncover the mechanisms involved in mesenchymal cell differentiation or other kind of cells, such as cells of the hematopoietic lineage.

Even if some studies should be performed to decipher all the signals that influence osteoblast differentiation and to control all the necessary steps for a successful transplantation, ES cells, as well as MSC, are promising in regenerative medicine. ES cells also offer the possibility of finding new key genes involved in the differentiation program and consequently those that can be deregulated during a tumoral process. In this way, ES cells represent a positive approach to find new target genes for bone cancer treatment and other bone disease therapies.

	DISCLOSURES

Top Abstract Introduction From ES Cells to... From ES Cells to... Perspectives Disclosures Acknowledgments References

 
The authors indicate no potential conflicts of interest.

	ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Top Abstract Introduction From ES Cells to... From ES Cells to... Perspectives Disclosures Acknowledgments References

 
L.D. is supported by an Association pour la Recherche sur le Cancer postdoctoral fellowship.

	REFERENCES

Top Abstract Introduction From ES Cells to... From ES Cells to... Perspectives Disclosures Acknowledgments References

 

1. Aguila HL, Rowe DW. Skeletal development, bone remodeling, and hematopoiesis. Immunol Rev 2005;208:7–18.[CrossRef][Medline]

2. Rousselle AV, Heymann D. Osteoclastic acidification pathways during bone resorption. Bone 2002;30:533–540.[Medline]

3. Aubin JE, Triffit JT. Mesenchymal stem cells and osteoblast differentiation. In: Bilezikian JP, Raisz LG, Rodan GA, eds. Principles of Bone Biology.San Diego: Academic Press,2002;Vol. 1:59–81.

4. Chambers TJ. Regulation of the differentiation and function of osteoclasts. J Pathol 2000;192:4–13.[CrossRef][Medline]

5. Roodman GD. Regulation of osteoclast differentiation. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2006;1068:100–109.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

6. Epker BN, Frost HM. Correlation of bone resorption and formation with the physical behavior of loaded bone. J Dent Res 1965;44:33–41.[Medline]

7. Ilvesaro J, Tuukkanen J. Gap-junctional regulation of osteoclast function. Crit Rev Eukaryot Gene Expr 2003;13:133–146.[CrossRef][Medline]

8. Heymann D, Guicheux J, Gouin F et al. Cytokines, growth factors and osteoclasts. Cytokine 1998;10:155–168.[CrossRef][Medline]

9. Theoleyre S, Wittrant Y, Tat SK et al. The molecular triad OPG/RANK/RANKL: Involvement in the orchestration of pathophysiological bone remodeling. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev 2004;15:457–475.[CrossRef][Medline]

10. Blair HC, Zaidi M, Schlesinger PH. Mechanisms balancing skeletal matrix synthesis and degradation. Biochem J 2002;364:329–341.[CrossRef][Medline]

11. Ishimi Y, Miyaura C, Jin CH et al. IL-6 is produced by osteoblasts and induces bone resorption. J Immunol 1990;145:3297–3303.[Abstract]

12. Marie PJ, Hott M, Launay JM et al. In vitro production of cytokines by bone surface-derived osteoblastic cells in normal and osteoporotic postmenopausal women: Relationship with cell proliferation. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1993;77:824–830.[Abstract]

13. Lowik CW, van der Pluijm G, Bloys H et al. Parathyroid hormone (PTH) and PTH-like protein (PLP) stimulate interleukin-6 production by osteogenic cells: A possible role of interleukin-6 in osteoclastogenesis. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1989;162:1546–1552.[CrossRef][Medline]

14. Liu XH, Kirschenbaum A, Yao S et al. Cross-talk between the interleukin-6 and prostaglandin E(2) signaling systems results in enhancement of osteoclastogenesis through effects on the osteoprotegerin/receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappaB (RANK) ligand/RANK system. Endocrinology 2005;146:1991–1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

15. Filanti C, Dickson GR, Di Martino D et al. The expression of metalloproteinase-2, -9, and -14 and of tissue inhibitors-1 and -2 is developmentally modulated during osteogenesis in vitro, the mature osteoblastic phenotype expressing metalloproteinase-14. J Bone Miner Res 2000;15:2154–2168.[CrossRef][Medline]

16. Uchida M, Shima M, Shimoaka T et al. Regulation of matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) and tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinases (TIMPs) by bone resorptive factors in osteoblastic cells. J Cell Physiol 2000;185:207–214.[CrossRef][Medline]

17. Franz-Odendaal TA, Hall BK, Witten PE. Buried alive: How osteoblasts become osteocytes. Dev Dyn 2006;235:176–190.[CrossRef][Medline]

18. Sudo H, Kodama HA, Amagai Y et al. In vitro differentiation and calcification in a new clonal osteogenic cell line derived from newborn mouse calvaria. J Cell Biol 1983;96:191–198.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

19. Kurihara N, Ikeda K, Hakeda Y et al. Effect of 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 on alkaline phosphatase activity and collagen synthesis in osteoblastic cells, clone MC3T3–E1. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1984;119:767–771.[CrossRef][Medline]

20. Kim SW, Her SJ, Park SJ et al. Ghrelin stimulates proliferation and differentiation and inhibits apoptosis in osteoblastic MC3T3–E1 cells. Bone 2005;37:359–369.[Medline]

21. Nielsen LB, Pedersen FS, Pedersen L. Expression of type III sodium-dependent phosphate transporters/retroviral receptors mRNAs during osteoblast differentiation. Bone 2001;28:160–166.[Medline]

22. Oshima K, Nampei A, Matsuda M et al. Adiponectin increases bone mass by suppressing osteoclast and activating osteoblast. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2005;331:520–526.[CrossRef][Medline]

23. Guicheux J, Lemonnier J, Ghayor C et al. Activation of p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase and c-Jun-NH2-terminal kinase by BMP-2 and their implication in the stimulation of osteoblastic cell differentiation. J Bone Miner Res 2003;18:2060–2068.[CrossRef][Medline]

24. Boden SD, McCuaig K, Hair G et al. Differential effects and glucocorticoid potentiation of bone morphogenetic protein action during rat osteoblast differentiation in vitro. Endocrinology 1996;137:3401–3407.[Abstract]

25. Declercq H, Van den Vreken N, De Maeyer E et al. Isolation, proliferation and differentiation of osteoblastic cells to study cell/biomaterial interactions: Comparison of different isolation techniques and source. Biomaterials 2004;25:757–768.[CrossRef][Medline]

26. Ikedo D, Ohishi K, Yamauchi N et al. Stimulatory effects of phenytoin on osteoblastic differentiation of fetal rat calvaria cells in culture. Bone 1999;25:653–660.[Medline]

27. Johnson KA, Hessle L, Vaingankar S et al. Osteoblast tissue-nonspecific alkaline phosphatase antagonizes and regulates PC-1. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 2000;279:R1365–R1377.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

28. Bi Y, Nielsen KL, Kilts TM et al. Biglycan deficiency increases osteoclast differentiation and activity due to defective osteoblasts. Bone 2006;38:778–786.[Medline]

29. Hattori H, Sato M, Masuoka K et al. Osteogenic potential of human adipose tissue-derived stromal cells as an alternative stem cell source. Cells Tissues Organs 2004;178:2–12.[CrossRef][Medline]

30. Lee RH, Kim B, Choi I et al. Characterization and expression analysis of mesenchymal stem cells from human bone marrow and adipose tissue. Cell Physiol Biochem 2004;14:311–324.[CrossRef][Medline]

31. Fukuchi Y, Nakajima H, Sugiyama D et al. Human placenta-derived cells have mesenchymal stem/progenitor cell potential. STEM CELLS 2004;22:649–658.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

32. Alsalameh S, Amin R, Gemba T et al. Identification of mesenchymal progenitor cells in normal and osteoarthritic human articular cartilage. Arthritis Rheum 2004;50:1522–1532.[CrossRef][Medline]

33. Bruder SP, Kurth AA, Shea M et al. Bone regeneration by implantation of purified, culture-expanded human mesenchymal stem cells. J Orthop Res 1998;16:155–162.[CrossRef][Medline]

34. Wang Z, Goh J, Das De S et al. Efficacy of bone marrow-derived stem cells in strengthening osteoporotic bone in a rabbit model. Tissue Eng 2006;12:1753–1761.[CrossRef][Medline]

35. Toquet J, Rohanizadeh R, Guicheux J et al. Osteogenic potential in vitro of human bone marrow cells cultured on macroporous biphasic calcium phosphate ceramic. J Biomed Mater Res 1999;44:98–108.[CrossRef][Medline]

36. Bohic S, Rohanizadeh R, Touchais S et al. Leukemia inhibitory factor and oncostatin M influence the mineral phases formed in a murine heterotopic calcification model: A Fourier transform-infrared microspectroscopic study. J Bone Miner Res 1998;13:1619–1632.[CrossRef][Medline]

37. Bonab MM, Alimoghaddam K, Talebian F et al. Aging of mesenchymal stem cell in vitro. BMC Cell Biol 2006;7:14.[CrossRef][Medline]

38. Pittenger MF, Mackay AM, Beck SC et al. Multilineage potential of adult human mesenchymal stem cells. Science 1999;284:143–147.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

39. Muraglia A, Cancedda R, Quarto R. Clonal mesenchymal progenitors from human bone marrow differentiate in vitro according to a hierarchical model. J Cell Sci 2000;113:1161–1166.[Abstract]

40. Jaiswal N, Haynesworth SE, Caplan AI et al. Osteogenic differentiation of purified, culture-expanded human mesenchymal stem cells in vitro. J Cell Biochem 1997;64:295–312.[CrossRef][Medline]

41. Olivier EN, Rybicki AC, Bouhassira EE. Differentiation of human embryonic stem cells into bipotent mesenchymal stem cells. STEM CELLS 2006;24:1914–1922.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

42. Buttery LD, Bourne S, Xynos JD et al. Differentiation of osteoblasts and in vitro bone formation from murine embryonic stem cells. Tissue Eng 2001;7:89–99.[CrossRef][Medline]

43. Kawaguchi J, Mee PJ, Smith AG. Osteogenic and chondrogenic differentiation of embryonic stem cells in response to specific growth factors. Bone 2005;36:758–769.[Medline]

44. Cheng SL, Yang JW, Rifas L et al. Differentiation of human bone marrow osteogenic stromal cells in vitro: Induction of the osteoblast phenotype by dexamethasone. Endocrinology 1994;134:277–286.[Abstract]

45. zur Nieden NI, Kempka G, Ahr HJ. In vitro differentiation of embryonic stem cells into mineralized osteoblasts. Differentiation 2003;71:18–27.[CrossRef][Medline]

46. zur Nieden NI, Kempka G, Rancourt DE et al. Induction of chondro-, osteo- and adipogenesis in embryonic stem cells by bone morphogenetic protein-2: Effect of cofactors on differentiating lineages. BMC Dev Biol 2005;5:1.[CrossRef][Medline]

47. Phillips BW, Belmonte N, Vernochet C et al. Compactin enhances osteogenesis in murine embryonic stem cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2001;284:478–484.[CrossRef][Medline]

48. Bronson SK. Bone nodule formation via in vitro differentiation of murine embryonic stem cells. Methods Enzymol 2003;365:241–251.[Medline]

49. Bain G, Kitchens D, Yao M et al. Embryonic stem cells express neuronal properties in vitro. Dev Biol 1995;168:342–357.[CrossRef][Medline]

50. Dani C, Smith AG, Dessolin S et al. Differentiation of embryonic stem cells into adipocytes in vitro. J Cell Sci 1997;110:1279–1285.[Abstract]

51. Choi JY, Lee BH, Song KB et al. Expression patterns of bone-related proteins during osteoblastic differentiation in MC3T3–E1 cells. J Cell Biochem 1996;61:609–618.[CrossRef][Medline]

52. Yamaguchi A, Katagiri T, Ikeda T et al. Recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 stimulates osteoblastic maturation and inhibits myogenic differentiation in vitro. J Cell Biol 1991;113:681–687.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

53. Kramer J, Hegert C, Guan K et al. Embryonic stem cell-derived chondrogenic differentiation in vitro: Activation by BMP-2 and BMP-4. Mech Dev 2000;92:193–205.[CrossRef][Medline]

54. Valta MP, Hentunen T, Qu Q et al. Regulation of osteoblast differentiation: A novel function for fibroblast growth factor 8. Endocrinology 2006;147:2171–2182.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

55. Karp JM, Ferreira LS, Khademhosseini A et al. Cultivation of human embryonic stem cells without the embryoid body step enhances osteogenesis in vitro. STEM CELLS 2006;24:835–843.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

56. Sottile V, Thomson A, McWhir J. In vitro osteogenic differentiation of human ES cells. Cloning Stem Cells 2003;5:149–155.[CrossRef][Medline]

57. Cao T, Heng BC, Ye CP et al. Osteogenic differentiation within intact human embryoid bodies result in a marked increase in osteocalcin secretion after 12 days of in vitro culture, and formation of morphologically distinct nodule-like structures. Tissue Cell 2005;37:325–334.[CrossRef][Medline]

58. Ahn SE, Kim S, Park KH et al. Primary bone-derived cells induce osteogenic differentiation without exogenous factors in human embryonic stem cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2006;340:403–408.[CrossRef][Medline]

59. Barberi T, Willis LM, Socci ND et al. Derivation of multipotent mesenchymal precursors from human embryonic stem cells. PLoS Med 2005;2:e161.[CrossRef][Medline]

60. Yamashita A, Takada T, Narita J et al. Osteoblastic differentiation of monkey embryonic stem cells in vitro. Cloning Stem Cells 2005;7:232–237.[Medline]

61. Fuller K, Chambers TJ. Generation of osteoclasts in cultures of rabbit bone marrow and spleen cells. J Cell Physiol 1987;132:441–452.[CrossRef][Medline]

62. Udagawa N, Takahashi N, Katagiri T et al. Interleukin (IL)-6 induction of osteoclast differentiation depends on IL-6 receptors expressed on osteoblastic cells but not on osteoclast progenitors. J Exp Med 1995;182:1461–1468.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

63. Nishikawa M, Akatsu T, Katayama Y et al. Bisphosphonates act on osteoblastic cells and inhibit osteoclast formation in mouse marrow cultures. Bone 1996;18:9–14.[Medline]

64. Sabokbar A, Fujikawa Y, Brett J et al. Increased osteoclastic differentiation by PMMA particle-associated macrophages. Inhibitory effect by interleukin 4 and leukemia inhibitory factor. Acta Orthop Scand 1996;67:593–598.[Medline]

65. O'Brien EA, Williams JH, Marshall MJ. Osteoprotegerin ligand regulates osteoclast adherence to the bone surface in mouse calvaria. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2000;274:281–290.[CrossRef][Medline]

66. Tsurukai T, Udagawa N, Matsuzaki K et al. Roles of macrophage-colony stimulating factor and osteoclast differentiation factor in osteoclastogenesis. J Bone Miner Metab 2000;18:177–184.[CrossRef][Medline]

67. Nicholson GC, Malakellis M, Collier FM et al. Induction of osteoclasts from CD14-positive human peripheral blood mononuclear cells by receptor activator of nuclear factor kappaB ligand (RANKL). Clin Sci (Lond) 2000;99:133–140.[Medline]

68. Kudo O, Sabokbar A, Pocock A et al. Interleukin-6 and interleukin-11 support human osteoclast formation by a RANKL-independent mechanism. Bone 2003;32:1–7.[Medline]

69. Beeton CA, Bord S, Ireland D et al. Osteoclast formation and bone resorption are inhibited by megakaryocytes. Bone 2006;24:24.

70. Sorensen MG, Henriksen K, Dziegiel MH et al. Estrogen directly attenuates human osteoclastogenesis, but has no effect on resorption by mature osteoclasts. DNA Cell Biol 2006;25:475–483.[CrossRef][Medline]

71. Atkins GJ, Kostakis P, Vincent C et al. RANK expression as a cell surface marker of human osteoclast precursors in peripheral blood, bone marrow, and giant cell tumors of bone. J Bone Miner Res 2006;21:1339–1349.[CrossRef][Medline]

72. Wittrant Y, Theoleyre S, Couillaud S et al. Relevance of an in vitro osteoclastogenesis system to study receptor activator of NF-kB ligand and osteoprotegerin biological activities. Exp Cell Res 2004;293:292–301.[CrossRef][Medline]

73. Tanaka S, Takahashi N, Udagawa N et al. Macrophage colony-stimulating factor is indispensable for both proliferation and differentiation of osteoclast progenitors. J Clin Invest 1993;91:257–263.[Medline]

74. Yasuda H, Shima N, Nakagawa N et al. Osteoclast differentiation factor is a ligand for osteoprotegerin/osteoclastogenesis-inhibitory factor and is identical to TRANCE/RANKL. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1998;95:3597–3602.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

75. Perkins SL, Kling SJ. Local concentrations of macrophage colony-stimulating factor mediate osteoclastic differentiation. Am J Physiol 1995;269:E1024–E1030.[Medline]

76. Shih C, Bernard GW. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells develop into multinucleated osteoclasts in tissue culture. Anat Rec 1996;245:41–45.[CrossRef][Medline]

77. Yamane T, Kunisada T, Yamazaki H et al. Development of osteoclasts from embryonic stem cells through a pathway that is c-fms but not c-kit dependent. Blood 1997;90:3516–3523.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

78. Okuyama H, Tsuneto M, Yamane T et al. Discrete types of osteoclast precursors can be generated from embryonic stem cells. STEM CELLS 2003;21:670–680.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

79. Hemmi H, Okuyama H, Yamane T et al. Temporal and spatial localization of osteoclasts in colonies from embryonic stem cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2001;280:526–534.[CrossRef][Medline]

80. Yamane T, Kunisada T, Yamazaki H et al. Sequential requirements for SCL/tal-1, GATA-2, macrophage colony-stimulating factor, and osteoclast differentiation factor/osteoprotegerin ligand in osteoclast development. Exp Hematol 2000;28:833–840.[CrossRef][Medline]

81. Tsuneto M, Yamazaki H, Yoshino M et al. Ascorbic acid promotes osteoclastogenesis from embryonic stem cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2005;335:1239–1246.[CrossRef][Medline]

82. Nakano T, Kodama H, Honjo T. Generation of lymphohematopoietic cells from embryonic stem cells in culture. Science 1994;265:1098–1101.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

83. Nicholls BM, Bredius RG, Hamdy NA et al. Limited rescue of osteoclast-poor osteopetrosis after successful engraftment by cord blood from an unrelated donor. J Bone Miner Res 2005;20:2264–2270.[CrossRef][Medline]

84. Heymann D, Ory B, Gouin F et al. Bisphosphonates: New therapeutic agents for the treatment of bone tumors. Trends Mol Med 2004;10:337–343.[CrossRef][Medline]

85. Alsberg E, Anderson KW, Albeiruti A et al. Cell-interactive alginate hydrogels for bone tissue engineering. J Dent Res 2001;80:2025–2029.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

86. Hattersley G, Chambers TJ. Effects of interleukin 3 and of granulocyte-macrophage and macrophage colony stimulating factors on osteoclast differentiation from mouse hemopoietic tissue. J Cell Physiol 1990;142:201–209.[CrossRef][Medline]

87. Fischer EM, Layrolle P, Van Blitterswijk CA et al. Bone formation by mesenchymal progenitor cells cultured on dense and microporous hydroxyapatite particles. Tissue Eng 2003;9:1179–1188.[CrossRef][Medline]

88. Oreffo RO, Driessens FC, Planell JA et al. Growth and differentiation of human bone marrow osteoprogenitors on novel calcium phosphate cements. Biomaterials 1998;19:1845–1854.[CrossRef][Medline]

89. Yoshikawa H, Myoui A. Bone tissue engineering with porous hydroxyapatite ceramics. J Artif Organs 2005;8:131–136.[CrossRef][Medline]

90. Suzuki A, Raya A, Kawakami Y et al. Nanog binds to Smad1 and blocks bone morphogenetic protein-induced differentiation of embryonic stem cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2006;103:10294–10299.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

91. Nishimura R, Kato Y, Chen D et al. Smad5 and DPC4 are key molecules in mediating BMP-2-induced osteoblastic differentiation of the pluripotent mesenchymal precursor cell line C2C12. J Biol Chem 1998;273:1872–1879.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

92. Ryoo HM, Lee MH, Kim YJ. Critical molecular switches involved in BMP-2-induced osteogenic differentiation of mesenchymal cells. Gene 2006;366:51–57.[CrossRef][Medline]

93. Yasuda H, Shima N, Nakagawa N et al. Identity of osteoclastogenesis inhibitory factor (OCIF) and osteoprotegerin (OPG): A mechanism by which OPG/OCIF inhibits osteoclastogenesis in vitro. Endocrinology 1998;139:1329–1337.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

94. Tu Q, Valverde P, Chen J. Osterix enhances proliferation and osteogenic potential of bone marrow stromal cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2006;341:1257–1265.[CrossRef][Medline]

95. Deliloglu-Gurhan SI, Vatansever HS, Ozdal-Kurt F et al. Characterization of osteoblasts derived from bone marrow stromal cells in a modified cell culture system. Acta Histochem 2006;108:49–57.[CrossRef][Medline]

96. van den Dolder J, Jansen JA. Enrichment of osteogenic cell populations from rat bone marrow stroma. Biomaterials 2007;28:249–255.[Medline]

97. Ye CP, Heng BC, Liu H et al. Culture media conditioned by heat-shocked osteoblasts enhances the osteogenesis of bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal cells. Cell Biochem Funct 2006; [Epub ahead of print].

98. Kim SJ, Cho HH, Kim YJ et al. Human adipose stromal cells expanded in human serum promote engraftment of human peripheral blood hematopoietic stem cells in NOD/SCID mice. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2005;329:25–31.[CrossRef][Medline]

99. Malladi P, Xu Y, Yang GP et al. Functions of vitamin D, retinoic acid, and dexamethasone in mouse adipose-derived mesenchymal cells. Tissue Eng 2006;12:2031–2040.[CrossRef][Medline]

100. Tholpady SS, Katz AJ, Ogle RC. Mesenchymal stem cells from rat visceral fat exhibit multipotential differentiation in vitro. Anat Rec A Discov Mol Cell Evol Biol 2003;272:398–402.[CrossRef][Medline]

101. In 't Anker PS, Scherjon SA, Kleijburg-van der Keur C et al. Isolation of mesenchymal stem cells of fetal or maternal origin from human placenta. STEM CELLS 2004;22:1338–1345.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

102. Kurihara N, Ishizuka S, Kiyoki M et al. Effects of 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 on osteoblastic MC3T3–E1 cells. Endocrinology 1986;118:940–947.[Abstract]

103. Chaudhry GR, Yao D, Smith A et al. Osteogenic cells derived from embryonic stem cells produced bone nodules in three-dimensional scaffolds. J Biomed Biotechnol 2004;2004:203–210.[CrossRef][Medline]

104. Bourne S, Polak JM, Hughes SP et al. Osteogenic differentiation of mouse embryonic stem cells: Differential gene expression analysis by cDNA microarray and purification of osteoblasts by cadherin-11 magnetically activated cell sorting. Tissue Eng 2004;10:796–806.[CrossRef][Medline]

105. Shimko DA, Burks CA, Dee KC et al. Comparison of in vitro mineralization by murine embryonic and adult stem cells cultured in an osteogenic medium. Tissue Eng 2004;10:1386–1398.[Medline]

106. Bielby RC, Boccaccini AR, Polak JM et al. In vitro differentiation and in vivo mineralization of osteogenic cells derived from human embryonic stem cells. Tissue Eng 2004;10:1518–1525.[Medline]

107. Friedman MS, Long MW, Hankenson KD. Osteogenic differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells is regulated by bone morphogenetic protein-6. J Cell Biochem 2006;98:538–554.[CrossRef][Medline]

108. Yang M, Mailhot G, Birnbaum MJ et al. Expression of and role for ovarian cancer G-protein-coupled receptor 1 (OGR1) during osteoclastogenesis. J Biol Chem 2006;281:23598–23605.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

109. Zou W, Amcheslavsky A, Takeshita S et al. TNF-alpha expression is transcriptionally regulated by RANK ligand. J Cell Physiol 2005;202:371–378.[CrossRef][Medline]

110. Zhu LL, Zaidi S, Moonga BS et al. RANK-L induces the expression of NFATc1, but not of NFkappaB subunits during osteoclast formation. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2005;326:131–135.[CrossRef][Medline]

111. Barton BE, Mayer R. IL-3 induces differentiation of bone marrow precursor cells to osteoclast-like cells. J Immunol 1989;143:3211–3216.[Abstract]

112. Hattersley G, Chambers TJ. Calcitonin receptors as markers for osteoclastic differentiation: Correlation between generation of bone-resorptive cells and cells that express calcitonin receptors in mouse bone marrow cultures. Endocrinology 1989;125:1606–1612.[Abstract]

113. Sasaki T, Takahashi N, Higashi S et al. Multinucleated cells formed on calcified dentine from mouse bone marrow cells treated with 1 alpha,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 have ruffled borders and resorb dentine. Anat Rec 1989;224:379–391.[CrossRef][Medline]

114. Takahashi N, Yamana H, Yoshiki S et al. Osteoclast-like cell formation and its regulation by osteotropic hormones in mouse bone marrow cultures. Endocrinology 1988;122:1373–1382.[Abstract]