|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prepublished online as a Blood First Edition Paper on October 31, 2002; DOI 10.1182/blood-2002-06-1740.
HEMATOPOIESIS
From the Division of Immunology, Department of
Molecular and Cellular Biology, School of Life Science, Faculty of
Medicine, Tottori University, Yonago, Tottori, Japan; and the Second
Research Department, Central Technology Laboratory, Asahi Kasei,
Shizuoka, Japan.
Osteoclasts are derived from hematopoietic precursor cells
belonging to the monocyte/macrophage lineage. Osteoclast
development has been reported to be regulated by several molecules such
as macrophage colony-stimulating factor (M-CSF), receptor activator of
nuclear factor (NF)- The control of cell fate by Notch signaling was
first described for Drosophila melanogaster neural/epidermal
precursors as a mechanism involving lateral inhibition.1,2
At present, 4 Notch receptors, Notch-1, -2, -3, and -4, and their
ligands, Delta-1, -3, and -4, and Jagged-1 and -2 have been identified in mammals.3-11 Notch ligands bind to Notch receptors
through their extracellular domain, trigger proteolytic processing, and release the Notch intracellular domain (NIC) from the cell membrane. Cleaved NIC interacts with the DNA-binding transcription factor CBF1/RBP-J Recently, several studies have reported the roles of Notch signaling in
hematopoietic cell development.17-20 NIC transgenic mice
have defective B-cell development.21 Notch signaling
influences the decision of differentiation into Osteoclasts are also included in the myeloid lineage and are derived
from hematopoietic precursor cells shared with the macrophage and
dendritic cell lineages.27,28 Osteoclast differentiation is a multistep process that eventually leads to expression of tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase (TRAP), multinucleation, and bone-resorbing activity.29-33 Osteoclastogenesis is
dependent on stromal cells that support
hematopoiesis,34-36 and it has been demonstrated that the
critical molecules produced by stromal cells are M-CSF37
and receptor activator of nuclear factor (NF)- In this study, we used culture systems for osteoclast development to
assess the role of Notch signaling in hematopoiesis. Stromal cells
produce not only M-CSF and RANKL,38,40 but also several
other molecules that affect hematopoiesis, including Notch ligands.
When a truncated form of the Notch ligand Delta-1 was immobilized on
culture dishes, the Hes1 transcription in bone marrow (BM)
cells cultured in these dishes in the presence of M-CSF was activated.
We also found that Notch signaling reduced the expression of an M-CSF
receptor, c-Fms, in M-CSF-treated adherent BM cells and inhibited
their osteoclastogenesis. Furthermore, the activated Notch-1 on stromal
cells reduced M-CSF (Csfm) gene expression and enhanced
RANKL (Tnfsf11) and osteoprotegerin (OPG)/osteoclastogenesis inhibitory factor (OCIF; Tnfrsf11b) gene41,42
expression, resulting in reduction of the ability to support
osteoclastogenesis. Thus, this study showed that Notch signaling
regulates osteoclast development directed to osteoclast precursors and
through stromal cells.
Cell culture
A BM-derived stromal cell line, ST2, was maintained in RPMI 1640 (Gibco-BRL) supplemented with 5% FCS and 50 µM
2-mercaptoethanol.44 ST2NIC cells were maintained
in the same medium, except that it was supplemented with 1 µg/mL
tetracycline (Tc; Sigma, St Louis, MO).
Induction of differentiation into osteoclasts and dendritic
cells
TRAP staining Cultured cells were fixed with 10% formalin (Wako Pure Chemical Industries, Osaka, Japan) in PBS for 10 minutes, and subsequently with ethanol-acetone (50:50 vol/vol; Wako) for 1 minute at room temperature, and incubated in acetate buffer (pH 5.0; Sigma) containing naphthol AS-MX phosphate (Sigma) as a substrate and fast red violet Luria-Bertani (LB) salt (Sigma) as a stain in the presence of 50 mM sodium tartrate (Wako).47 TRAP+ cells with more than 2 nuclei were scored as TRAP+-multinucleated cells (MNCs).Frequency analysis of osteoclast precursors One day before the assay, the ST2 monolayer was allowed to form in a 96-well plate (Corning Costar). Before seeding the cells from BM cells and M-CSF-cultured BM cells, the medium was removed from the well and 20 dilutions of freshly prepared bone marrow cells and 3 dilutions of M-CSF-cultured cells diluted in 200 µL of medium containing dexamethasone (DEX) and 1 ,
25-(OH)2D3 were added. Each cell dilution
series was performed in a total of 96 wells. The medium was changed
every other day by aspirating the medium and adding 200 µL of fresh
medium. At 6 days after the initiation of the cultures, the cells in
the well were stained. Wells containing TRAP+ cells were
judged as osteoclast positive. We selected the appropriate number of
TRAP+ cell-positive wells from each experimental group and
calculated 1/frequency of the presence of osteoclast precursors in the
fractions using the following formula:
1/frequency = N/{ln[T/(T P)]}, where N is the number of cells
added per well, T is the number of wells per group (96 wells), and P is
the number of positive wells per group.48
Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis Total RNA was prepared using ISOGEN (Nippon Gene, Toyama, Japan). First-strand cDNA synthesis was performed by using ReverTraAce (Toyobo, Osaka, Japan) and primed with oligo(dT)12-18 primer (Gibco-BRL) in a 20-µL reaction mixture. The first-strand cDNA mixture (1 µL) was subjected to PCR with Taq polymerase (Toyobo) in a 25-µL volume. The PCR conditions were as follows: 94°C (3 minutes), 60°C (2 minutes), and 72°C (3 minutes) for the primary cycle; 94°C (45 seconds), 60°C (1 minute), and 72°C (1.5 minutes) for the following 36 cycles. The extension time in the last cycle was 3 minutes. The following primers were used: Delta1 (GenBank accession number X80903), 5'-CTGAGGTGTAAGATGGAAGCG-3'/5'-CAACTGTCCATAGTGCAATGG-3'; Jagged1 (AF 171092), 5'-ATTCGATCTACATAGCCTGTGAG-3'/5'-CTATACGATGTATTCCATCCGGT-3'; Jagged2 (AF038572), 5'-TGTCAGCCACGGAGCAGTCATT-3'/5'-TCTCACGTTCTTTCCTGCGCTT-3'; Notch1 (Z11886), 5'-TGTGACAGCCAGTGCAACTC-3'/5'-TGGCACTCTGGAAGCACTGC-3'; Notch2 (D32210), 5'-ACATCATCACAGACTTGGTC-3'/5'-CATTATTGACAGCAGCTGCC-3'; Notch3 (X74760), 5'-ACACTGGGAGTTCTCTGT-3'/5'-GTCTGCTGGCATGGGATA-3'; Notch4 (U43691), 5'-TGCCTGCACAATGGTACCTG-3'/5'-TCTGGCTTCAGTGCCTTAAG-3'; Hes1(BC018375), 5'-GCCAGTGTCAACACGACACCGG-3'/5'-TCACCTCGTTCATGCACTCG-3'; Tnfrsf11a (RANK; AF019046), 5'-CCAGGGGACAACGGAATCAG-3'/5'-GGCCGGTCCGTGTACTCATC-3'; c-Fms (X68932), 5'-GGACTATGCTAACCTGCCAA-3'/5'-GAGAAAGAGAACTAGGGGTG-3'; glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate (Gapd; M32599), 5'-CACCACCATGGAGAAGGCCGGG-3'/5'-GTGTAGCCCAAGATGCCCTTCA-3'; hypoxanthine phosphoribosyltransferase (Hprt; J00423), 5'-GTAATGATCAGTCAACGGGGGAC-3'/ 5'-CCAGCAAGCTTGCAACCTTAACCA-3'.Flow cytometry The following antibodies (Abs) were used for staining: M1/70 (anti-Mac-1; Immunotech, Marseille, France); AFS98 (anti-c-Fms),49 anti-CD11c (PharMingen, San Diego, CA); and anti-I-Ab (PharMingen). Stained cells were analyzed using a flow cytometer (EPICS XL; Coulter, Palo Alto, CA).Tc-regulated system ST2 cells were first transfected with a construct that expressed the Tc-controlled transactivator-internal ribosomal entry site (IRES)-hph gene under the control of the CAG promoter, and cultured in the presence of 25 µg/mL hygromycin B (Sigma). Resistant cells were further cotransfected with a construct that expressed a constitutively active form of the Notch-1; this construct contained an IRES element followed by the gene for green fluorescent protein (GFP) under the control of the human cytomegalovirus-1 (CMV*-1) promoter (Tc-responsive promoter) and a PGK-neor construct. The cells were then selected in the presence of 200 µg/mL G418 (Gibco-BRL), 25 µg/mL hygromycin B, and 1 µg/mL Tc.50,51 Transfections were performed with LipofectAMINE 2000 Reagent (Gibco-BRL).Northern blot analysis ST2NIC cells were cultured for 4 days as described in "Cell culture." Total RNA was prepared using ISOGEN. Total RNA (25 µg) was electrophoresed in a 1% agarose formaldehyde gel, transferred to a Hybond-N+ membrane (Amersham Bioscience, Piscataway, NJ), and probed with [32P]-labeled M-CSF (also known as Csfm), RANKL (Tnfsf11), OCIF (Tnfrsf11b) cDNA, and Gapd DNA fragments. The Gapd probe was a DNA fragment amplified by PCR with the following primers : 5'-CACCACCATGGAGAAGGCCGGG-3'/5'-GTGTAGCCCAAGATGCCCTTCA-3'.
Immobilized Delta-1-FL inhibits osteoclast development To assess the effects of Notch ligands on osteoclast differentiation, we cultured freshly prepared cells from the BM, spleen, and peritoneal cavity with M-CSF and RANKL in dishes coated with BAP-FL as a control, or Delta-1-FL. Osteoclast precursors are present in various tissues, including BM, spleen, and the peritoneal cavity. In an in vitro study, we have found that these cells can differentiate into multinucleated TRAP+ osteoclasts that have bone-resorbing activity (data not shown).The osteoclast formation was significantly inhibited in the cultures in
the dishes coated with Delta-1-FL. The degree of inhibition of the
formation of multinucleated osteoclasts was different for osteoclast
precursors from different tissues (the rates of reduction were as
follows: BM, 23.3%; spleen, 75.9%; and peritoneal cavity, 100.0%;
Figure 1).
Cells from BM, spleen, and peritoneal cavity also contained a variety
of cell lineages other than osteoclast precursors. Reverse transcriptase (RT)-PCR analysis showed that there were cells
expressing Notch receptors Notch1, Notch2, Notch3, and
Notch4 in BM. A BM-derived stromal cell line, ST2, also expressed
Notch1, Notch2, and Notch3 (Figure
2A). Thus, it is not clear whether the
inhibition of osteoclastogenesis by an immobilized Delta-1-FL (as
shown in Figure 1) results from a direct effect on osteoclast
precursors or from a secondary effect through stromal cells or other
hematopoietic cell lineages.
C7-TY cells, a clonal macrophagelike cell line43 that has the potential to differentiate into osteoclasts even when treated with RANKL only, expressed Notch receptors Notch1, Notch2, and Notch4, but not Notch3 (Figure 2A). We assessed the effect of immobilized Delta-1-FL on C7-TY cells. Osteoclastogenesis of C7-TY cells was also inhibited by immobilized Delta-1-FL (Figure 2B). Thus, the inhibition of osteoclast formation by Notch signaling appears to be due at least in part to direct effects on osteoclast precursors. In contrast, the soluble form of Delta-1-FL did not affect the osteoclastogenesis of BM cells, spleen cells, PECs (data not shown), or C7-TY cells (Figure 2B). Neither the soluble nor the immobilized form of BAP-FL affected osteoclastogenesis, so we used immobilized BAP-FL as a negative control, unless otherwise indicated. Immobilized Delta-1-FL induces Hes1 gene expression To determine whether the immobilized Delta-1-FL functions as an agonist or antagonist of Notch signaling, we investigated the gene expression of a transcription factor, Hes1, whose expression is regulated by Notch signaling. RT-PCR analysis showed that BM cells cultured with M-CSF for 4 days on immobilized Delta-1-FL showed increased expression of the Hes1 gene compared with those on immobilized BAP-FL (Figure 3). Addition of soluble Delta-1-FL did not affect Hes1 expression (Figure 3). These data indicate that immobilized Delta-1-FL functions as an agonistic ligand, but soluble Delta-1-FL does not affect Hes1 gene expression.
Osteoclast precursors in the BM are enriched by culturing with M-CSF We cultured freshly prepared BM cells with 50 ng/mL M-CSF to enrich the cells that have the potential to differentiate into mature osteoclasts. On day 2, BM cells treated with M-CSF showed macrophagelike morphology. Although not all BM cells treated with M-CSF (designated BMMCs) attached to culture dishes, the dish-adherent cells increased and nonadherent cells decreased during the culture period (Figure 6C).We assessed the potential of these BMMCs to differentiate into
osteoclasts. After 2, 4, or 6 days of culturing with M-CSF, 103 each adherent and nonadherent cells were inoculated
into 24-well plates, and induced to differentiate into osteoclasts with
M-CSF and RANKL for 6 days. Generation of osteoclasts increased as the length of preculturing with M-CSF increased (Figure
4). Freshly prepared BM cells contained 1 osteoclast precursor per 63.4 cells, whereas more than 1 of 3 cells in
both adherent (1/2.7) and nonadherent (1/2.3) cells cultured with M-CSF
for 4 days were capable of differentiating into osteoclasts. These data
suggest that M-CSF enriched the cells that have the potential to
differentiate into osteoclasts.
Flow cytometric analysis revealed that almost all of the adherent cells cultured with M-CSF for 4 days expressed myeloid cell lineage markers Mac-1 and c-Fms on their surface (Mac-1+, 98.4%; c-Fms+, 93.9%; Mac-1+ and c-Fms+, 93.7%). The majority of nonadherent cells also expressed Mac-1 (Mac-1+, 77.8%; c-Fms+, 52.7%; Mac-1+ and c-Fms+, 50.5%). M-CSF preferentially induced Mac-1 and c-Fms double-positive cells from BM cells (Mac-1+, 60.5%; c-Fms+, 1.8%; Mac-1+ and c-Fms+, 1.8%). Although there were also Mac-1 and/or c-Fms-expressing cells in the nonadherent cell fraction, the fluorescence intensities were heterogeneous and less bright than those of adherent cells (Figure 6A). M-CSF stimulation induces the expression of Notch receptors and their ligands on BMMCs The expression of Notch receptors and their ligands on BMMCs was analyzed. After 2 days of culturing with M-CSF, the dish-adherent cells expressed Notch1 and Notch2 mRNAs, but nonadherent cells did not. On day 4, significant expression of Notch1 and Notch2 was detected in both adherent and nonadherent cells. M-CSF stimulation induced the expression of Notch ligands Delta1, Jagged1, and Jagged2 on day 4 of culturing. These data show that BMMCs expressed Notch receptors and ligands, and that this expression was delayed on nonadherent cells compared with that on adherent cells. Expression of RANK (Tnfrsf11a), a receptor for RANKL, was detected in adherent and nonadherent cells on day 2, and the expression was enhanced on day 4 (Figure 5).
Immobilized Delta-1-FL reduces c-Fms expression on BMMCs Because immobilized Delta-1-FL inhibited osteoclastogenesis, we assessed whether the immobilized Delta-1-FL might negatively affect the commitment of BM cells to differentiate into osteoclast precursors, or the proliferation of osteoclast precursors. We cultured BM cells with M-CSF for 4 days with soluble Delta-1-FL, or on BAP-FL- or Delta-1-FL-coated dishes, and analyzed harvested cells for the expression of myeloid cell markers by flow cytometry. Almost all of the adherent cells expressed c-Fms; however, the fluorescence intensity of the cell surface differed depending on the treatment. Compared with the cells cultured on BAP-FL-coated dishes, the cells cultured on Delta-1-FL-coated dishes showed reduced c-Fms expression. In contrast, the addition of soluble Delta-1-FL slightly enhanced the c-Fms expression (Figure 6A). Because soluble Delta-1-FL did not affect Hes1 expression, it is not clear how soluble Delta-1-FL enhanced c-Fms expression (Figure 3).
We performed RT-PCR analysis for the c-Fms gene to examine whether the reduction of c-Fms on the cell surface by immobilized Delta-1-FL was due to transcriptional regulation. The results showed that the level of the c-Fms transcript was not affected by immobilized or soluble Delta-1-FL (Figure 6B). This suggests that the reduction of c-Fms on the cell surface by Notch signaling was due to posttranscriptional regulation. We also assessed the effect of immobilized Delta-1-FL on M-CSF-dependent cell growth when BM cells were cultured with M-CSF for 2, 4, and 6 days on the BAP-FL, or Delta-1-FL-coated dishes, and found that the numbers of recovered adherent and nonadherent cells from the 2 types of dishes were not significantly different (Figure 6C). Immobilized Delta-1-FL inhibits the differentiation of BMMCs to osteoclasts As shown in Figure 1, immobilized Delta-1-FL inhibited osteoclast formation of spleen cells and PECs more efficiently than that of BM cells. Therefore, we assessed whether this difference might have resulted from the presence of a variety of osteoclast precursors or variation of their developmental stages. We precultured freshly prepared BM cells with 50 ng/mL M-CSF for 4 days, and subsequently induced these BMMCs to differentiate into osteoclasts by treatment with RANKL and M-CSF for 6 days. Dish-adherent cells precultured with M-CSF efficiently differentiated into TRAP+ osteoclasts. When the induction of these adherent cells to osteoclasts was performed in the presence of immobilized Delta-1-FL, the formation of osteoclasts was strongly inhibited (Figure 7A,C). In contrast, the osteoclastogenesis of nonadherent cells precultured with M-CSF was not inhibited by immobilized Delta-1-FL (Figure 7A,C). Addition of soluble Delta-1-FL to cultures did not affect osteoclast formation from either the adherent or nonadherent cells (data not shown).
Nonadherent cells, but not adherent cells, from BMMCs maintain the potential to differentiate into the dendritic cell lineage To clarify the difference between the differentiation potentials of the adherent and nonadherent cells, we induced these cells to differentiate into the dendritic cell lineage. Osteoclasts and dendritic cells have been reported to have common precursors.27,28 After BM cells were cultured with M-CSF for 4 days, the adherent and nonadherent cells were recultured with GM-CSF and IL-4 in Delta-1-FL-coated wells for 6 days. I-Ab-high CD11c+ cells, whose phenotype corresponded to the dendritic cell lineage, were efficiently induced from nonadherent cells, but not from adherent cells (Figure 7B). Immobilized Delta-1-FL did not affect the induction of I-Ab-high CD11c+ cells (Figure 7B). Thus, nonadherent cells maintained the potential to differentiate into not only osteoclasts but also dendritic cells, whereas adherent cells lost the potential to differentiate into dendritic cells.These results suggest that the nonadherent cells were in a less mature stage than adherent cells, and that Notch signaling might affect the precursor cells after they lose their bipotentiality to differentiate into osteoclasts and dendritic cells, and inhibit terminal differentiation into osteoclasts. Notch signaling also affects stromal cells, and reduces their ability to support osteoclastogenesis Osteoclast formation is known to be supported by osteoblasts/stromal cells via a mechanism involving the production of M-CSF and RANKL. ST2 cells expressed Notch1, Notch2, and Notch3, and Notch ligands, Delta1 and Jagged1 (Figure 2A). Therefore, to examine the effect of Notch signaling on the ability of cells to support osteoclast development, we established an ST2 cell subline (ST2NIC) carrying an active form of the Notch1 (aNotch1) gene regulated under the Tc-Off system. In the ST2NIC cells, the expression of the aNotch1 gene was induced in the absence of Tc (Figure 8A, upper panel). We cocultured BM cells with ST2NIC stromal cells in the presence of DEX and 1,25(OH)2D3 for 6 days. Osteoclast formation was reduced in the absence compared with the presence of Tc (Figure 8A).
To clarify the reason for this effect, we performed Northern blot hybridization analysis of the gene expression of M-CSF (Csfm), RANKL (Tnfsf11), and OPG (Tnfrsf11b), which are known to be produced by stromal cells.38,42 Addition of DEX and 1,25(OH)2D3 to the cultures enhanced the level of expression of Tnfsf11, and reduced the expression of Tnfrsf11b in ST2 cells. Surprisingly, in the absence of Tc, the levels of expression of Tnfsf11 and Tnfrsf11b were slightly enhanced, whereas that of Csfm was dramatically reduced in ST2NIC cells (Figure 8B). Thus, Notch signaling enhanced the production of not only RANKL, but also OPG, a decoy receptor for RANKL. Moreover, because M-CSF production was significantly reduced in the stromal cells, the ability of these cells to support osteoclastogenesis might have been reduced. Taken together, our findings suggest that Notch signaling might regulate osteoclastogenesis negatively by affecting both osteoclast precursors and stromal cells.
In this study, we showed that immobilized Delta-1 inhibited osteoclastogenesis from precursors in the BM, spleen, and peritoneal cavity, and from a macrophagelike cell line. The immobilized Delta-1-FL appeared to function as an agonist for Notch receptor(s), and to direct its signal to osteoclast precursors. Signaling via Notch receptor(s) on ST2 stromal cells also reduced their ability to support osteoclast development. In the presence of recombinant M-CSF and RANKL, osteoclastogenesis from the freshly prepared cells tested in this study was inhibited by immobilized Delta-1-FL (Figure 1). However, these cells consisted of a variety of hematopoietic cells and stromal cells, which express Notch and Notch ligand genes. To identify the target cells of Delta-1, we used a cloned macrophagelike cell line.43 Our finding that the osteoclast formation of C7-TY cells was also inhibited by immobilized Delta-1-FL suggested that the signaling via immobilized Delta-1-FL might affect osteoclast precursors directly. Two laboratories have reported the effects of Notch signaling using the same cell line, but their results were not consistent.52-54 Therefore, we assessed the effects of Notch signaling on osteoclast precursors prepared from mouse BM cells. Freshly prepared BM cells contained less than 2% Mac-1 and c-Fms double-positive cells, whereas in contrast, 94% of dish-adherent cells cultured with M-CSF expressed both molecules on their surface. Corresponding to the increase of the proportion of these cells, the frequency of osteoclast precursors was increased from 1/60 in freshly prepared BM cells to more than 1/3 in the cells cultured with M-CSF for 4 days. The osteoclast formation of M-CSF-cultured adherent cells was more strongly inhibited by immobilized Delta-1-FL compared with that of freshly prepared BM cells. These results also suggest that the inhibition by immobilized Delta-1-FL might be directed to osteoclast precursors. C7-TY cells and M-CSF-cultured adherent cells, in which osteoclastogenesis was inhibited by immobilized Delta-1-FL, expressed mainly Notch-1 and Notch-2 (Figures 2A, 5). It has been reported that Delta-1 can bind both Notch-1 and Notch-2, and that both Notch receptors regulate the same signaling pathway.55,56 Therefore, we conclude that immobilized Delta-1 mainly inhibited the formation of osteoclasts through both Notch-1 and Notch-2. Immobilized Delta-1-FL induced Hes1 gene expression in M-CSF-stimulated BM cells (Figure 3), indicating that immobilized Delta-1-FL is an agonistic ligand for Notch receptor(s). Opposite effects of the immobilized and soluble forms of Delta-1-FL were detected on the expression of c-Fms (Figure 6). Therefore, it is possible that soluble Delta-1-FL might function as an antagonistic ligand, although soluble Delta-1-FL did not inhibit Hes1 gene expression (Figure 3). Since Shimizu and colleagues reported that soluble Delta-1 weakly activated Notch signaling, while it also functioned as an antagonistic ligand when present together with full-length Notch ligands,57 the effect of soluble Notch ligands is not obvious. Varnum-Finney and colleagues also reported that the extracellular domain of immobilized Notch ligands induced Hes1 transcription, and the Notch function was inhibited by soluble Notch ligands,58 suggesting that truncated Notch ligands might function like full-length ligands by immobilization on plastic dishes. It still remains unclear whether immobilized Delta-1-FL inhibited osteoclastogenesis from nonadherent cells cultured with M-CSF. This cell fraction contained cells that have the potential to differentate into osteoclasts at a frequency of 1/2.3, and half of them expressed both Mac-1 and c-Fms on their surfaces. One possibility is that nonadherent cells are in a less mature stage than adherent cells, and that the Notch signaling might affect the precursor cells after they lose their bipotentiality to differentiate into osteoclasts and dendritic cells. We found that nonadherent cells had the potential to differentiate into osteoclasts and dendritic cells, whereas adherent cells lacked the potential to differentiate into dendritic cells (Figure 7B). Given that osteoclasts and dendritic cells have been reported to be derived from common precursors,27,28 the adherent cells cultured with M-CSF might be more mature than the nonadherent cells. It has been reported that the regulation of hematopoietic cells by Notch signaling occurs mainly in cells at immature stages, such as hematopoietic stem cells,59,60 and common progenitors to B- and T-cell lineages.21,61 In osteoclast formation, however, Notch signaling may preferentially affect terminal differentiation. Another possibility is that nonadherent cells may be of a different lineage than adherent cells, and nonadherent cells may not be sensitive to Notch signaling. However, this is not likely, because although Notch-signaling genes were expressed on M-CSF-induced adherent cells but not nonadherent cells on the second day of culturing (Figure 5), these genes gradually came to be expressed on nonadherent cells, and on the fourth day the levels of expression on nonadherent cells became comparable with those on adherent cells (Figure 5). One possible alternative explanation is that the Delta-1-FL coated on the dishes might be unstable, and function only at the initiation of cultures. This can be ruled out because the binding of this ligand to Notch receptors remained essentially unchanged for a week (S.S., unpublished observation, April 2002). One possible reason for the partial inhibition of freshly prepared BM
cells by immobilized Delta-1-FL is that they might contain few cells
corresponding to the adherent cells precultured with M-CSF. The
inhibition of the adherent cells from BMMCs as well as PECs was almost
complete. Immobilized Delta-1-FL reduced the expression of the M-CSF
receptor c-Fms on the surface of M-CSF-induced adherent cells (Figure
6A). Moreover, immobilized Delta-1-FL inhibited osteoclast formation
from C7-TY cells in the absence of M-CSF (Figure 2B). These results
suggest that immobilized Delta-1-FL might affect the signaling via not
only c-Fms, but also RANK. Therefore, we examined the effect of
immobilized Delta-1-FL on the expression of the genes
Tnfr11a (for RANK), Mitf and Bcl2, which are essential for the formation of osteoclasts, and
Ifnb (which encodes interferon [IFN]- In osteoclastogenesis, the osteoclast precursor-osteoblast/stromal cell interaction is crucial.34 Stromal cells that produce RANKL and M-CSF construct the microenvironment for hematopoiesis including osteoclast differentiation.37,38,40 Stromal cells also express Notch and Notch ligands, suggesting that Notch signaling might regulate the function of stromal cells. We established an ST2 stromal cell line (ST2NIC) carrying a constitutively active form of Notch regulated by the Tc-Off system.50,51 Because Notch signaling is activated in the ST2NIC cells without extracellular stimulation, we were able to assess the direct effect of Notch signaling on the stromal cells. The results indicated that the Notch signaling induced the expression of the gene for RANKL and OPG, and severely reduced Csfm (M-CSF) expression, resulting in reduction of the ability of the ST2NIC cell line to support osteoclastogenesis (Figure 8). Thus, Notch signaling may affect stromal cells as well as osteoclast precursors, and thereby function as a negative regulator of osteoclast development. In this study, we demonstrated that Notch signaling negatively regulated osteoclastogenesis. In osteoclast precursors, the signaling reduced the expression of c-Fms on the cell surface and inhibited terminal differentiation into osteoclasts. In stromal cells, Notch signaling regulated the expression of the genes for M-CSF, RANKL, and OPG, and reduced the ability to undergo osteoclastogenesis. Our findings and those of a recent report showing that osteoblast differentiation was positively regulated by Notch signaling64 suggest that the balance between osteoclasts and osteoblasts in the bone might be regulated by Notch signaling.
We thank Dr Hermann Bujard (Heidelberg University), Dr Hitoshi Niwa (RIKEN Center for Developmental Biology, Kobe, Japan), and Dr Ryoichiro Kageyama (Kyoto University) for plasmids; Dr Kazuya Yamanishi and Dr Masayuki Takahashi (Otsuka Pharmaceutical), Dr Tetsuo Sudo (Toray Industries), and Dr Shin-Ichi Nishikawa (Kyoto University) for reagents. We also thank Dr Toshiyuki Shibahara for maintenance of the mice and Ms Toshie Shinohara for secretarial assistance.
Submitted June 13, 2002; accepted October 17, 2002.
Prepublished online as Blood First Edition Paper, October 31, 2002; DOI 10.1182/blood- 2002-06-1740.
Supported by grants from the Special Coordination Funds of the Ministry for Promoting Science and Technology from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology, the Japanese Government; and from the Molecular Medical Science Institute, Otsuka Pharmaceutical.
S.S. is employed by Asahi Kasei Corporation, which produced recombinant proteins of soluble human Notch ligands studied in the present work.
The publication costs of this article were defrayed in part by page charge payment. Therefore, and solely to indicate this fact, this article is hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. section 1734.
Reprints: Takayuki Yamada, Division of Immunology, Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, School of Life Science, Faculty of Medicine, Tottori University, Yonago, Tottori 683-8503, Japan; e-mail: yamad{at}grape.med.tottori-u.ac.jp.
1. Heitzler P, Simpson P. The choice of cell fate in the epidermis of Drosophila. Cell. 1991;64:1083-1092[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
2.
Artavanis-Tsakonas S, Rand MD, Lake RJ.
Notch signaling: cell fate control and signal integration in development.
Science.
1999;284:770-776 3. Ellisen LW, Bird J, West DC, et al. TAN-1, the human homolog of the Drosophila Notch gene, is broken by chromosomal translocations in T lymphoblastic neoplasms. Cell. 1991;66:649-661[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 4. Weinmaster G, Roberts VJ, Lemke G. Notch2: a second mammalian Notch gene. Development. 1992;116:931-941[Abstract]. 5. Lardelli M, Dashlstrand J, Lendahl U. The novel Notch homologue mouse Notch 3 lacks specific epidermal growth factor-repeats and is expressed in proliferating neuroepithelium. Mech Dev. 1994;46:123-136[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 6. Uyttendaele H, Marazzi G, Wu G, Yan Q, Sasoon D, Kitajewski J. Notch4/int-3, a mammary proto-oncogene, is an endothelial cell-specific mammalian Notch gene. Development. 1996;122:2251-2259[Abstract]. 7. Bettenhausen B, Hrabe de Angelis M, Simon D, Guenet JL, Gossler A. Transient and restricted expression during mouse embryogenesis of Dll1, a murine gene closely related to Drosophila Delta. Development. 1995;121:2407-2418[Abstract]. 8. Lindsell CE, Shawber CJ, Boulter J, Weinmaster G. Jagged: mammalian ligand that activates Notch1. Cell. 1995;80:909-917[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 9. Dunwoodie SL, Henrique D, Harrison D, Harrison SM, Beddington RS. Mouse Dll3: a novel divergent Delta gene which may complement the function of other Delta homologues during early pattern formation in the mouse embryo. Development. 1997;124:3065-3076[Abstract]. 10. Luo B, Aster JC, Hasserjian RP, Kuo F, Sklar J. Isolation and functional analysis of a cDNA for human Jagged2, a gene encoding a ligand for the Notch1 receptor. Mol Cell Biol. 1997;17:6057-6067[Abstract].
11.
Shutter JR, Scully S, Fan W, et al.
Dll4, a novel Notch ligand expressed in arterial endothelium.
Genes Dev.
2000;14:1313-1318 12. Hsieh JJ-D, Henkel T, Salmon P, Robey E, Peterson MG, Hayward SD. Truncated mammalian Notch1 activates CBF1/RBPJk-repressed genes by a mechanism resembling that of Epstein-Barr virus EBNA2. Mol Cell Biol. 1996;16:952-959[Abstract].
13.
Oswald F, Liptay S, Adler G, Schmid RM.
NF-
14.
Takebayashi K, Sasai Y, Sakai Y, Watanabe T, Nakanishi S, Kageyama R.
Structure, chromosomal locus, and promoter analysis of the gene encoding the helix-loop-helix factor HES-1.
J Biol Chem.
1994;269:5150-5156
15.
Kuroda K, Tani S, Tamura K, Minoguchi S, Kurooka H, Honjo T.
Delta-induced Notch signaling mediated by RBP-J inhibits MyoD expression and myogenesis.
J Biol Chem.
1999;274:7238-7244 16. Rebay I, Fehon RG, Artavanis TS. Specific truncations of Drosophila Notch define dominant activated and dominant negative forms of the receptor. Cell. 1993;74:319-329[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
17.
Milner LA, Bigas A.
Notch as a mediator of cell fate determination in hematopoiesis: evidence and speculation.
Blood.
1999;93:2431-2448 18. Osborne B, Miele L. Notch and the immune system. Immunity. 1999;11:653-663[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 19. Singh N, Phillips RA, Iscove NN, Egan SE. Expression of notch receptors, notch ligands, and fringe genes in hematopoiesis. Exp Hematol. 2000;28:527-534[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 20. Kojika S, Griffin JD. Notch receptors and hematopoiesis. Exp Hematol. 2001;29:1041-1052[CrossRef][Medline] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Top
Abstract
Introduction
B ligand (RANKL), and a decoy receptor of RANKL, osteoprotegerin (OPG). Recently, it was demonstrated that the
Notch signaling pathway regulates myeloid differentiation and
antagonizes cell fate determination, however, the effect of Notch
signaling on the osteoclast lineage has not been reported. In this
study, we examined the effect of signaling via Notch receptors on the
differentiation into osteoclasts by using cells from the bone marrow,
spleen, and peritoneal cavity, and a cloned macrophagelike cell line.
Osteoclastogenesis was inhibited by an immobilized Notch ligand,
Delta-1. The dish-adherent bone marrow cells precultured with
M-CSF expressed both Mac-1 and M-CSF receptors, c-Fms;
osteoclastogenesis of these cells was efficiently inhibited. The
immobilized Delta-1 also down-regulated the surface c-Fms expression,
while the c-Fms gene expression was not changed. Genes for
Notch receptors and Notch ligands are expressed in not only
hematopoietic cells but also stromal cells that support osteoclast
development. Constitutively active Notch1-transfected
stromal cells showed increased expression of RANKL and OPG genes, and
strong inhibition of M-CSF gene expression, resulting in reduction of
their ability to support osteoclast development. Taken together, these
findings indicate that Notch signaling affects both osteoclast
precursors and stromal cells and thereby negatively regulates osteoclastogenesis.
(Blood. 2003;101:2227-2234)
versus 
T
cells,
)
and nonadherent (
) cells were significantly different on each day of
culturing (adherent versus nonadherent cells on days 2, 4, and 6, P < .01; day 2 versus 4 and 6, day 4 versus 6 for both
adherent and nonadherent cells, P < .01).
8 M) and DEX
(10