41 research outputs found

    Generation of Novel Bone Forming Cells (Monoosteophils) from the Cathelicidin-Derived Peptide LL-37 Treated Monocytes

    Get PDF
    Bone generation and maintenance involve osteoblasts, osteoclasts, and osteocytes which originate from unique precursors and rely on key growth factors for differentiation. However, an incomplete understanding of bone forming cells during wound healing has led to an unfilled clinical need such as nonunion of bone fractures. Since circulating monocytes are often recruited to sites of injury and may differentiate into various cell types including osteoclasts, we investigated the possibility that circulating monocytes in the context of tissue injury may also contribute to bone repair. In particular, we hypothesized that LL-37 (produced from hCAP-18, cathelicidin), which recruits circulating monocytes during injury, may play a role in bone repair.Treatment of monocytes from blood with LL-37 for 6 days resulted in their differentiation to large adherent cells. Growth of LL-37-differentiated monocytes on osteologic discs reveals bone-like nodule formation by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). In vivo transplantation studies in NOD/SCID mice show that LL-37-differentiated monocytes form bone-like structures similar to endochondral bone formation. Importantly, LL-37-differentiated monocytes are distinct from conventional monocyte-derived osteoclasts, macrophages, and dendritic cells and do not express markers of the mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) lineage, distinguishing them from the conventional precursors of osteoblasts. Furthermore, LL-37 differentiated monocytes express intracellular proteins of both the osteoblast and osteoclast lineage including osteocalcin (OC), osteonectin (ON), bone sialoprotein II (BSP II), osteopontin (OP), RANK, RANKL, MMP-9, tartrate resistant acid phosphatase (TRAP), and cathepsin K (CK).Blood derived monocytes treated with LL-37 can be differentiated into a novel bone forming cell that functions both in vitro and in vivo. We propose the name monoosteophil to indicate their monocyte derived lineage and their bone forming phenotype. These cells may have wide ranging implications in the clinic including repair of broken bones and treatment of osteoporosis

    Finding the Needles in the Metagenome Haystack

    Get PDF
    In the collective genomes (the metagenome) of the microorganisms inhabiting the Earth’s diverse environments is written the history of life on this planet. New molecular tools developed and used for the past 15 years by microbial ecologists are facilitating the extraction, cloning, screening, and sequencing of these genomes. This approach allows microbial ecologists to access and study the full range of microbial diversity, regardless of our ability to culture organisms, and provides an unprecedented access to the breadth of natural products that these genomes encode. However, there is no way that the mere collection of sequences, no matter how expansive, can provide full coverage of the complex world of microbial metagenomes within the foreseeable future. Furthermore, although it is possible to fish out highly informative and useful genes from the sea of gene diversity in the environment, this can be a highly tedious and inefficient procedure. Microbial ecologists must be clever in their pursuit of ecologically relevant, valuable, and niche-defining genomic information within the vast haystack of microbial diversity. In this report, we seek to describe advances and prospects that will help microbial ecologists glean more knowledge from investigations into metagenomes. These include technological advances in sequencing and cloning methodologies, as well as improvements in annotation and comparative sequence analysis. More significant, however, will be ways to focus in on various subsets of the metagenome that may be of particular relevance, either by limiting the target community under study or improving the focus or speed of screening procedures. Lastly, given the cost and infrastructure necessary for large metagenome projects, and the almost inexhaustible amount of data they can produce, trends toward broader use of metagenome data across the research community coupled with the needed investment in bioinformatics infrastructure devoted to metagenomics will no doubt further increase the value of metagenomic studies in various environments

    Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

    Get PDF
    In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. For example, a key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process versus those that measure fl ux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defi ned as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (inmost higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium ) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the fi eld understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation it is imperative to delete or knock down more than one autophagy-related gene. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways so not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

    A new hypothesis for the cancer mechanism

    Full text link
    corecore