PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 15758443

Osteocytes: a proposed multifunctional bone cell.

Abstract

Most cell types are ascribed a single function. The osteoclast holds the unique distinction of performing only one function in the body - that of resorbing bone. The osteoblast has been ascribed the major function of bone matrix production. Other less well-defined cell types include progenitor cells and the nebulous cell type that can support osteoclast formation upon stimulation with various bone resorbing cytokines. Obviously, these cells could have other functions. The definition of an osteocyte is descriptive of its location - cells surrounded by mineralized matrix - not its function. For this year's Sun Valley Workshop on osteocytes, several proposed functions will be presented. First, a general consensus exists that osteocytes are most likely sensitive to mechanotransduction and translate mechanical strain into biochemical signals. Consensus does not exist on the nature of the mechanical strain, the form of the biochemical signals, the target cell(s), or the viability status of the osteocyte. Second, it is also proposed that this cell is incredibly adaptable and expresses plasticity in response to mechanical stimuli. In other words, this cell can readjust its responses to strain in the presence of other bone agents such as hormones and bone factors. Third, it will also be presented that osteocytes maintain systemic mineral homeostasis by regulating mineral release and deposition over the enormous surface area over which these cells interface with the surrounding matrix. Although osteocytes are terminally differentiated osteoblasts, they appear to have separate and distinct properties from their predecessors. Bone cell biologists loaded with an arsenal of bone anabolic and catabolic factors are examining the expression and effects of these factors on osteocytes. Engineers trained in mathematical modeling have generated new models of strain and connectivity to be tested. The unique morphology of osteocytes suggests that the cytoskeleton in these cells may function differently from osteoblasts and other cell types. Osteocytes may consist of different subpopulations; some that possess receptors for parathyroid hormone (PTH) and others that only express receptors for carboxyl terminal PTH suggesting different functions and responses. Osteocytes may respond rapidly to strain through glutamate receptor-like mechanisms, through calcium influxes, through gap junctions, and less rapidly through the production of small molecules and factors. Strain may take the form of substrate stretching and/or fluid flow. Osteocytes may communicate with other osteocytes and/or bone surface cells such as lining cells, stromal cells, osteoblasts, and/or osteoclasts and their precursors. The viability status of the osteocyte may determine the type of signals sent from these cells. If the cells are deprived of oxygen or nutrients, the apoptotic cells may send signals for initiation of resorption. If the cells and/or their dendritic process are ripped or torn by microdamage, they may send signals of both resorption and formation. If the majority of these theories are correct, then the osteocyte is the 'smart' cell that can direct or orchestrate the bone resorbing and bone forming cells even in its death and dying.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

L F Bonewald. 2002. Osteocytes: a proposed multifunctional bone cell.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15758443/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗