Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 May 10;17(5):e0268225. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268225

Use of antisense oligonucleotides to target Notch3 in skeletal cells

Ernesto Canalis 1,2,3,*, Michele Carrer 4, Tabitha Eller 3, Lauren Schilling 3, Jungeun Yu 1,3
Editor: Gary Stein5
PMCID: PMC9089911  PMID: 35536858

Abstract

Notch receptors are determinants of cell fate and function, and play an important role in the regulation of bone development and skeletal remodeling. Lateral Meningocele Syndrome (LMS) is a monogenic disorder associated with NOTCH3 pathogenic variants that result in the stabilization of NOTCH3 and a gain-of-function. LMS presents with neurological developmental abnormalities and bone loss. We created a mouse model (Notch3em1Ecan) harboring a 6691TAATGA mutation in the Notch3 locus, and heterozygous Notch3em1Ecan mice exhibit cancellous and cortical bone osteopenia. In the present work, we explored whether Notch3 antisense oligonucleotides (ASO) downregulate Notch3 and have the potential to ameliorate the osteopenia of Notch3em1Ecan mice. Notch3 ASOs decreased the expression of Notch3 wild type and Notch36691-TAATGA mutant mRNA expressed by Notch3em1Ecan mice in osteoblast cultures without evidence of cellular toxicity. The effect was specific since ASOs did not downregulate Notch1, Notch2 or Notch4. The expression of Notch3 wild type and Notch36691-TAATGA mutant transcripts also was decreased in bone marrow stromal cells and osteocytes following exposure to Notch3 ASOs. In vivo, the subcutaneous administration of Notch3 ASOs at 25 to 50 mg/Kg decreased Notch3 mRNA in the liver, heart and bone. Microcomputed tomography demonstrated that the administration of Notch3 ASOs ameliorates the cortical osteopenia of Notch3em1Ecan mice, and ASOs decreased femoral cortical porosity and increased cortical thickness and bone volume. However, the administration of Notch3 ASOs did not ameliorate the cancellous bone osteopenia of Notchem1Ecan mice. In conclusion, Notch3 ASOs downregulate Notch3 expression in skeletal cells and their systemic administration ameliorates cortical osteopenia in Notch3em1Ecan mice; as such ASOs may become useful strategies in the management of skeletal diseases affected by Notch gain-of-function.

Introduction

Notch receptors (Notch1 through 4) are single-pass transmembrane proteins that play a critical role in cell fate and function [1, 2]. Notch1, 2 and 3 and low levels of Notch4 transcripts are detected in bone cells, where each receptor acts in a distinct capacity to influence the fate of cells of the osteoblast and osteoclast lineages [3]. Interactions of Notch receptors with ligands of the Jagged and Delta-like families result in the cleavage of NOTCH and the release of its intracellular domain (NICD) [1]. The NICD translocates into the nucleus, and following the formation of a complex with recombination signal-binding protein for Ig of κ (RBPJκ) and mastermind (MAML) it induces the transcription of target genes [46]. These include genes encoding Hairy Enhancer of Split (HES)1, 5 and 7 and HES-related with YRPW motif (HEY)1, 2 and L [7].

Lehman Syndrome or Lateral meningocele syndrome (LMS) (Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man 130720) is a devastating monogenetic disorder associated with pathogenic variants of NOTCH3 [811]. Individuals affected by LMS present with meningoceles, distinct facial features, developmental delay, decreased muscle mass, cardiac valve defects, short stature, scoliosis and bone loss [811]. Exome sequencing of families affected by LMS revealed the presence of mutations or deletions in exon 33 of NOTCH3, that create a stop codon upstream of sequences coding for the proline (P), glutamic acid (E), serine (S) and threonine (T) (PEST) domain. As a consequence, the PEST domain, which is necessary for the ubiquitination and degradation of NOTCH3, is not translated and NOTCH3 is presumably stable, resulting in a gain-of-function [9]. Autosomal dominant inheritance and de novo heterozygous mutations are reported. Treatment of LMS is not available. NOTCH3 is critical for the function of mural vascular cells and pathogenic variants of NOTCH3 associated with mutations in the extracellular domain of NOTCH3 cause cerebral autosomal dominant arteriopathy with subcortical infarcts and leukoencephalopathy (CADASIL) [1215].

In an effort to understand the mechanisms and possible therapeutic avenues to treat individuals with LMS, we created a Notch3 knock-in mutant mouse model reproducing functional outcomes of the human disease [16]. For this purpose, we introduced a 6691-TAATGA mutation into the mouse genome upstream of sequences coding for the PEST domain, using CRISPR/Cas9 technology to create Notch3em1Ecan (syn Notch3tm1.1Ecan) mutant mice that express a truncated NOTCH3 devoid of the PEST domain.

The administration of antisense oligonucleotides (ASO) has emerged as a novel therapeutic approach to downregulate wild type and mutant transcripts, and has been successful in the silencing of mutant genes in the central and peripheral nervous system, retina, liver and muscle [1725]. ASOs are single-stranded synthetic nucleic acids that bind target mRNA by Watson-Crick pairing resulting in mRNA degradation by RNase H [26, 27]. Although attempts have been made to transport ASOs to bone, complex delivery systems were necessary and the technology is new to the correction of gene mutations in the skeleton [28].

Approaches to prevent or downregulate Notch signaling include the use of biochemical inhibitors of Notch activation, thapsigargin, antibodies to nicastrin or to Notch receptors or their ligands, and the use of molecules that disrupt the assembly of an active Notch transcriptional complex [2934]. A limitation of these approaches is that either they are not specific inhibitors of Notch signaling or inhibit all Notch receptors, leading to a generalized Notch knockdown. Antibodies to the negative regulatory region (NRR) of Notch are specific and have been effective at preventing the activation of Notch receptors [3537]. However, the pronounced downregulation of Notch activation may result in gastrointestinal toxicity, and a possible alternative is the use of second generation ASOs [38].

The purpose of the present work was to determine whether Notch3 could be downregulated in skeletal cells with a mouse specific Notch3 ASO and possibly ameliorate the osteopenia of Notch3em1Ecan mice, a mouse model of LMS and NOTCH3 gain-of-function secondary to the stabilization of the NOTCH3 NICD resulting in higher levels of NOTCH3 activity. We postulated that Notch3 ASOs would target Notch3 and as a consequence decrease the levels of the biologically active NOTCH3 NICD. To this end, cells of the osteoblast lineage were obtained from Notch3em1Ecan and control mice and were treated with ASOs targeting Notch3 to determine their effects on the downregulation of Notch3. Notch3 ASOs were tested in vivo for their effects on the downregulation of Notch3 and on the skeletal microarchitecture of heterozygous Notch3em1Ecan mice.

Materials and methods

Notch3 antisense oligonucleotides

ASOs targeting Notch3 mRNA were designed in silico by scanning through the entire sequence of murine Notch3 pre-mRNA, which was screened for potential oligonucleotides complementary to the pre-mRNA. Sequence motifs that were intrinsically problematic because of unfavorable hybridization properties, such as polyG stretches, or potential toxicity due to immunogenic responses, were avoided. Notch3 ASOs were tested for activity in vitro for downregulation of Notch3 mRNA in C2C12 cells at Ionis Pharmaceuticals (Carlsbad, CA), and for activity and toxicity in vivo at the Korea Institute of Toxicology (KIT, Daejeon, Korea). For this purpose, 7-week-old BALB/c male mice were administered ASOs at a dose of 50 mg/Kg subcutaneously once a week for a total of 3.5 weeks (4 doses). Body weights were determined weekly and mice were euthanized 48 h after the last dose of ASO. Liver, kidney and spleen were weighed, normalized to body weight and compared with organs from control mice. Blood was obtained by cardiac puncture, and plasma was collected for the measurement of alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, total bilirubin, albumin and blood urea nitrogen. These procedures were performed at, and approved by, the Animal Care and Use Committee of the Korea Institute of Toxicology. Total RNA was extracted from lung samples to determine Notch3 mRNA levels corrected for cyclophilin A expression. ASOs that downregulated Notch3 mRNA in the lung by more than 75% compared to a control ASO and without toxicity in vivo were selected. For this study, a mouse Notch3 ASO and control ASO that does not hybridize to any specific mRNA sequence were selected.

Notch3em1Ecan mutant mice

A mouse model of Lehman Syndrome, termed Notch3em1Ecan (syn Notch3tm1.1Ecan), harboring a tandem termination at bases 6691–6696 (ACCAAG→TAATGA) in exon 33 of Notch3 was previously reported and validated [16]. Notch3em1Ecan mice were created in a C57BL/6J background. Genotypes were determined by PCR analysis of tail DNA using forward primer 5’-GTGCTCAGCTTTGGTCTGCTC-3’ and reverse primer 5’-CGCAGGAAGCGCGCTCATTA-3’ for Notch3em1Ecan or 5’-CGCAGGAAGCGGGCCT TGG-3’ for the wild type allele (Integrated DNA Technologies, Coralville, IA). Heterozygous Notch3em1Ecan mutants were crossed with wild type mice to generate ~50% heterozygous Notch3em1Ecan mice and 50% control littermates to be characterized and administered Notch3 ASOs. Studies were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of UConn Health.

Osteoblast-enriched cell cultures

Osteoblasts were isolated from the parietal bones of 3 to 5 day old control and Notch3em1Ecan mice following exposure to liberase TL 1.2 units/ml (Sigma-Aldrich St. Louis, MO) for 20 min at 37°C for 5 consecutive reactions [39]. The last 3 digestions of cells were pooled and seeded at a density of 10 x 104 cells/cm2, as reported [40]. Osteoblast-enriched cells were cultured in Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s medium (DMEM) supplemented with non-essential amino acids (both from Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA) and 10% heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (FBS; Atlanta Biologicals, Norcross, GA) in a humidified 5% CO2 incubator at 37°C. Confluent osteoblast-enriched cells were exposed to DMEM supplemented with 10% heat-inactivated FBS, 100 μg/ml ascorbic acid and 5 mM β-glycerophosphate (both from Sigma-Aldrich) in the presence of Notch3 ASO or control ASO at various doses and periods of time as indicated in text and legends.

Bone marrow stromal cell cultures

Femurs from 4 to 8 week old Notch3em1Ecan mice and littermate controls were dissected aseptically, the epiphysis removed and bone marrow stromal cells recovered by centrifugation, as described. Cells were pooled and seeded at a density of 1.25 x 106 cells/cm2 in α-minimum essential medium (α-MEM; Thermo Fisher Scientific) containing heat-inactivated 15% FBS and cultured at 37°C in a humidified 5% CO2 incubator. At confluence, cells were exposed to α-MEM supplemented with 10% FBS, 100 μg/ml ascorbic acid and 5 mM β-glycerophosphate and cultured in the presence of Notch3 or control ASOs at 20 μM.

Osteocyte-enriched cultures

To obtain osteocyte-enriched preparations, femurs or tibiae from 4 to 8 week old Notch3em1Ecan mice and control littermates were collected following sacrifice. Tissues surrounding the bones were dissected, the proximal region to the epiphysis excised and the bone marrow removed by centrifugation. The distal epiphyseal region was removed and the femoral fragments were sequentially exposed for 20 min periods to type II collagenase pretreated with 17 μg/ml Nα-Tosyl-L-lysine chloromethylketone hydrochloride and 5 mM EDTA (Thermo Fisher Scientific) at 37°C to remove the endosteal and periosteal layers of cells, as described. Osteocyte-enriched bone fragments were obtained and cultured individually in DMEM supplemented with nonessential amino acids, 100 μg/ml ascorbic acid and 10% FBS for 72 h in a humidified 5% CO2 incubator at 37°C in the presence of Notch3 ASOs or control ASOs at 20 μM.

Cell proliferation assay

Cell replication was determined using the Cell Counting Kit-8 (CCK-8). In this assay, the tetrazolium salt WST-8 [2-(2-methoxy-4-nitrophenyl)-3-(4-nitrophenhyl)-5-(2,4-disulfophenyl)-2H-tetrazolium, monosodium salt] produces a formazan dye, measured at an absorbance of 450 nm, upon reduction by cellular dehydrogenases. The assay quantifies viable cells and was used in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions (Dojindo Molecular Technologies, Rockville, MD).

In vivo administration of Notch3 ASOs

Four and a half week old male Notch3em1Ecan heterozygous mutant and sex-matched wild type littermates were administered Notch3 ASO or control ASO suspended in PBS subcutaneously at various doses and diverse periods of time as indicated in text and legends. To assess an effect on bone microarchitecture, ASOs were administered subcutaneously at a dose of 50 mg/Kg once a week for 4 consecutive weeks to 4.5 week old Notch3em1Ecan and control mice, and mice were euthanized at 8.5–9 weeks of age.

Microcomputed tomography (μCT)

Bone microarchitecture of one femur or vertebra (lumbar 3, L3) from experimental and one femur or L3 from control mice was determined using a microcomputed tomography instrument (μCT 40; Scanco Medical AG, Bassersdorf, Switzerland), which was calibrated periodically using a phantom provided by the manufacturer [41, 42]. Femurs and vertebrae were placed in 70% ethanol and scanned at high resolution, energy level of 55 kVp, intensity of 145 μA and integration time of 200 ms. For cancellous microarchitecture, 160 slices at the distal femoral metaphysis or ~500 slices of L3 were acquired at an isotropic voxel size of 216 μm3 and a slice thickness of 6 μm, and chosen for analysis. Trabecular bone volume fraction and microarchitecture were evaluated starting ~1.0 mm proximal from the femoral condyles. For L3, the vertebral body was scanned in its entirety. Contours were manually drawn a few voxels away from the endocortical boundary every 10 slices to define the region of interest for analysis. The remaining slice contours were iterated automatically. Trabecular regions were assessed for total volume, bone volume, bone volume fraction (bone volume/total volume), trabecular thickness, trabecular number, trabecular separation, connectivity density and structure model index (SMI), using a Gaussian filter (σ = 0.8), and a threshold of 240 permil equivalent to 355.5 mg/cm3 hydroxyapatite [41, 42]. For analysis of femoral cortical bone, contours were iterated across 100 slices along the cortical shell of the femoral midshaft, excluding the marrow cavity. Analysis of bone volume/total volume, porosity, cortical thickness, total cross-sectional and cortical bone area were performed using a Gaussian filter (σ = 0.8, support = 1), and a threshold of 400 permil equivalent to 704.7 mg/cm3 hydroxyapatite.

Quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR)

Total RNA was extracted from cells, homogenized tibiae, following the removal of the bone marrow by centrifugation, or osteocyte-enriched fragments with the RNeasy kit or microRNeasy Kit (Qiagen, Valencia, CA), in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions [4346]. The integrity of the RNA from tibiae and osteocyte-rich fragments was assessed by microfluidic electrophoresis on an Experion instrument (BioRad, Hercules, CA), and only RNA with a quality indicator number equal to or higher than 7.0 was used for subsequent analysis. Equal amounts of RNA were reverse-transcribed using the iScript RT-PCR kit (BioRad) and amplified in the presence of specific primers (IDT) (Table 1A) with the iQ SYBR Green Supermix or SsoAdvanced Universal SYBR Green Supermix (BioRad) at 60°C for 35 cycles. Transcript copy number was estimated by comparison with a serial dilution of cDNA for Notch1 (from J.S. Nye, Cambridge, MA), Notch2 (from Thermo Fisher Scientific) and Notch4 (from Y. Shirayoshi, Tottori, Japan) [47, 48]. Notch3 wild type copy number was estimated by comparison to a serial dilution of a 100 to 200 base pair synthetic DNA template (IDT) cloned into pcDNA3.1 (Thermo Fischer Scientific) by isothermal single reaction assembly using commercially available reagents (New England BioLabs, Ipswich, MA) [49].

Table 1. Primers used for qRT-PCR determinations.

GenBank accession numbers identify transcript recognized by primer pairs.

A. Conventional qRT-PCR
Gene Strand Sequence GenBank Accession Number
Notch1 Forward 5’-GTCCCACCCATGACCACTACCCAGTTC-3’ NM_008714
Reverse 5’-GGGTGTTGTCCACAGGGGA-3’
Notch2 Forward 5’-TGACGTTGATGAGTGTATCTCCAAGCC-3’ NM_010928
Reverse 5’-GTAGCTGCCCTGAGTGTTGTGG-3’
Notch3 Forward 5’-CCGATTCTCCTGTCGTTGTCTCC-3’ NM_008716
Reverse 5’-TGAACACAGGGCCTGCTGAC-3’
Notch4 Forward 5’-CCAGCAGACAGACTACGGTGGAC-3’ NM_010929
Reverse 5’-GCAGCCAGCATCAAAGGTGT-3’
Rpl38 Forward 5’-AGAACAAGGATAATGTGAAGTTCAAGGTTC-3’ NM_001048057; NM_001048058;NM_023372
Reverse 5’-CTGCTTCAGCTTCTCTGCCTTT-3’
B. qRT-PCR using fluorescent tagged PCR products
Gene Strand/Flurophore Sequence GenBank Accession Number
Notch3 Forward 5’-AGGACATGGAGAGGAATA-3’ Not Applicable
Reverse 5’-GGTCAAATAAGGATGCTC-3’
HEX Fluorophore 5’-ACCAAGGCCCGCTTCC-3’
Notch3 6691-TAATGA Forward 5’-AGGACATGGAGAGGAATA-3’ Not Applicable
Reverse 5’-GGTCAAATAAGGATGCTC-3’
FAM Fluorophore 5’-AGTAGCCCCTAATGAGCGCG-3’

In experiments where cells or tissues were obtained from Notch3em1Ecan and littermate controls, Notch3 wild type and Notch36691-TAATGA mutant transcripts expressed by heterozygous Notch3em1Ecan mice were determined by RT-PCR using fluorescent tagged products. To this end, total RNA was reverse transcribed with Moloney murine leukemia virus reverse transcriptase in the presence of reverse primers of Notch3 (5’-TGGCATTGGTAGCAGTTC-3’) and Rpl38 (Table 1A). Notch3 cDNA was amplified by qPCR in the presence of SsoAdvanced Universal Probes Supermix (Bio-Rad) gene expression assay mix, specific Notch3 and Notch3 mutant primers and HEX labeled Notch3 and FAM labeled Notch36691-TAATGA probes (Table 1B) (Bio-Rad) at 95°C for 10 secs then 60°C for 30 secs and repeated for 45 cycles [50]. Notch3 or Notch36691-TAATGA mutant transcript copy number was estimated by comparison with a serial dilution of a 100 to 200 bp synthetic DNA fragment (IDT) with or without the 6691TAATGA mutation in the Notch3 locus cloned into pcDNA3.1(-) [49].

Statistics

Data are expressed as individual sample values, and means ± SD. All data represent biological replicates except for osteoblast-enriched and stromal cell cultures, which represent technical replicates. Quantitative reverse transcript-polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) values were derived from two technical replicates of technical or biological replicates as indicated in the text and legends. Statistical differences were determined by unpaired t test for pairwise comparisons or two-way analysis of variance for multiple comparisons with Tukey’s post-hoc analysis using GraphPad Prism version 9.3.1 for Mac OS, GraphPad Software (San Diego, CA).

Results

Effect of Notch3 ASOs on Notch3 expression in cells of the osteoblast lineage

The effect of Notch3 ASOs was tested in cells of the osteoblast lineage since previous work demonstrated that Notch3 is preferentially expressed in these cells and is not expressed in cells of the myeloid lineage [16, 51, 52]. Mouse Notch3 ASOs added to the culture medium of osteoblast-enriched cells from C57BL/6 mice at 20 μM decreased Notch3 mRNA by ~60 to 80% 72 h after ASO addition without microscopic evidence of cellular toxicity or substantial changes in cell replication (Fig 1). The effect of the Notch3 ASO was observed at doses as low as 1 μM and was specific for Notch3 mRNA since at 20 μM, it did not decrease the expression of Notch1, 2 or 4 mRNA (Fig 1). The expression of wild type Notch3 was lower in osteoblasts from heterozygous Notch3em1Ecan mice since they carried only one wild type allele, and only Notch3em1Ecan osteoblasts expressed the Notch36691TAATGA transcript (Fig 2). Notch3 ASOs decreased Notch3 mRNA in osteoblasts and bone marrow stromal cells from wild type and Notch3em1Ecan mice and Notch36691TAAGTA mutant mRNA in Notch3em1Ecan cells for periods of up to 21 days (Fig 2). The inhibitory effect of Notch3 ASOs was also observed in osteocyte-enriched cells, a cellular environment that preferentially expresses Notch3 [51, 52]. In this culture system, Notch3 ASOs inhibited Notch3 expression in wild type and Notch3em1Ecan mice and also suppressed the expression of Notch36691-TAATGA mRNA in Notch3em1Ecan mutant cells, although this effect did not reach statistical significance (Fig 2).

Fig 1. Effect of control or Notch3 ASOs on Notch3 mRNA expression and cell replication in calvarial osteoblast-enriched cells.

Fig 1

In panels A and B, Notch3 mRNA levels were obtained 24 to 72 h (panel A) or 72 h (panel B) after the addition of Notch3 (closed circles) or control ASOs (open circles) at 20 μM in panel A or at 1 to 20 μM in panel B to cells from wild type C57BL/6 mice. In panel C, Notch1, 2, 3 and 4 mRNA levels were obtained 72 h after the addition of Notch3 (black bars) or control ASO (white bars) at 20 μM to cells from wild type C57BL/6 mice. Transcript levels are expressed as relative number following correction for Rpl38. Values are means ± SD; n = 3 technical replicates. In panel D, osteoblasts were cultured for 0 to 72 h in the absence or presence of control or Notch3 ASOs at 20 μM and viable cells determined by cell counting kit 8 assay and data expressed as formazan dye and measured at an absorbance of 450 nm. Data are means ± SD; n = 4 technical replicates. *Significantly different between Notch3 ASO and control ASO, p <0.05.

Fig 2.

Fig 2

Effect of control or Notch3 ASOs on Notch3 and Notch36691TAATGA mutant mRNA in A. calvarial osteoblast-enriched cells, B. bone marrow stromal cells and C. osteocytes from control (white bars) and Notch3em1Ecan mutant mice (gray bars). Osteoblasts or stromal cells were cultured for 3 weeks and osteocytes for 72h in the presence of Notch3 (closed circles) or control ASOs (open circles) at 20 μM. In A, B and C, transcript levels are expressed as copy number corrected for Rpl38. Individual values are shown, and bars and ranges represent means ± SD; n = 4 technical replicates in A and B and biological replicates in C. *Significantly different between Notch3 ASO and control ASO, p < 0.05. #Significantly different between Notch3em1Ecan and control cells, p < 0.05.

Effect of Notch3 ASOs on Notch3 expression in vivo

In initial experiments, we tested whether mouse Notch3 ASOs downregulated Notch3 mRNA in vivo in tissues where Notch3 is expressed. The subcutaneous administration of murine ASOs targeting Notch3 in C57BL/6 mice at a dose of 50 mg/Kg caused a ~50 to 60% downregulation of Notch3 mRNA 96 hours later in femur, heart and liver (Fig 3). In a subsequent experiment, Notch3 ASOs, administered subcutaneously to C57BL/6 mice downregulated Notch3 mRNA 72 hours later in femur when tested at a dose of 25 to 50 mg/Kg, and in heart and liver when administered at doses of 12.5 to 50 mg/Kg (Fig 3).

Fig 3. Effect of control or Notch3 ASOs administered subcutaneously to C57BL/6 wild type mice on Notch3 mRNA.

Fig 3

In panel A, Notch3 (closed circles) or control (open circles) ASOs were administered at 50 mg/kg and Notch3 copy number corrected for Rpl38 was determined 96 h later in femur, heart and liver. In panel B, Notch3 ASOs were administered at the indicated doses and compared to control ASO administered at 50 mg/kg and Notch3 copy number corrected for Rpl38 was determined 72 h later in femur, heart, liver and shown as relative expression normalized to a control value of 1. In panel A, individual values are shown, and bars and ranges represent means ± SD. In panel B, values represent means ±SD; n = 3. Data are biological replicates. *Significantly different between Notch3 and control ASO, p < 0.05.

Effect of Notch3 ASOs on general characteristics and femoral microarchitecture of Notch3em1Ecan mice

Heterozygous Notch3em1Ecan mutant male mice were compared to wild type sex-matched littermate controls in a C57BL/6 genetic background. Male mice were studied since they appear to have an osteopenic phenotype that is sustained for up to ~18 weeks of age whereas female Notch3em1Ecan mutants have osteopenia at 4.5 weeks but not at ~18 weeks of age [16]. Homozygous Notch3em1Ecan mice were not studied since the homozygous mutation appears to be lethal during embryogenesis [16]. Confirming prior results, Notch3em1Ecan heterozygous male mice had modest reductions in weight and no changes in femoral length when compared to controls (Fig 4) [16]. Following the administration of mouse Notch3 ASOs, control and Notch3em1Ecan experimental mice appeared healthy and experienced no changes in weight over a 4 week period. Femoral length was not affected.

Fig 4. Body weight, femoral length and Notch3 transcripts of 8.5–9 week old male Notch3em1Ecan mutant mice (gray bars) and littermate controls (white bars) treated with Notch3 ASO (closed circles) or control ASO (open circles) at 50 mg/kg subcutaneously, once a week for 4 weeks.

Fig 4

Individual values are shown, and bars and ranges represent means ± SD; n = 16 to 21 biological replicates, except for mRNA values n = 4 biological replicates. *Significantly different between Notch3 ASO and control, p < 0.05. #Significantly different between Notch3em1Ecan mutant and control mice, p < 0.05.

Notch3 ASOs administered for a 4 week period decreased Notch3 mRNA expression in wild type mice and in Notch3em1Ecan mutant mice. Notch36691-TAATGA mutant mRNA was expressed in tibiae only from Notch3em1Ecan mice, and it was suppressed by ~50% following the administration of Notch3 ASOs for 4 weeks, although the effect did not reach statistical significance (Fig 4).

Validating previous observations, μCT of the femoral mid-diaphysis revealed that 8.5–9 week old Notch3em1Ecan male mice had decreased cortical bone volume/total volume (BV/TV) associated with increased porosity and decreased cortical thickness (Fig 5) [16]. The subcutaneous administration of mouse Notch3 ASOs once a week at 50 mg/Kg for 4 weeks increased cortical BV/TV and cortical thickness and decreased cortical porosity in Notch3em1Ecan mice. A similar, although more modest effect, was noted in wild type mice.

Fig 5. Cortical bone microarchitecture assessed by μCT of the mid-diaphyseal femur from 8.5–9week old Notch3em1Ecan mutant (gray bars) male mice and sex-matched littermate controls (white bars) treated with Notch3 ASO (closed circles; n = 19 for control, n = 16 for Notch3em1Ecan) or control ASO (open circles; n = 21 for control, n = 16 for Notch3em1Ecan) both at 50 mg/kg subcutaneously, once a week for 4 weeks prior to sacrifice.

Fig 5

Parameters shown are cortical bone volume/total volume (BV/TV, %), cortical porosity (%), and cortical thickness (mm). Individual values are shown, and bars and ranges represent means ± SD of biological replicates. *Significantly different between Notch3 and control ASO, p < 0.05. #Significantly different between Notch3em1Ecan and control, p < 0.05. Representative images show cortical bone osteopenia in Notch3em1Ecan mutant mice and its amelioration by Notch3 ASOs. Scale bars in the right corner represent 100 μm.

Cancellous bone microarchitecture revealed that Notch3em1Ecan mice had decreased cancellous BV/TV and trabecular number when compared to wild type littermates (Fig 6). Administration of Notch3 ASO did not increase femoral (Fig 6) or vertebral cancellous BV/TV significantly in either Notch3em1Ecan or control littermates. BV/TV (%) was (means ± SD; n = 18) 20.1 ± 2.8 in control mice treated with control ASO and (n = 17) 20.6 ± 2.7 in control treated with Notch3 ASO. BV/TV (%) was (n = 16) 15.0 ± 2.3 in Notch3em1Ecan mice treated with control ASO and (n = 14) 16.4 ± 3.3 in Notch3em1Ecan mice treated with Notch3 ASO. Therefore, the effect of Notch3 ASO was limited to the cortical bone osteopenia, possibly because Notch3 is preferentially expressed by the osteocyte and cortical bone is enriched in these cells [51, 52].

Fig 6. Cancellous bone microarchitecture assessed by μCT of the distal femur from 8.5–9 week old Notch3em1Ecan mutant (gray bars) male mice and sex-matched littermate controls (white bars) treated with Notch3 ASO (closed circles; n = 19 for mutant, n = 16 for Notch3em1Ecan) or control ASO (open circles; n = 21 for control, n = 16 for Notch3em1Ecan) both at 50 mg/kg subcutaneously, once a week for 4 weeks prior to sacrifice.

Fig 6

Parameters shown are trabecular bone volume/total volume (BV/TV, %); trabecular number (1/mm) and thickness (um). Individual values are shown, and bars and ranges represent means ± SD of biological replicates. #Significantly different between Notch3em1Ecan and control, p < 0.05. Representative images show cancellous bone osteopenia in Notch3em1Ecan mutant mice and no effect by Notch3 ASO. Scale bars in the right corner represent 100 μm.

Discussion

The present work demonstrates that Notch3 ASOs downregulate Notch3 mRNA in cells from wild type and Notch3em1Ecan mice, a preclinical model of Lehman Syndrome (LMS). Notch3 ASOs were effective in vitro in cells of the osteoblast lineage, where Notch3 is expressed. The effect was observed in the absence of obvious cellular toxicity although a modest decrease in cell number was noted. Notch3 ASOs were specific since they did not modify the expression of Notch1, 2 and 4 in osteoblast-enriched cells.

Multiple approaches to downregulate Notch signaling have been reported; however, often they are not specific to this signaling pathway or to a particular Notch receptor. A recent alternative has been the use of antibodies to the NRR of individual Notch receptors to prevent Notch activation by blocking the NRR from exposure to the γ-secretase complex [3537]. We have demonstrated that anti-Notch2 NRR and anti-Notch3 NRR antibodies are effective in reversing the skeletal phenotype of Notch2tm1.1Ecan and of Notch3em1Ecan mice, models of Hajdu Cheney Syndrome and LMS, respectively [36, 37]. Although anti-Notch NRR antibodies are specific, the significant downregulation of the Notch receptor could lead to gastrointestinal toxicity.

Alternate approaches to downregulate specific Notch receptors have included ASOs, and we demonstrated that Notch2 ASOs downregulate Notch2 expression in vitro and in vivo and ameliorate the osteopenia of mice harboring a Notch2 mutation replicating the one found in Hajdu Cheney Syndrome [38]. Similar to these observations, we expected that Notch3 ASOs would downregulate Notch3 wild type and mutant transcripts, and as a consequence decrease the expression of NOTCH3.

In the present study, we confirm that specific Notch ASOs are a suitable alternative to decrease Notch activation in conditions of Notch gain-of-function. However, the effect of Notch3 ASOs was less pronounced than the one reported with anti-Notch3 NRR antibodies [37]. This is possibly because the anti-Notch3 antibody targets the NRR located in the transmembrane domain of NOTCH3, whereas the Notch3 ASO targets Notch3 transcripts and as a consequence has to penetrate the cell to be effective. It is also possible that blocking Notch activation is a more effective way to prevent a Notch gain-of-function, or anti-Notch3 antibodies might be more stable or gain better access to target tissues than Notch3 ASOs. Notch3 ASOs were effective at ameliorating the cortical osteopenia of Notchem1Ecan mice without evidence of apparent toxicity. However, Notch3 ASOs did not modify the cancellous bone osteopenia of Notch3em1Ecan mice at either femoral or vertebral sites. The effect of Notch3 ASOs was not explored at other skeletal sites since μCT parameters of bone microarchitecture are only established for cortical and cancellous bone [41]. It is possible that Notch3 ASOs were more effective at the osteocyte-rich cortical compartment because Notch3 is preferentially expressed by these cells [11, 5153]. Although the work demonstrates that Notch3 and Notch36691-TAATGA mutant mRNA were downregulated in osteocyte-rich preparations, we did not demonstrate that Notch3 ASOs are more effective in this cell population following their administration in vivo. It is possible that Notch3 ASOs were transported more efficiently to cortical than to cancellous bone. This may be related to differences in the blood vessel network between cortical and cancellous bone allowing for better access of the systemically administered Notch3 ASO to the cortical compartment. Blood supply of cortical long bones is carried out by a central nutrient artery (2/3) and periosteal arteries (1/3), whereas the metaphyseal, cancellous-rich bone, is irrigated by the epiphyseal arteries [54, 55]. However, perfusion efficiency does not appear to be different between epiphyseal and diaphyseal bone [56].

Attempts have been made to enhance the transport of ASOs to bone using complex delivery systems, and the technology has not been applied to the correction of gene mutations in the skeleton [28]. In this study, a practical systemic approach was used to downregulate Notch3 in skeletal and non-skeletal tissue by the subcutaneous administration of Notch3 ASOs. We demonstrate that a murine Notch3 ASO downregulated Notch3 in tissues where the gene is expressed, including bone. The decrease in Notch3 in a mouse model of LMS was associated with partial recovery of bone mass at cortical sites. Although this was not complete, a significant effect on cortical BV/TV and thickness was achieved with amelioration of the Notch3em1Ecan cortical phenotype.

The present findings confirm that a mouse model replicating a mutation found in LMS displays femoral cancellous and cortical bone osteopenia [16]. The phenotype of the Notch3em1Ecan mutant mouse recapitulates aspects of LMS including osteopenia, but not the neurological manifestations of the disease [11, 16]. The osteopenic phenotype is manifested early in life in mice of both sexes, although it seems to be more persistent in male mice and for this reason we elected to study and treat 4.5 week old male Notch3em1Ecan mice in an attempt to ameliorate the osteopenic phenotype. Because only male mice were reported, it is important not to extrapolate the results to female mice. Phenotypic alterations of experimental and control mice were assessed by μCT, and analyses required the ex vivo exam of bone following the sacrifice of mice. Therefore, the same animal could not be analyzed before and after the administration of Notch3 ASOs.

The osteopenia of Notch3em1Ecan mutants has been attributed to an increase in osteoclast number and bone resorption secondary to an increased expression of receptor activator of nuclear factor- κB ligand (RANKL) by cells of the osteoblast lineage [57]. Notch3 is not expressed in the myeloid lineage; and therefore, NOTCH3 does not have direct effects on osteoclastogenesis [3, 11, 16]. Consequently, direct effects of Notch3 ASOs in this lineage were not examined.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Notch3 ASOs downregulate Notch3 expression in skeletal cells from a mouse model of LMS and ameliorate its cortical osteopenic phenotype. Consequently, ASOs may become a useful strategy in the management of skeletal diseases affected by gain-of-Notch function.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Magda Mocarska for technical assistance, Mary Yurczak for secretarial support, Christopher Bonin and Genevieve Hargis for artwork and creation of figures.

Abbreviations

The abbreviations used are:

ASO

antisense oligonucleotides

BV/TV

bone volume/total volume

DMEM

Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s medium

FBS

fetal bovine serum

HES

Hairy Enhancer of Split

HEY

HES-related with YRPW motif

LMS

Lehman Syndrome or Lateral Meningocele Syndrome

MAML

mastermind

NICD

NOTCH intracellular domain

NRR

negative regulatory region

PEST

proline (P), glutamic acid (E), serine (S) and threonine (T)

qRT-PCR

quantitative reverse transcript-polymerase chain reaction

RANKL

receptor activator of nuclear factor- κB ligand

RBPJκ

recombination signal-binding protein for Ig of κ

SMI

structure model index

α-MEM

α-minimum essential medium

μCT

microcomputed tomography

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS) to EC (Grant AR076747, AR072987). M.C. is employed by Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official view of the National Institutes of Health. The funders of this work had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Siebel C, Lendahl U. Notch Signaling in Development, Tissue Homeostasis, and Disease. Physiol Rev. 2017;97(4):1235–94. doi: 10.1152/physrev.00005.2017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Zanotti S, Canalis E. Notch Signaling and the Skeleton. Endocr Rev. 2016;37(3):223–53. doi: 10.1210/er.2016-1002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Canalis E. Notch in skeletal physiology and disease. OsteoporosInt. 2018;29(12):2611–21. doi: 10.1007/s00198-018-4694-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Kovall RA. More complicated than it looks: assembly of Notch pathway transcription complexes. Oncogene. 2008;27(38):5099–109. doi: 10.1038/onc.2008.223 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Nam Y, Sliz P, Song L, Aster JC, Blacklow SC. Structural basis for cooperativity in recruitment of MAML coactivators to Notch transcription complexes. Cell. 2006;124(5):973–83. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2005.12.037 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Wilson JJ, Kovall RA. Crystal structure of the CSL-Notch-Mastermind ternary complex bound to DNA. Cell. 2006;124(5):985–96. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2006.01.035 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Iso T, Kedes L, Hamamori Y. HES and HERP families: multiple effectors of the Notch signaling pathway. J Cell Physiol. 2003;194(3):237–55. doi: 10.1002/jcp.10208 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Gripp KW, Scott CI Jr., Hughes HE, Wallerstein R, Nicholson L, States L, et al. Lateral meningocele syndrome: three new patients and review of the literature. Am J Med Genet. 1997;70(3):229–39. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Gripp KW, Robbins KM, Sobreira NL, Witmer PD, Bird LM, Avela K, et al. Truncating mutations in the last exon of NOTCH3 cause lateral meningocele syndrome. Am J Med Genet A. 2015;167A(2):271–81. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.36863 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Lehman RA, Stears JC, Wesenberg RL, Nusbaum ED. Familial osteosclerosis with abnormalities of the nervous system and meninges. J Pediatr. 1977;90(1):49–54. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3476(77)80763-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Canalis E. The Skeleton of Lateral Meningocele Syndrome. Front Genet. 2020;11:620334. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2020.620334 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Mizuno T, Mizuta I, Watanabe-Hosomi A, Mukai M, Koizumi T. Clinical and Genetic Aspects of CADASIL. Front Aging Neurosci. 2020;12:91. doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2020.00091 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Prakash N, Hansson E, Betsholtz C, Mitsiadis T, Lendahl U. Mouse Notch 3 expression in the pre- and postnatal brain: relationship to the stroke and dementia syndrome CADASIL. Exp Cell Res. 2002;278(1):31–44. doi: 10.1006/excr.2002.5544 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Liu H, Zhang W, Kennard S, Caldwell RB, Lilly B. Notch3 is critical for proper angiogenesis and mural cell investment. Circ Res. 2010;107(7):860–70. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.110.218271 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Henshall TL, Keller A, He L, Johansson BR, Wallgard E, Raschperger E, et al. Notch3 is necessary for blood vessel integrity in the central nervous system. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2015;35(2):409–20. doi: 10.1161/ATVBAHA.114.304849 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Canalis E, Yu J, Schilling L, Yee SP, Zanotti S. The lateral meningocele syndrome mutation causes marked osteopenia in mice. J Biol Chem. 2018;293(36):14165–77. doi: 10.1074/jbc.RA118.004242 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Murray SF, Jazayeri A, Matthes MT, Yasumura D, Yang H, Peralta R, et al. Allele-Specific Inhibition of Rhodopsin With an Antisense Oligonucleotide Slows Photoreceptor Cell Degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2015;56(11):6362–75. doi: 10.1167/iovs.15-16400 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Shy ME. Antisense oligonucleotides offer hope to patients with Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease type 1A. J Clin Invest. 2018;128(1):110–2. doi: 10.1172/JCI98617 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Carroll JB, Warby SC, Southwell AL, Doty CN, Greenlee S, Skotte N, et al. Potent and selective antisense oligonucleotides targeting single-nucleotide polymorphisms in the Huntington disease gene / allele-specific silencing of mutant huntingtin. Mol Ther. 2011;19(12):2178–85. doi: 10.1038/mt.2011.201 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Limmroth V, Barkhof F, Desem N, Diamond MP, Tachas G, Group ATLS. CD49d antisense drug ATL1102 reduces disease activity in patients with relapsing-remitting MS. Neurology. 2014;83(20):1780–8. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000000926 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.McCampbell A, Cole T, Wegener AJ, Tomassy GS, Setnicka A, Farley BJ, et al. Antisense oligonucleotides extend survival and reverse decrement in muscle response in ALS models. J Clin Invest. 2018;128(8):3558–67. doi: 10.1172/JCI99081 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Zhao HT, Damle S, Ikeda-Lee K, Kuntz S, Li J, Mohan A, et al. PMP22 antisense oligonucleotides reverse Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease type 1A features in rodent models. J Clin Invest. 2018;128(1):359–68. doi: 10.1172/JCI96499 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Zhu C, Kim K, Wang X, Bartolome A, Salomao M, Dongiovanni P, et al. Hepatocyte Notch activation induces liver fibrosis in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Sci Transl Med. 2018;10(468). doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aat0344 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Li M, Jancovski N, Jafar-Nejad P, Burbano LE, Rollo B, Richards K, et al. Antisense oligonucleotide therapy reduces seizures and extends life span in an SCN2A gain-of-function epilepsy model. J Clin Invest. 2021;131(23). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Nguyen Q, Yokota T. Antisense oligonucleotides for the treatment of cardiomyopathy in Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Am J Transl Res. 2019;11(3):1202–18. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Bennett CF, Baker BF, Pham N, Swayze E, Geary RS. Pharmacology of Antisense Drugs. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 2017;57:81–105. doi: 10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-010716-104846 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Cerritelli SM, Crouch RJ. Ribonuclease H: the enzymes in eukaryotes. FEBS J. 2009;276(6):1494–505. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-4658.2009.06908.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Zhang G, Guo B, Wu H, Tang T, Zhang BT, Zheng L, et al. A delivery system targeting bone formation surfaces to facilitate RNAi-based anabolic therapy. Nature medicine. 2012;18(2):307–14. doi: 10.1038/nm.2617 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Ryeom SW. The cautionary tale of side effects of chronic Notch1 inhibition. J Clin Invest. 2011;121(2):508–9. doi: 10.1172/JCI45976 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.De Strooper B, Annaert W, Cupers P, Saftig P, Craessaerts K, Mumm JS, et al. A presenilin-1-dependent gamma-secretase-like protease mediates release of Notch intracellular domain. Nature. 1999;398(6727):518–22. doi: 10.1038/19083 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Duggan SP, McCarthy JV. Beyond gamma-secretase activity: The multifunctional nature of presenilins in cell signalling pathways. Cell Signal. 2016;28(1):1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.cellsig.2015.10.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Ilagan MX, Kopan R. Selective blockade of transport via SERCA inhibition: the answer for oncogenic forms of Notch? Cancer Cell. 2013;23(3):267–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ccr.2013.02.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Moellering RE, Cornejo M, Davis TN, Del BC, Aster JC, Blacklow SC, et al. Direct inhibition of the NOTCH transcription factor complex. Nature. 2009;462(7270):182–8. doi: 10.1038/nature08543 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Lehal R, Zaric J, Vigolo M, Urech C, Frismantas V, Zangger N, et al. Pharmacological disruption of the Notch transcription factor complex. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020;117(28):16292–301. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1922606117 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Wu Y, Cain-Hom C, Choy L, Hagenbeek TJ, de Leon GP, Chen Y, et al. Therapeutic antibody targeting of individual Notch receptors. Nature. 2010;464(7291):1052–7. doi: 10.1038/nature08878 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Canalis E, Sanjay A, Yu J, Zanotti S. An Antibody to Notch2 Reverses the Osteopenic Phenotype of Hajdu-Cheney Mutant Male Mice. Endocrinology. 2017;158(4):730–42. doi: 10.1210/en.2016-1787 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Yu J, Siebel CW, Schilling L, Canalis E. An antibody to Notch3 reverses the skeletal phenotype of lateral meningocele syndrome in male mice. J Cell Physiol. 2020;235(1):210–20. doi: 10.1002/jcp.28960 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Canalis E, Grossman TR, Carrer M, Schilling L, Yu J. Antisense oligonucleotides targeting Notch2 ameliorate the osteopenic phenotype in a mouse model of Hajdu-Cheney syndrome. J Biol Chem. 2020;295(12):3952–64. doi: 10.1074/jbc.RA119.011440 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Yesil P, Michel M, Chwalek K, Pedack S, Jany C, Ludwig B, et al. A new collagenase blend increases the number of islets isolated from mouse pancreas. Islets. 2009;1(3):185–90. doi: 10.4161/isl.1.3.9556 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.McCarthy TL, Centrella M, Canalis E. Further biochemical and molecular characterization of primary rat parietal bone cell cultures. J Bone Miner Res. 1988;3(4):401–8. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.5650030406 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Bouxsein ML, Boyd SK, Christiansen BA, Guldberg RE, Jepsen KJ, Muller R. Guidelines for assessment of bone microstructure in rodents using micro-computed tomography. J Bone Miner Res. 2010;25(7):1468–86. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.141 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Glatt V, Canalis E, Stadmeyer L, Bouxsein ML. Age-Related Changes in Trabecular Architecture Differ in Female and Male C57BL/6J Mice. J Bone Miner Res. 2007;22(8):1197–207. doi: 10.1359/jbmr.070507 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Canalis E, Schilling L, Yee SP, Lee SK, Zanotti S. Hajdu Cheney Mouse Mutants Exhibit Osteopenia, Increased Osteoclastogenesis and Bone Resorption. J Biol Chem. 2016;291:1538–51. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M115.685453 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Zanotti S, Yu J, Sanjay A, Schilling L, Schoenherr C, Economides AN, et al. Sustained Notch2 signaling in osteoblasts, but not in osteoclasts, is linked to osteopenia in a mouse model of Hajdu-Cheney syndrome. J Biol Chem. 2017;292(29):12232–44. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M117.786129 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Nazarenko I, Lowe B, Darfler M, Ikonomi P, Schuster D, Rashtchian A. Multiplex quantitative PCR using self-quenched primers labeled with a single fluorophore. Nucleic Acids Res. 2002;30(9):e37. doi: 10.1093/nar/30.9.e37 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Nazarenko I, Pires R, Lowe B, Obaidy M, Rashtchian A. Effect of primary and secondary structure of oligodeoxyribonucleotides on the fluorescent properties of conjugated dyes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2002;30(9):2089–195. doi: 10.1093/nar/30.9.2089 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Nye JS, Kopan R, Axel R. An activated Notch suppresses neurogenesis and myogenesis but not gliogenesis in mammalian cells. Development. 1994;120(9):2421–30. doi: 10.1242/dev.120.9.2421 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Shirayoshi Y, Yuasa Y, Suzuki T, Sugaya K, Kawase E, Ikemura T, et al. Proto-oncogene of int-3, a mouse Notch homologue, is expressed in endothelial cells during early embryogenesis. Genes Cells. 1997;2(3):213–24. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2443.1997.d01-310.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Gibson DG, Young L, Chuang RY, Venter JC, Hutchison CA 3rd, Smith HO. Enzymatic assembly of DNA molecules up to several hundred kilobases. Nat Methods. 2009;6(5):343–5. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.1318 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Kutyavin IV, Afonina IA, Mills A, Gorn VV, Lukhtanov EA, Belousov ES, et al. 3’-minor groove binder-DNA probes increase sequence specificity at PCR extension temperatures. Nucleic Acids Res. 2000;28(2):655–61. doi: 10.1093/nar/28.2.655 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Canalis E, Zanotti S, Schilling L, Eller T, Yu J. Activation of Notch3 in osteoblasts/osteocytes causes compartment-specific changes in bone remodeling. J Biol Chem. 2021;296:100583. doi: 10.1016/j.jbc.2021.100583 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Zanotti S, Canalis E. Parathyroid hormone inhibits Notch signaling in osteoblasts and osteocytes. Bone. 2017;103:159–67. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2017.06.027 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Delgado-Calle J, Anderson J, Cregor MD, Hiasa M, Chirgwin JM, Carlesso N, et al. Bidirectional Notch Signaling and Osteocyte-Derived Factors in the Bone Marrow Microenvironment Promote Tumor Cell Proliferation and Bone Destruction in Multiple Myeloma. Cancer Res. 2016;76(5):1089–100. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-15-1703 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Filipowska J, Tomaszewski KA, Niedzwiedzki L, Walocha JA, Niedzwiedzki T. The role of vasculature in bone development, regeneration and proper systemic functioning. Angiogenesis. 2017;20(3):291–302. doi: 10.1007/s10456-017-9541-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Watson EC, Adams RH. Biology of Bone: The Vasculature of the Skeletal System. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2018;8(7):a031559. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a031559 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Lassailly F, Foster K, Lopez-Onieva L, Currie E, Bonnet D. Multimodal imaging reveals structural and functional heterogeneity in different bone marrow compartments: functional implications on hematopoietic stem cells. Blood. 2013;122(10):1730–40. doi: 10.1182/blood-2012-11-467498 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Ono T, Hayashi M, Sasaki F, Nakashima T. RANKL biology: bone metabolism, the immune system, and beyond. Inflamm Regen. 2020;40:2. doi: 10.1186/s41232-019-0111-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Gary Stein

30 Mar 2022

PONE-D-22-04880Use of antisense oligonucleotides to target Notch3 in skeletal cellsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Canalis,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 14 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Gary Stein

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors created a mouse model for Lateral Meningocele Syndrome (LMS), a very rare disease associated with gain-of-function of the Notch3 Receptor. The mouse model showed cancellous and cortical bone osteopenia. Then, the Notch3 receptor was downregulated by weekly injections of antisense oligonucleotides (ASO) specific for Notch3. The effect on the expression of Notch3 was examined by RT-PCR. Interestingly, the LMS-phenotype in bone was partially reversed. The effect of the AOS was stronger in cortical than in cancellous bone. However, the LMS-phenotype was not as extensively reversed with ASO in comparison to the use of a Notch3 antibody. In 2020, the authors published the same mouse model, but used an antibody instead of ASO to reverse the gain-of-function effect in the LMS mouse. Thus, the paper is presenting a proof-of-principle rather than a significant conceptual advance. The observed differences between cortical and cancellous bone might be related to the higher biological availability of ASO in cortical than cancellous bone. Since a difference is seen, the question remains why the authors only examined the femora of the mice. I would a expect a stronger effect in vertebrae.

All in all, the methods are adequate, the conclusions are supported by the data, and the paper is clearly written. However, I have some minor concerns which should be addressed by the authors first.

General:

-Refer to the mice age in weeks all the time. In several sections, months are used for age indication

-17 of 53 citations are self-citations. Many of them are not necessary, especially in the method´s section of the paper. Please, diversify your references.

Introduction:

-The introduction section is sufficient. What about Notch3 loss-of-function? CADASIL? I recommend mentioning it in one or two sentences to give the reader an overall understanding about the function of Notch3 in pathophysiology of humans.

Methods:

-Why are genetic backgrounds of the mice mixed (BALB and C57/BL)?

-Why are different housekeeping genes used as references for Notch3 expression (cyclophilin A and Rpl38?

-Please remove unnecessary references in the method´s section of the paper. Reference does not need to be made for standardized procedures. For example, Ref 38, 39 (page 6) and 40,41 (page 7)

-Were both femora examined in micro-ct or only one side (page 7)

Results:

-Usually, female mice show a more distinctive phenotype than male mice. The authors state that this was different in the Notch3-LMS mouse and give reference to their own paper.

-What is the explanation for this exception? This is a feature of the mouse model that could easily be examined, if male and female mice were analyzed.

-Could the different effect of ASO on cortical vs. cancellous bone be associated with blood perfusion of these areas? The ASO is i.p. injected. Is there data of its distribution available? Fluorescence imaging? If not, please also comment in the discussion section.

Discussion:

-Please, clarify what you had expected from the ASO in LMS-mice and what was different to the anti-Notch3 AB

-When a difference is seen in cortical and cancellous bone in the femora, the effect on calvaria or spine would be interesting. Please comment why this analysis was not performed.

Reviewer #2: This is an interesting report from a group that has worked for some time on the roles of Notch receptors in the physiology of bone formation and resorption and skeletal diseases. This study focuses on Notch 3 and the authors created a Notch3 knock-in mutant mouse to model Lehman Syndrome or Lateral meningocele syndrome (LMS). The gain-of-function mutation results in a truncated NOTCH3 devoid of the PEST domain, which is necessary for ubiquitination and degradation of NOTCH3 to limit its activity. The objective of the study, therefore, appears to be to assess antisense oligonucleotide (ASO) against Notch3 as a potential therapeutic for osteopenia in LMS in Notch3 knock-in mice and in bone cells derived from them. The experiments are well designed but stop short of addressing bone-specific molecular mechanisms and the authors need to better highlight the novel aspects of this work differentiating Notch3 effects from other Notch receptors. Specific suggestions are listed below.

1. In the Abstract the nomenclature for the mouse strains is difficult to follow and this persists throughout the manuscript. The authors state that they created a novel mouse strain“ (Notch3em1Ecan) harboring a 6691-TAATGA mutation in the Notch3 locus, and heterozygous Notch3em1Ecan mice exhibit cancellous and cortical bone osteopenia”. Then later they refer to Notch36691-TAATGA mRNA. This was confusing until I read through the manuscript. Evidently, the heterozygous Notch3em1Ecan was used throughout the experiments because the mice homozygous for the 6691-TAATGA mutation are developmentally abnormal. Thus, the heterozygous Notch3 knock-in mutant have levels of Notch 3 activity that are sufficient to enable demonstration of amelioration of osteopenia with Notch3 ASOs. Please consider more consistent use of nomenclature here and throughout the manuscript.

2. The concluding statement of the Abstract simply restates the findings without providing a conclusion about important insights resulting from the study.

3. The last paragraph of the Introduction also needs some attention regarding the hypothesis to be test and concluding insights. One thing that needs highlighting is that the work is modeling LMS, where Notch3 is abnormally activated, so treatment Notch3 ASOs could normalize bone status by inhibitingNotch3 signaling. Is this interpretation correct?

4. Page 6, line 2: This sentence does not seem correct: “Heterozygous Notch3em1Ecan mutants were crossed with wild type mice to create heterozygous Notch3em1Ecan”.

5. Page 14: Regarding the results in Figure 6, there is an assumption made, based on previously published work, that the preferential effect of Notch3 ASO was limited to cortical bone osteopenia, without increasing BV/TV in cancellous bone, because Notch3 is expressed preferentially by osteocytes. Showing these effects in cortical versus cancellous bone in the mouse tissues after ASO treatment would enhance the mechanistic value of the work.

6. Page 15: Similarly in the Discussion, direct evidence that the Notch3 ASOs were more effective in the osteocyte-rich compartment in Notch3 knock-in mutants, accounting for the preferential targeting of cortical bone, would add value to the study.

7. Page 17: As in the Abstract, this single sentence does not constitute a conclusion.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 May 10;17(5):e0268225. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268225.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


21 Apr 2022

April 18, 2022

Gary Stein

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Stein:

In accordance with your letter of March 30, 2022, we would like to submit a revised version of the manuscript entitled “Use of antisense oligonucleotides to target Notch3 in skeletal cells” (PONE-D-22-04880) to be considered for publication by PLOS One. Changes are outlined in this response and highlighted in the text of the paper.

Reply to Reviewer #1: The authors created a mouse model for Lateral Meningocele Syndrome (LMS), a very rare disease associated with gain-of-function of the Notch3 Receptor. The mouse model showed cancellous and cortical bone osteopenia. Then, the Notch3 receptor was downregulated by weekly injections of antisense oligonucleotides (ASO) specific for Notch3. The effect on the expression of Notch3 was examined by RT-PCR. Interestingly, the LMS-phenotype in bone was partially reversed. The effect of the AOS was stronger in cortical than in cancellous bone. However, the LMS-phenotype was not as extensively reversed with ASO in comparison to the use of a Notch3 antibody. In 2020, the authors published the same mouse model, but used an antibody instead of ASO to reverse the gain-of-function effect in the LMS mouse. Thus, the paper is presenting a proof-of-principle rather than a significant conceptual advance. The observed differences between cortical and cancellous bone might be related to the higher biological availability of ASO in cortical than cancellous bone. Since a difference is seen, the question remains why the authors only examined the femora of the mice. I would a expect a stronger effect in vertebrae.

All in all, the methods are adequate, the conclusions are supported by the data, and the paper is clearly written. However, I have some minor concerns which should be addressed by the authors first.

General:

-Refer to the mice age in weeks all the time. In several sections, months are used for age indication

As recommended, we now refer to the age of mice in weeks throughout the paper.

-17 of 53 citations are self-citations. Many of them are not necessary, especially in the method´s section of the paper. Please, diversify your references.

Unnecessary references 38, 39, 40 and 41 were removed. Added 10 additional references from other laboratories.

Introduction:

-The introduction section is sufficient. What about Notch3 loss-of-function? CADASIL? I recommend mentioning it in one or two sentences to give the reader an overall understanding about the function of Notch3 in pathophysiology of humans.

We now mention CADASIL in the Introduction and cite references on the function of NOTCH3 in mural vascular cells and role of NOTCH3 in CADASIL. Please see page 3, end of paragraph 2.

Methods:

-Why are genetic backgrounds of the mice mixed (BALB and C57/BL)?

The initial screen and toxicology studies of ASOs were performed at the Korea Institute of Toxicology in BALB/c mice. The ASOs that were active and had no toxicity were chosen for the present studies. All the work presented in this paper was conducted in Notch3em1Ecan and littermate controls in a C57BL/6 background.

-Why are different housekeeping genes used as references for Notch3 expression (cyclophilin A and Rpl38?

The initial screen of activity of the ASOs was conducted at the Korea Institute of Toxicology and transcript levels corrected for Cyclophilin A. The ASOs downregulating Notch3 mRNA >75% were selected for the work presented in this paper. All mRNA data shown in this paper were generated in the Canalis laboratory and are corrected for Rpl38.

-Please remove unnecessary references in the method´s section of the paper. Reference does not need to be made for standardized procedures. For example, Ref 38, 39 (page 6) and 40,41 (page 7)

References 38, 39, 40 and 41 were removed as requested.

-Were both femora examined in micro-ct or only one side (page 7)

Only one side, and this is now stated in page 7, last paragraph.

Results:

-Usually, female mice show a more distinctive phenotype than male mice. The authors state that this was different in the Notch3-LMS mouse and give reference to their own paper. What is the explanation for this exception? This is a feature of the mouse model that could easily be examined, if male and female mice were analyzed.

The reviewer is correct and we apologize for the error. We examined the published paper (Canalis, et al. J. Biol Chem, 2018) and Notch3em1Ecan female mice have more pronounced osteopenia at 1 month of age than male mice. The error was corrected. The reason why male mice were chosen to test the effect of the ASOs is because the osteopenic phenotype is more persistent and consistent in Notch3em1Ecan male than in female mice. At 4 months of age, male but not female mice are osteopenic. In this study, 1 month old male mice were administered ASOs and examined at 2 months of age to ensure that a phenotype would be detected. The statement was changed to indicate that male mice were studied because the osteopenic phenotype in males was sustained for up to 18 weeks. Please see page 13, paragraph 2.

-Could the different effect of ASO on cortical vs. cancellous bone be associated with blood perfusion of these areas? The ASO is i.p. injected. Is there data of its distribution available? Fluorescence imaging? If not, please also comment in the discussion section.

We reviewed information on the vascular system supplying long bones as well as perfusion studies. Blood supply for the cortex of long bones is carried out by a central nutrient artery and periosteal arteries whereas metaphyseal-epiphyseal arteries irrigate the bone metaphysis rich in cancellous bone. Therefore, it is possible that Notch3 ASOs had greater access to cortical than cancellous bone. However, perfusion studies have not shown differences in perfusion efficiency in epiphysis, diaphysis or calvariae. We now present this information in the Discussion and quote appropriate references. Please see page 17, end of paragraph 1.

Discussion:

-Please, clarify what you had expected from the ASO in LMS-mice and what was different to the anti-Notch3 AB

We now explain in the Discussion that we expected a downregulation of Notch3 expression by the Notch3 ASOs. We also provide possible explanation for the greater effect of anti-Notch3 antibodies such as greater stability or access to target tissues. It is possible that the anti-Notch3 antibody is more effective than the ASO because it targets the transmembrane domain of NOTCH3 and does not need to enter the cell to be effective. The ASO instead acts intracellularly to target the mRNA for degradation. Please see page 16, last paragraph.

-When a difference is seen in cortical and cancellous bone in the femora, the effect on calvaria or spine would be interesting. Please comment why this analysis was not performed.

We analyzed the effect of Notch3 ASOs in cancellous bone at L3 in wild type and Notch3em1Ecan mice and results were analogous to those observed in femoral cancellous bone. A statement to this effect was included in the Results and data for L3 BV/TV were included in the text. Please see page 14, paragraph 2.

Calvariae were not examined since parameters of microarchitectural analysis of bone (the primary analysis utilized in this study) are established for cancellous and cortical bone present in vertebrae and long bones and not for intramembranous bone present in calvariae (Bouxsein et al., J Bone Miner Res, 25:1468-1486, 2010).

Reply to Reviewer #2: This is an interesting report from a group that has worked for some time on the roles of Notch receptors in the physiology of bone formation and resorption and skeletal diseases. This study focuses on Notch 3 and the authors created a Notch3 knock-in mutant mouse to model Lehman Syndrome or Lateral meningocele syndrome (LMS). The gain-of-function mutation results in a truncated NOTCH3 devoid of the PEST domain, which is necessary for ubiquitination and degradation of NOTCH3 to limit its activity. The objective of the study, therefore, appears to be to assess antisense oligonucleotide (ASO) against Notch3 as a potential therapeutic for osteopenia in LMS in Notch3 knock-in mice and in bone cells derived from them. The experiments are well designed but stop short of addressing bone-specific molecular mechanisms and the authors need to better highlight the novel aspects of this work differentiating Notch3 effects from other Notch receptors. Specific suggestions are listed below.

1. In the Abstract the nomenclature for the mouse strains is difficult to follow and this persists throughout the manuscript. The authors state that they created a novel mouse strain“ (Notch3em1Ecan) harboring a 6691-TAATGA mutation in the Notch3 locus, and heterozygous Notch3em1Ecan mice exhibit cancellous and cortical bone osteopenia”. Then later they refer to Notch36691-TAATGA mRNA. This was confusing until I read through the manuscript. Evidently, the heterozygous Notch3em1Ecan was used throughout the experiments because the mice homozygous for the 6691-TAATGA mutation are developmentally abnormal. Thus, the heterozygous Notch3 knock-in mutant have levels of Notch 3 activity that are sufficient to enable demonstration of amelioration of osteopenia with Notch3 ASOs. Please consider more consistent use of nomenclature here and throughout the manuscript.

We now qualify Notch36691-TAATGA as Notch36691-TAATGA mutant RNA expressed by the Notch3em1Ecan mutant mouse. In the Abstract and throughout the manuscript, we qualify the Notch36691-TAATGA as a mutant transcript and Notch3em1Ecan as the mouse model expressing the transcript.

2. The concluding statement of the Abstract simply restates the findings without providing a conclusion about important insights resulting from the study.

In accordance with the reviewer’s comment, a more appropriate conclusion was added in the Abstract and Conclusions.

3. The last paragraph of the Introduction also needs some attention regarding the hypothesis to be test and concluding insights. One thing that needs highlighting is that the work is modeling LMS, where Notch3 is abnormally activated, so treatment Notch3 ASOs could normalize bone status by inhibitingNotch3 signaling. Is this interpretation correct?

We now highlight that Notch3em1Ecan is a model of LMS and of gain-of-NOTCH3 function, and we postulate that by decreasing Notch3 mRNA expression with specific ASOs one could decrease the levels of biologically active NOTCH3 NICD. Please see page 4, last paragraph.

Strictly speaking, ASOs downregulate transcripts. By decreasing Notch3 mRNA, there is less active NOTCH3 NICD and less signaling.

4. Page 6, line 2: This sentence does not seem correct: “Heterozygous Notch3em1Ecan mutants were crossed with wild type mice to create heterozygous Notch3em1Ecan”.

The sentence was corrected. It now states, Heterozygous Notch3em1Ecan mutants were crossed with wild type mice to generate ~50% heterozygous Notch3em1Ecan mice and 50% control littermates to be characterized and administered Notch3 ASOs. Please see page 6, paragraph 1.

5. Page 14: Regarding the results in Figure 6, there is an assumption made, based on previously published work, that the preferential effect of Notch3 ASO was limited to cortical bone osteopenia, without increasing BV/TV in cancellous bone, because Notch3 is expressed preferentially by osteocytes. Showing these effects in cortical versus cancellous bone in the mouse tissues after ASO treatment would enhance the mechanistic value of the work.

The reviewer is correct, and we assume that the Notch3 ASO was more effective in osteocyte-rich cortical bone. Notch 3 is preferentially expressed by the osteocyte as previously published by us and others (Zanotti et al., Bone, 103:159, 2017 and Delgado-Calle et al., Caner Res, 76:1089, 2016). However, as the reviewer indicates, we cannot state with certainty that this is the reason why the Notch3 ASO was more effective in cortical bone. Other possibilities, such as differential vascularization of cortical and cancellous bone as pointed out by reviewer 1, could play a role and are now included in the Discussion. Please see page 17, paragraph 1. We also indicate that we do not demonstrate that Notch3 ASOs are more effective in an osteocyte population in vivo. The experiment proposed by the reviewer would be valuable but technically quite challenging since one would need to show downregulation of Notch3 and Notch3 mutant mRNA in different bone compartments possibly by in situ hybridization and the method would not be sufficiently sensitive to detect modest differences or reductions in transcript expression. We sincerely apologize for this deficiency and state the deficiency in the Discussion. Please see page 17, paragraph 1.

6. Page 15: Similarly in the Discussion, direct evidence that the Notch3 ASOs were more effective in the osteocyte-rich compartment in Notch3 knock-in mutants, accounting for the preferential targeting of cortical bone, would add value to the study.

We agree with the reviewer; but as mentioned in the response to comment 5, we believe that it would be technically difficult to demonstrate a downregulation in bone tissue.

7. Page 17: As in the Abstract, this single sentence does not constitute a conclusion.

We have modified the conclusion statement – “In conclusion, Notch3 ASOs downregulate Notch3 expression in skeletal cells from a mouse model of LMS and ameliorate its cortical osteopenic phenotype. Consequently, ASOs may become a useful strategy in the management of skeletal diseases affected by gain-of-Notch function”.

Additional Modification

As we were correcting the manuscript, we noticed some inconsistencies in the copy number of “transcripts” shown in Figure 2. To ensure absolute accuracy, we repeated the real time PCR of all the samples shown in Figure 2A, B and C and the figure was replaced with the newly generated transcript data. Rest assured that the effect of Notch3 ASO remains the same and the only change is in the value of the actual copy number.

We hope you now find the manuscript acceptable for publication. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely yours,

Ernesto Canalis, M.D.

Director, Center for Skeletal Research

Professor of Orthopaedics and Medicine

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reply to Reviewer_PONE-D-22-04880.docx

Decision Letter 1

Gary Stein

26 Apr 2022

Use of antisense oligonucleotides to target Notch3 in skeletal cells

PONE-D-22-04880R1

Dear Dr. Canalis,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Gary Stein

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Concerns raised by reviewers were adequately addressed so the manuscript is acceptable for publication

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Gary Stein

29 Apr 2022

PONE-D-22-04880R1

Use of antisense oligonucleotides to target Notch3 in skeletal cells

Dear Dr. Canalis:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Gary Stein

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reply to Reviewer_PONE-D-22-04880.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES