Chondromodulin is necessary for cartilage callus distraction in mice

Kiminori Yukata; Chisa Shukunami; Yoshito Matsui; Aki Takimoto; Tomohiro Goto; Mitsuhiko Takahashi; Atsushi Mihara; Tetsuya Seto; Takashi Sakai; Yuji Hiraki; Natsuo Yasui

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0280634

. 2023 Feb 16;18(2):e0280634. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280634

Chondromodulin is necessary for cartilage callus distraction in mice

Kiminori Yukata ^1,^2,^*, Chisa Shukunami ^3,⁴, Yoshito Matsui ¹, Aki Takimoto ⁴, Tomohiro Goto ¹, Mitsuhiko Takahashi ¹, Atsushi Mihara ², Tetsuya Seto ², Takashi Sakai ², Yuji Hiraki ⁴, Natsuo Yasui ¹

Editor: Jose Manuel Garcia Aznar⁵

PMCID: PMC9934371 PMID: 36795722

Abstract

Chondromodulin (Cnmd) is a glycoprotein known to stimulate chondrocyte growth. We examined in this study the expression and functional role of Cnmd during distraction osteogenesis that is modulated by mechanical forces. The right tibiae of the mice were separated by osteotomy and subjected to slow progressive distraction using an external fixator. In situ hybridization and immunohistochemical analyses of the lengthened segment revealed that Cnmd mRNA and its protein in wild-type mice were localized in the cartilage callus, which was initially generated in the lag phase and was lengthened gradually during the distraction phase. In Cnmd null (Cnmd^−/−) mice, less cartilage callus was observed, and the distraction gap was filled by fibrous tissues. Additionally, radiological and histological investigations demonstrated delayed bone consolidation and remodeling of the lengthened segment in Cnmd^−/− mice. Eventually, Cnmd deficiency caused a one-week delay in the peak expression of VEGF, MMP2, and MMP9 genes and the subsequent angiogenesis and osteoclastogenesis. We conclude that Cnmd is necessary for cartilage callus distraction.

Introduction

Chondromodulin (Cnmd, formerly Chondromodulin-I, Chm-1) is a cartilage-specific glycoprotein that stimulates proteoglycan synthesis in cultured growth plate chondrocytes and the colony formation of chondrocytes cultured in agarose [1, 2]. Some in vitro studies suggested the functional role of Cnmd as a chondrocyte growth modulator and an angiogenesis inhibitor [1–4]. Our previous study demonstrated that Cnmd null (Cnmd^−/−) mutation lead to less cartilage callus formation during the fracture healing process [5], although Cnmd^−/− mice did not show abnormalities in cartilage development or endochondral bone formation during embryogenesis or normal growth, and further did not affect natural articular cartilage development [4, 6]. Thus, Cnmd functions as a chondrocyte modulator in specific conditions, causing osteogenesis such as cartilage or bone injury, but not in normal cartilage development and growth.

It has been well established that mechanical stimuli also control cartilage development and homeostasis. For example, muscular paralysis in the chick embryo resulted in joint cavity formation failure, and dynamic compressive loading activates the biosynthesis of various extracellular matrices in the articular cartilage [7–10]. Mechanical stress determines the bone fracture healing throughout the endochondral or intramembranous bone formation, as the loss of stability leads to more cartilage callus formation [11, 12]. Interestingly, Cnmd regulated ossification patterns; bone callus formation increased, but cartilage callus decreased in Cnmd-deficient tibial fractures [5]. These findings strongly suggest the relationship between mechanical stress and Cnmd in the process of cartilage callus formation during bone repair/regeneration.

We focused on distraction osteogenesis, which involves an osteotomy followed by a slow progressive distraction to lengthen congenitally or traumatically shortened extremities, to assess the impact of the mechanical stress on Cnmd [13, 14]. Previous experimental studies on animals demonstrated abundant elongated cartilage callus at the earlier time point of the distraction phase, resulting in endochondral or transchondroid bone formation [15, 16]. Mechanical stress-induced various growth factors, including bone morphogenetic proteins, insulin-like growth factor-1, and transforming growth factor beta that underlies cartilage callus distraction [17, 18]. Therefore, animal models of distraction osteogenesis are useful in vivo experimental systems for examining the response to mechanical stress during bone regeneration.

This study aimed to determine the Cnmd response to mechanical stress in cartilage callus distraction. A recently established mouse model was chosen for this study due to the availability of knockout mice [19]. Taking advantage of this mouse model of tibial lengthening using an external fixator, we performed in situ hybridization, immunohistochemistry, and real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) to examine the expression levels and localization of Cnmd on the effect of mechanical tension stress. Furthermore, we compared the histogenesis characteristics in Cnmd^−/− mice with those of wild-type littermates.

Materials and methods

Experimental animals

Mice harboring a null targeted mutation of the Cnmd gene were generated and maintained as previously described [4]. Cnmd^-/- mice were backcrossed over eight times to C57/BL6 mice. In this study, nine to ten-week-old male Cnmd^-/- mice and WT littermates (weighing between 23 and 27 g) were used. All experimental procedures were performed according to the protocol approved by the Laboratory Animal Care and Use Committee of The University of Tokushima Graduate School.

Mouse model of distraction osteogenesis in the tibia

Mice were anesthetized with isoflurane. Following the established mouse model of distraction osteogenesis [19–21], an external fixator, consisted of two incomplete circular aluminum rings (outer diameter 20 mm, inner diameter 10 mm, thickness 1 mm), six nuts and two stainless screws (diameter 2 mm, length 25 mm), was applied to the right tibia using two 27G hypodermic needles for each proximal and distal ring (Fig 1). The total weight of the device, including four needles, was 4.0 g. A transverse osteotomy with the scalpel blade No. 11 was performed at the diaphysis of the tibia between the two rings. The wound was closed with 5–0 nylon sutures after osteotomy. The fibula was not broken at the surgery, but it was naturally broken around the epiphysis during the distraction phase and was also lengthened. The mice were kept in cages after recovery from anesthesia, allowing free unrestricted weight bearing. Following surgery, the animals were allowed to heal for 1 week (latency phase). After the latency phase, the lengthening was initiated at a rate of 0.21 mm every 12 hours for 2 weeks (distraction phase). This was followed by a 9-week period of consolidation phase. Finally, tibiae were lengthened by 5.88 mm after 2 weeks. A total of 170 male mice (97 wild-type (WT) and 73 Cnmd^-/- mice) were used. Radiographs were taken weekly with a soft radiograph apparatus (CMB-2, SOFTEX, Japan) under anesthesia (n = 10 for each WT and Cnmd^-/-). Radiographic assessment of bone union was performed using postoperative radiographs at 8 weeks after osteotomy. Bone union was defined as when two of two cortices were bridged, partial union was defined as when either side of the cortical bone was not bridged, and non-union was defined as when both two cortices were not bridged. Mice were euthanized with isoflurane and carbon dioxide. For histology, mice were sacrificed 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 12 weeks after osteotomy (n = 4 for each genotype). For RNA extraction, mice were also sacrificed at 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 weeks after osteotomy (n = 3–5 for each genotype). One WT and two Cnmd^-/- mice were euthanized postoperatively due to infection. One WT and one Cnmd^-/- mice of them were scheduled to report histology 12 weeks after osteotomy, and one left the Cnmd^-/- mouse for RNA extraction 8 weeks after osteotomy. Finally, 167 mice were included in the present study.

Fig 1 — (A) The mouse model of distraction osteogenesis using an external fixator. (B) The external fixator consisted of two incomplete circular aluminum rings, six stainless steel nuts, and two stainless steel screws. The length between two pitches of screw was 0.42 mm. (C) The upper four nuts were turned half every twelve hours during the distraction phase to move the upper ring toward the proximal end of the screws by 0.21 mm. Finally, tibiae were lengthened by 5.88 mm after 2 weeks.

Tissue preparation and staining

The right tibiae were dissected with the surrounding muscles at the indicated times after osteotomy and fixed at 4°C for 3 days with 4% paraformaldehyde in 0.1 M phosphate buffer (pH 7.4). They were decalcified with Morse solution (10% [wt/vol] sodium citrate and 22.5% [vol/vol] formic acid) for in situ hybridization (n = 3 for only WT mice) or with 0.5 M ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (pH 7.4) for immunohistochemistry and tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase (TRACP) staining (n = 3 for each genotype). The decalcified tissues were dehydrated through increasing concentrations of ethanol and embedded in paraffin. Serial sagittal sections, 6 μm thick for in situ hybridization or 4 μm thick for toluidine blue (pH 4.1), alcian blue hematoxylin & eosin-orange G staining, TRACP staining or immunohistochemistry, were mounted on MAS-coated slides (Matsunami Glass Industries, Japan). These sections were stored at 4°C until histological analyses. TRACP staining was performed using TRACP-staining kit (Hokudo, Japan), and counterstained with methyl green. The mean numbers TRACP-positive cells per 5 random areas (0.2 mm²) in both proximal and distal remodeling zone were calculated manually in WT and Cnmd^-/- mice using the image software Win ROOF ver 5.6.0 (Mitani Corp., Japan) and the mean numbers among 3 samples at each time point were analyzed.

Cartilage callus area

The sagittal sections were stained with toluidine blue and areas showing metachromasia were identified as cartilage callus. The metachromatic cartilage callus area was measured manually in WT and Cnmd^-/- mice using the image software Win ROOF ver 5.6.0 (Mitani Corp.) at 1, 2, and 3 weeks after osteotomy (n = 4 for each genotype).

In situ hybridization

The antisense and sense RNA probes for each gene under analysis were transcribed from expression plasmids with a digoxygenin (DIG) RNA labeling kit (Roche Diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany). Hybridization was carried out at 50°C for 16 hours and the sections were washed under high stringency. The DIG-labeled molecules were detected using NBT/BCIP (Roche) as the substrate for anti-DIG antibody-coupled alkaline phosphatase. Sections were mounted with coverslips, and then photographed. For RNA probes, the cDNAs of rat type II collagen alpha 1 (Col2a1), mouse type X collagen alpha 1 (Col10a1) and a 1.0 kb mouse Cnmd were used as templates for in vitro transcription after linearization of the plasmids [5]. Three specimens were included for WT mice at each time point.

Immunohistochemical staining

To examine the localization of Cnmd, type II collagen and type X collagen, and CD31 in the lengthened callus, immunohistochemistry was performed using an avidin-biotin peroxidase detection system (Vector Lab, Burlingame, CA, USA). After blocking in 5% skim milk in PBS-T (phosphate-buffered saline containing 1% Tween 20) at 4°C for 1 hour, the sections were incubated overnight at 4°C with a primary antibody, anti-Cnmd rabbit polyclonal antibody (1:1000), anti-type II collagen rabbit polyclonal antibody (1:400: Rockland Immunochemicals, Philadelphia, PA, USA), anti-type X collagen polyclonal antibody (1:400: LSL, Japan), and anti-CD31 rabbit polyclonal antibody (1:50: Abcam, Cambridge, MA, USA). After washing with PBS-T, the sections were incubated with secondary antibodies, a biotinylated anti-rabbit IgG (Vector Lab). Reactions were visualized with diaminobenzidine as substrate (Vector Lab). The sections for Cnmd, type II collagen, type X collagen, and CD31 were counterstained with hematoxylin. Five random fields (60000 μm²) per lengthened segment were measured, on CD31 stained slides, to determine the number of newly formed vascular vessels for samples 3 and 4 weeks after osteotomy. Three specimens were included for each genotype at each time point.

RNA isolation and real-time RT PCR analysis

The surrounding muscles and bone marrow were removed from the intact and lengthened tibiae at various postoperative time points for RNA extraction (n = 3–5 for each genotype). The samples were snap-frozen in liquid nitrogen and smashed using the TissueLyser II instrument (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany). Total RNA was isolated from each sample using Qiagen RNeasy Lipid Tissue Mini Kits according to the instructions provided by the manufacturer (Qiagen). Total RNA (1 μg) was then reverse transcribed to cDNA using the Superscript^® III first strand synthesis system for the RT-PCR kit (Invitrogen). For quantitative analysis of the expression level of Cnmd, Sex-determining region Y-box containing gene 9 (Sox9), Col2a1, Col10a1, Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), Matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs)-2 and 9, 14, Tenomodulin (Tnmd), Tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase (TIMP)-2 transcripts during distraction osteogenesis, real-time RT-PCR was performed in the ABI Prism 7500 (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA) using pre-validated Assays on Demand™ (consisting of 20X mix of unlabelled PCR primers and Taq-Man^® MGB probe (FAM™ dye labelled) (S1 Table). Levels of Gapdh transcripts were used to normalize each gene expression level.

Statistical analysis

Data are shown as mean ± standard error (SE). Fisher’s exact test was used for the radiographic assessment of union and partial union rates. The Mann-Whitney U test was used for the data from gene expression and histological analyzes. These tests were performed using the XLSTAT (Mindware Inc., Okayama, Japan). P values of <0.05 were considered significant.

Results

Delayed and incomplete fusion of the bone callus in Cnmd^-/- mice

Serial radiographs at various time points during distraction osteogenesis were obtained from WT and Cnmd^-/- mice (Fig 2). In WT mice, bone calluses appeared at the both ends of the lengthened area with a central radiolucent zone at 2 and 3 weeks after osteotomy. The bone callus developed from the periphery to the center of the lengthened area 4 weeks after osteotomy. Lengthened bone calluses were fused between 4 and 6 weeks after osteotomy, following remodeled until 12 weeks. In contrast, distraction osteogenesis in Cnmd^-/- mice demonstrated a less bone callus formation at 2 or 3 weeks after osteotomy, and their fusion and remodeling were delayed between 4 and 12 weeks.

Radiographic assessment of union, partial union, and nonunion rates demonstrated that 7 (70%) WT mice achieved bone union at 8 weeks after osteotomy compared with 1 (10%) Cnmd^-/- mice. Partial union was observed in 2 (20%) mice in WT mice, while in Cnmd^-/- mice partial union was observed in 8 (80%) mice. Non-union was observed in each 1(10%) mouse of both genotypes. The partial union rate was significantly higher in Cnmd^-/- mice than in WT mice (p<0.05).

Cnmd and Col2a1 are co-expressed in immature chondrocytes at the lengthened callus in WT mice

In situ hybridization was performed to determine whether the Cnmd mRNA was co-expressed with the Col2a1 mRNA and the Col10a1 mRNA, which are molecular markers of immature and hypertrophic chondrocytes, respectively. Histological examination of lengthened tibiae in WT mice showed development of a cartilage callus that was observed as toluidine blue-stained metachromasia near the osteotomy site at 1 week after osteotomy (Fig 3A). As the distraction progressed, the cartilage callus elongated along the tension vector. Cnmd mRNA was expressed in cells surrounded by the metachromatic cartilage matrix stained with toluidine blue. The Cnmd hybridization signals overlapped with the Col2a1 expression areas, but not with the Col10a1 expression area near the osteotomy site 1 week after osteotomy and in the lengthened segment 2 and 3 weeks after osteotomy. Real-time RT-PCR showed that Cnmd mRNA expression first appeared in the tibiae 1 week after osteotomy and had a maximum expression peak during the distraction phase (Fig 3B; p<0.05 compared between 1 and 2 weeks). Cnmd expression levels declined between 3 and 8 weeks after osteotomy. The finding that Cnmd mRNA expression appears in the early stage of the distraction phase suggests a connection with chondrogenesis induced by mechanical stress. Immunohistochemistry demonstrated that the Cnmd protein was localized in the extracellular matrix of immature and hypertrophic chondrocytes, immunostained with anti-type II and X collagen antibodies, near the osteotomy site 1 week after osteotomy and in the lengthened segment 2 and 3 weeks after osteotomy (Fig 3C). At 4 weeks after osteoromy, the Cnmd protein was hardly detected.

Fig 3 — (A) mRNA localization of *Cnmd*. Sagittal sections stained with toluidine blue (left column) showing the representative osteotomized and lengthened tibiae at 1, 2 and 3 weeks after osteotomy with boxed areas of metachromatic cartilage callus. The adjacent sections were analyzed by *in situ* hybridization, demonstrating the expression of mRNA *Cnmd*, *Col2a1*, and *Col10a1* in the cartilage callus at 1, 2 and 3 weeks after osteotomy. Scale bar, 500 μm. (B) The time course change of *Cnmd* mRNA expression was measured by real-time RT-PCR, and was normalized to *Gapdh*. Data are shown as mean ± SE. *p <0.05 between 1 and 2 weeks after osteotomy (C) Immunohistochemical location of *Cnmd*. Sections from the representative osteotomized and lengthened tibiae were stained with toluidine blue (left column) at 1, 2, 3 and 4 weeks after osteotomy, and areas of metachromatic cartilage callus were boxed. The adjacent sections were immunostained with anti-Cnmd, anti-type II collagen or anti-type X collagen antibodies. The brown signals in the right columns indicate the corresponding immunostainings. Scale bar, 500 μm.

Cnmd null mutation resulted in fibrous callus formation during the early phases of distraction osteogenesis

We compared cartilage callus formation between WT and Cnmd^-/- mice by histomorphometry and real-time RT-PCR because Cnmd existed in the cartilage callus. Cartilage callus formation in Cnmd^-/- mice was reduced at 1 week after osteotomy, and some tissue defects were observed along with the fibrous callus formation in the lengthened segment at 2 weeks after osteotomy (Fig 4A). Interestingly, the tissue defects were fulfilled by the fibrous callus 3 weeks after osteotomy. Quantitative histomorphometry revealed that the cartilage area was significantly reduced in the callus of Cnmd^-/- mice by 3.2-fold (p<0.05) at 1 week after osteotomy, 5.5-fold (p<0.05) at 2 weeks and 8.3-fold (p<0.05) at 3 weeks after osteotomy (Fig 4B). Real-time RT-PCR showed that Col10a1 mRNA expression level was also significantly decreased in Cnmd^-/- mice consistent with reduced toluidine blue-stained metachromasia cartilage callus formation, while Sox9 and Col2a1 mRNAs expression level was slightly increased at 1, 2, and 3 weeks after osteotomy in Cnmd^-/- mice when compared to that of WT mice although there was no statistically significance (Fig 4C). These results indicate that Cnmd is indispensable for abundant cartilage callus formation. Besides, lack of Cnmd seems to alter the class of histogenesis during this period, from generation of cartilage callus to fibrous callus.

Fig 4 — (A) Sagittal sections of representative osteotomized and lengthened tibiae of wild-type (WT) (left column) and *Cnmd*^-/- (right column) mice at 1, 2, and 3 weeks after osteotomy, stained with toluidine blue. Areas showing metachromasia represent cartilage callus. Scale bar, 500 μm. (B) The callus areas of the cartilage in both genotypes at 1, 2, and 3 weeks after osteotomy were measured by histomorphometry. Data are shown as mean ± SE. (C) *Sox9*, *Col2a1* and *Col10a1* mRNA expression levels at 1, 2, and 3 weeks after osteotomy were measured by real-time RT-PCR, and were normalized to *Gapdh* was calculated. Data are shown as mean ± SE. Statistic examination was performed using ANOVA and significant differences are indicated by symbols: *p <0.05, compared between WT and *Cnmd*^-/- mice.

Incomplete bone union and remodeling in Cnmd^-/- mice

Histology revealed that bone calluses at both ends of the lengthened segment were united 4 to 6 weeks after osteotomy in WT mice, consistent with radiographic findings (Fig 5A). Then the united bone callus was gradually remodeled into mature bone from 6 to 12 weeks after osteotomy. On the contrary, partial bone union and delayed remodeling of the lengthened segment were observed until 12 weeks after osteotomy in Cnmd^-/- mice.

Fig 5 — Representative lengthened tibiae were shown in each group. Three distinct lengthened tibiae were shown from each genotype at 12 weeks after osteotomy. Scale bar, 1 mm. (B) The capillary density (number of newly formed vascular vessels/field) in the lengthened segment at 3 and 4 weeks after osteotomy. (C) The number of osteoclasts (number of TRACP positive cells/field) in the remodeling zone at 3 and 4 weeks after osteotomy. (D) Time course change of anti-angiogenic and angiogenic gene expression in WT and *Cnmd*^-/- mice. *VEGF*, *MMP2*, *MMP9*, *MMP14*, *Tnmd*, and *TIMP2* mRNA levels at 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 weeks after osteotomy were measured by real-time RT-PCR and normalized to *Gapdh*. Data are shown as mean ± SE. Statistic examination was performed using ANOVA and significant differences are indicated by symbols: *p <0.05, compared between WT and *Cnmd*^-/- mice.

Delayed angiogenesis and lengthened tissue remodeling during distraction osteogenesis in Cnmd^-/- mice

Angiogenesis and osteoclastogenesis are essential for bone healing and its remodeling processes. We compared newly formed vascular vessels in the lengthened segment and osteoclasts in the remodeling zone between WT and Cnmd^-/- mice, and plotted the expression levels of angiogenic and anti-angiogenic genes in a time course. At 3 weeks after osteotomy, the capillary density in the lengthened segment in Cnmd^-/- mice was significantly decreased when compared to that in WT mice (Fig 5B), while significantly increased at 4 weeks after osteotomy. Similarly, the null mutation of Cnmd was associated with a significant decrease in the number of TRACP positive cells at the end of the distraction phase, while the number of TRACP positive cells increased 4 weeks after osteotomy (Fig 5C). Real-time RT-PCR showed that VEGF, one of the key regulators of angiogenesis [23], decreased in Cnmd^-/- mice 2 weeks after osteotomy, perhaps due to reduced endochondral bone formation. VEGF expression levels increased significantly 3 weeks after osteotomy, followed by enriched fibrous callus formation (Fig 5D). Expression of MMP9, an inducer of angiogenesis and tissue remodeling [22], reached a peak level at 2 weeks after osteotomy, when endochondral bone formation occurred in WT mice. Peak expression of MMP9 did not occur until 3 weeks after osteotomy in Cnmd^-/- mice. The expression pattern of these genes was consistent with the number of new vessels and osteoclasts. Collectively, Cnmd deficiency caused a delay of 1 week in the peak expression of the VEGF and MMP9 genes and subsequent angiogenesis and osteoclastogenesis. MMP2 and MMP14 also had delayed peak levels in Cnmd^-/- mice. However, the expression of the antiangiogenic factors Tnmd and TIMP2 reached a maximum level 3 weeks after osteotomy in WT and Cnmd^-/- mice. Tnmd and TIMP2 expression levels in Cnmd^-/- mice were significantly higher between 2 and 4 weeks after osteotomy compared to WT.

Discussion

Previous studies reported that Cnmd could directly stimulate chondrocyte proliferation and proteoglycan synthesis in vitro [1, 2]. Additionally, cyclic mechanical stimulation using cell stretching instruments improved chondrocyte proliferation and extracellular matrix mRNA expression [23–25]. These findings suggest that mechanical stress promotes chondrocyte proliferation and cell matrix production by upregulation of the Cnmd gene. The current study indicated that Cnmd expression was enhanced by mechanical tension stress in immature chondrocytes within the cartilage callus. The Cnmd null mutation resulted in the suppression of cartilage callus formation in distraction osteogenesis, and the newly generated tissue was fibrous.

Tissues after failed articular cartilage repair procedures, such as abrasion arthroplasty, microfracture, autologous chondrocyte implantation, and periosteal transplantation, are usually composed primarily of fibrous connective tissue and fibrocartilage [26, 27]. The overlying repair tissue in treated with microfracture-treated articular cartilage defects was predominantly fibrocartilage and lacked Cnmd expression [28]. Klinger et al. stated that Cnmd stabilized the chondrocyte phenotype and inhibited the terminal differentiation at the articular cartilage repair site [29]. Chen et al. also showed a similar result in subcutaneously implanted cartilage graft tissues using Cnmd gene-modified mesenchymal stem cells [30]. Moreover, Zhu et al. reported that Cnmd was indispensable for the maintenance of cartilage homeostasis after subcutaneous implantation of cultured articular chondrocytes using Cnmd deficient mice [6]. By contrast, Cnmd deficiency did not interfered with cartilage regeneration in ectopic and articular cartilage defects. In this study, some type II and X collagen-positive cartilage callus formed during distraction osteogenesis in the Cnmd null mutation. Therefore, these data suggest that Cnmd is unessential for cartilage regeneration and callus formation, but is important for chondrocytes proliferation and inhibition of calcification (suppression of angiogenesis) in regenerated cartilage.

During distraction osteogenesis, cartilage callus formation is dictated by external fixator stiffness, tissue stiffness, and functional loading and is influenced by the mechanical environment within the lengthened segment. In WT mice, cartilage callus formed on the periosteal surface near the osteotomy during the lag phase and finite element analysis revealed hydrostatic tensile stress and immediate tensile strain applied to the same area [5, 31]. On the other hand, in Cnmd^−/− mice, no cartilage callus was observed in the same area and cartilage callus was observed only in the osteotomy gap region between the bone ends where the high hydrostatic pressure was generated. These data suggest that Cnmd is required for cartilage callus formation due to tensile stress on the periosteum and is less involved in it due to hydrostatic pressure between the gaps. During the distraction phase, the lengthened segment is subjected to varying degrees of hydrostatic tensile stress, and the presence of Cnmd plays an important role in cartilage callus distraction. However, Waanders et al. showed that the gap tissue is subject to approximately 15% deformation (compression and tension) during walking in a rabbit tibial lengthening model, indicating that compression as well as tensile forces act on the gap tissue during the distraction phase [32]. Additionally, the fibula spontaneously fractured during the distraction phase and lengthened in the same manner as the tibia. This raises the concern that the presence of the fibula in the current tibial lengthening procedure greatly affected the mechanical environment of the lengthened segment of the tibia. Thus, the mechanical environment within the lengthened segment during the current tibial lengthening is complex, and further research is necessary for the relationship between Cnmd expression and various types of mechanical stress [33].

In this study, another significant finding was delayed union and remodeling of the newly generated tissue into mature bone during the consolidation phase in the absence of Cnmd. Despite the expectation that Cnmd deficiency promotes angiogenesis, the capillary density in the lengthened segment of Cnmd^−/− mice decreased at the end of the distraction phase and the appearance of osteoclasts was delayed [3, 34]. Consistent with histological change, mRNA expression levels of angiogenic factors, VEGF and MMPs, decreased in the early stage of distraction and increased in the later stage of distraction. These findings might reflect the impact of the fibrous callus initially generated due to the Cnmd null mutation, but not the cartilage callus. The real-time RT-PCR data showed the increased expression of Tnmd mRNA in Cnmd^−/− mice at the distraction phase. Tnmd is a type II transmembrane protein that shares a cysteine-rich domain with Cnmd at the C-terminus [35]. A previous study demonstrated that the C-terminal region of Tnmd inhibited the VEGF-stimulated DNA synthesis and tube morphogenesis in Matrigel as much as Cnmd [36]. Dex et al. revealed that Tnmd mRNA expression was strongly upregulated by 5% axial cyclic strain in tendon stem/progenitor cells [37]. These findings suggest that the compensatory increase in Tnmd expression may predispose to fibrous callus formation. Furthermore, the increased mRNA expression level of another antiangiogenic factor, TIMP2, at the later stage of distraction in Cnmd^−/− mice also might modulate the later vascular vessel formation in the lengthened segment [38]. Thus, the relationship between Tnmd and distraction osteogenesis is also a concern for further study.

This study has some limitations. First, microCT and biomechanical analyses were not performed, which would be more precise to evaluate bone union and remodeling than histology. Second, we did not show a direct Cnmd synthesis in response to mechanical tension stress in chondrocytes both in vivo and in vitro. Third, previous studies demonstrated an increase in intramembranous bone callus formation in Cnmd-deficient fractures and ectopic bone formation of the intervertebral disc in Tnmd^−/−Cnmd^−/− mice [5, 39]. However, abundant bone formation in the bone marrow area did not appear in the current Cnmd^−/− distraction osteogenesis. One possible explanation for this result is that callus distraction might pull out a newly formed bone callus. Finally, previous animal models have reported that intramembranous ossification is predominant as species size increases and the latency period shortens [40–42]. In this mouse model, elongated cartilage callus was abundantly induced, perhaps because the latency period was rather long (7 days). In other words, the results of this study suggest that Cmnd may have little effect under conditions in which bone lengthening are performed on predominantly intramembranous ossification.

In conclusion, we found that the elongation of cartilage callus during distraction osteogenesis was suppressed in Cnmd^−/− mice and subsequent bone formation and remodeling slowed and partially failed. The study results indicate that Cnmd-mediated cartilage callus elongation is necessary for distraction osteogenesis and Cnmd could be a mechanical response chondrogenic factor. New insights into the function of Cnmd may establish this molecule as a candidate therapeutic agent for successful bone healing.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Pre-validated Assays on Demand™ (mix of unlabelled PCR primers and Taq-Man^® MGB probe (FAM™ dye labelled)).

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(15KB, docx)}

S1 File

(ZIP)

Click here for additional data file.^{(26.5MB, zip)}

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Ms. H. Sugiyama and Ms. C. Kuki for secretarial help.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

This study was supported by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan (No. 18390418 to N.Y. and No. 22591683 to Y.M.). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

1.Inoue H, Kondo J, Koike T, Shukunami C, Hiraki Y. Identification of an autocrine chondrocyte colony-stimulating factor: chondromodulin-I stimulates the colony formation of growth plate chondrocytes in agarose culture. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1997;241(2):395–400. Epub 1998/01/13. doi: 10.1006/bbrc.1997.7820 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2.Hiraki Y, Tanaka H, Inoue H, Kondo J, Kamizono A, Suzuki F. Molecular cloning of a new class of cartilage-specific matrix, chondromodulin-I, which stimulates growth of cultured chondrocytes. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1991;175(3):971–7. Epub 1991/03/29. doi: 10.1016/0006-291x(91)91660-5 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3.Hiraki Y, Inoue H, Iyama K, Kamizono A, Ochiai M, Shukunami C, et al. Identification of chondromodulin I as a novel endothelial cell growth inhibitor. Purification and its localization in the avascular zone of epiphyseal cartilage. J Biol Chem. 1997;272(51):32419–26. doi: 10.1074/jbc.272.51.32419 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.Nakamichi Y, Shukunami C, Yamada T, Aihara K, Kawano H, Sato T, et al. Chondromodulin I is a bone remodeling factor. Mol Cell Biol. 2003;23(2):636–44. Epub 2003/01/02. doi: 10.1128/MCB.23.2.636-644.2003 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC151528. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5.Yukata K, Matsui Y, Shukunami C, Takimoto A, Goto T, Nishizaki Y, et al. Altered fracture callus formation in chondromodulin-I deficient mice. Bone. 2008;43(6):1047–56. Epub 2008/09/17. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2008.08.111 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.Zhu Y, Zhang Y, Liu Y, Tao R, Xia H, Zheng R, et al. The influence of Chm-I knockout on ectopic cartilage regeneration and homeostasis maintenance. Tissue Eng Part A. 2015;21(3–4):782–92. Epub 2014/09/25. doi: 10.1089/ten.TEA.2014.0277 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.Murray PD, Drachman DB. The role of movement in the development of joints and related structures: the head and neck in the chick embryo. J Embryol Exp Morphol. 1969;22(3):349–71. Epub 1969/11/01. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.Wong M, Carter DR. Articular cartilage functional histomorphology and mechanobiology: a research perspective. Bone. 2003;33(1):1–13. Epub 2003/08/16. doi: 10.1016/s8756-3282(03)00083-8 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9.Takahashi I, Nuckolls GH, Takahashi K, Tanaka O, Semba I, Dashner R, et al. Compressive force promotes sox9, type II collagen and aggrecan and inhibits IL-1beta expression resulting in chondrogenesis in mouse embryonic limb bud mesenchymal cells. J Cell Sci. 1998;111 (Pt 14):2067–76. doi: 10.1242/jcs.111.14.2067 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10.Elder SH, Kimura JH, Soslowsky LJ, Lavagnino M, Goldstein SA. Effect of compressive loading on chondrocyte differentiation in agarose cultures of chick limb-bud cells. J Orthop Res. 2000;18(1):78–86. Epub 2000/03/15. doi: 10.1002/jor.1100180112 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11.Epari DR, Schell H, Bail HJ, Duda GN. Instability prolongs the chondral phase during bone healing in sheep. Bone. 2006;38(6):864–70. Epub 2005/12/20. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2005.10.023 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Claes LE, Heigele CA, Neidlinger-Wilke C, Kaspar D, Seidl W, Margevicius KJ, et al. Effects of mechanical factors on the fracture healing process. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;(355 Suppl):S132–47. Epub 1999/01/26. doi: 10.1097/00003086-199810001-00015 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13.Ilizarov GA. The tension-stress effect on the genesis and growth of tissues: Part II. The influence of the rate and frequency of distraction. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;(239):263–85. Epub 1989/02/01. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.Ilizarov GA. The tension-stress effect on the genesis and growth of tissues. Part I. The influence of stability of fixation and soft-tissue preservation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;(238):249–81. Epub 1989/01/01. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15.Kojimoto H, Yasui N, Goto T, Matsuda S, Shimomura Y. Bone lengthening in rabbits by callus distraction. The role of periosteum and endosteum. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1988;70(4):543–9. Epub 1988/08/01. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.70B4.3403595 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16.Yasui N, Sato M, Ochi T, Kimura T, Kawahata H, Kitamura Y, et al. Three modes of ossification during distraction osteogenesis in the rat. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997;79(5):824–30. Epub 1997/10/23. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.79b5.7423 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17.Sato M, Ochi T, Nakase T, Hirota S, Kitamura Y, Nomura S, et al. Mechanical tension-stress induces expression of bone morphogenetic protein (BMP)-2 and BMP-4, but not BMP-6, BMP-7, and GDF-5 mRNA, during distraction osteogenesis. J Bone Miner Res. 1999;14(7):1084–95. Epub 1999/07/15. doi: 10.1359/jbmr.1999.14.7.1084 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18.Liu Z, Luyten FP, Lammens J, Dequeker J. Molecular signaling in bone fracture healing and distraction osteogenesis. Histol Histopathol. 1999;14(2):587–95. Epub 1999/04/23. doi: 10.14670/HH-14.587 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.Nishisho T, Yukata K, Matsui Y, Matsuura T, Higashino K, Suganuma K, et al. Angiogenesis and myogenesis in mouse tibialis anterior muscles during distraction osteogenesis: VEGF, its receptors, and myogenin genes expression. J Orthop Res. 2012;30(11):1767–73. Epub 2012/04/25. doi: 10.1002/jor.22136 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Isefuku S, Joyner CJ, Simpson AH. A murine model of distraction osteogenesis. Bone. 2000;27(5):661–5. Epub 2000/11/04. doi: 10.1016/s8756-3282(00)00385-9 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21.Tonogai I, Takahashi M, Yukata K, Sato R, Nikawa T, Yasui N, et al. Osteoactivin attenuates skeletal muscle fibrosis after distraction osteogenesis by promoting extracellular matrix degradation/remodeling. J Pediatr Orthop B. 2015;24(2):162–9. Epub 2014/11/19. doi: 10.1097/BPB.0000000000000117 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22.Vu TH, Shipley JM, Bergers G, Berger JE, Helms JA, Hanahan D, et al. MMP-9/gelatinase B is a key regulator of growth plate angiogenesis and apoptosis of hypertrophic chondrocytes. Cell. 1998;93(3):411–22. Epub 1998/05/20. doi: 10.1016/s0092-8674(00)81169-1 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2839071. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.Holmvall K, Camper L, Johansson S, Kimura JH, Lundgren-Akerlund E. Chondrocyte and chondrosarcoma cell integrins with affinity for collagen type II and their response to mechanical stress. Exp Cell Res. 1995;221(2):496–503. Epub 1995/12/01. doi: 10.1006/excr.1995.1401 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24.Ueki M, Tanaka N, Tanimoto K, Nishio C, Honda K, Lin YY, et al. The effect of mechanical loading on the metabolism of growth plate chondrocytes. Ann Biomed Eng. 2008;36(5):793–800. Epub 2008/02/19. doi: 10.1007/s10439-008-9462-7 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25.Perera PM, Wypasek E, Madhavan S, Rath-Deschner B, Liu J, Nam J, et al. Mechanical signals control SOX-9, VEGF, and c-Myc expression and cell proliferation during inflammation via integrin-linked kinase, B-Raf, and ERK1/2-dependent signaling in articular chondrocytes. Arthritis Res Ther. 2010;12(3):R106. Epub 2010/06/01. doi: 10.1186/ar3039 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2911896. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26.Nehrer S, Spector M, Minas T. Histologic analysis of tissue after failed cartilage repair procedures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;(365):149–62. Epub 2000/01/11. doi: 10.1097/00003086-199908000-00020 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27.LaPrade RF, Bursch LS, Olson EJ, Havlas V, Carlson CS. Histologic and immunohistochemical characteristics of failed articular cartilage resurfacing procedures for osteochondritis of the knee: a case series. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36(2):360–8. Epub 2007/11/17. doi: 10.1177/0363546507308359 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28.Blanke M, Carl HD, Klinger P, Swoboda B, Hennig F, Gelse K. Transplanted chondrocytes inhibit endochondral ossification within cartilage repair tissue. Calcif Tissue Int. 2009;85(5):421–33. Epub 2009/09/19. doi: 10.1007/s00223-009-9288-9 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29.Klinger P, Surmann-Schmitt C, Brem M, Swoboda B, Distler JH, Carl HD, et al. Chondromodulin 1 stabilizes the chondrocyte phenotype and inhibits endochondral ossification of porcine cartilage repair tissue. Arthritis Rheum. 2011;63(9):2721–31. Epub 2011/03/11. doi: 10.1002/art.30335 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30.Chen Z, Wei J, Zhu J, Liu W, Cui J, Li H, et al. Chm-1 gene-modified bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells maintain the chondrogenic phenotype of tissue-engineered cartilage. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2016;7(1):70. Epub 2016/05/07. doi: 10.1186/s13287-016-0328-x ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4858869. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31.Carter DR, Beaupre GS, Giori NJ, Helms JA. Mechanobiology of skeletal regeneration. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;(355 Suppl):S41–55. Epub 1999/01/26. doi: 10.1097/00003086-199810001-00006 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32.Waanders NA, Richards M, Steen H, Kuhn JL, Goldstein SA, Goulet JA. Evaluation of the mechanical environment during distraction osteogenesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;(349):225–34. Epub 1998/05/19. doi: 10.1097/00003086-199804000-00028 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33.Morgan EF, Longaker MT, Carter DR. Relationships between tissue dilatation and differentiation in distraction osteogenesis. Matrix Biol. 2006;25(2):94–103. Epub 2005/12/07. doi: 10.1016/j.matbio.2005.10.006 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2040040. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34.Yoshioka M, Yuasa S, Matsumura K, Kimura K, Shiomi T, Kimura N, et al. Chondromodulin-I maintains cardiac valvular function by preventing angiogenesis. Nat Med. 2006;12(10):1151–9. Epub 2006/09/19. doi: 10.1038/nm1476 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35.Shukunami C, Oshima Y, Hiraki Y. Molecular cloning of tenomodulin, a novel chondromodulin-I related gene. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2001;280(5):1323–7. Epub 2001/02/13. doi: 10.1006/bbrc.2001.4271 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36.Oshima Y, Shukunami C, Honda J, Nishida K, Tashiro F, Miyazaki J, et al. Expression and localization of tenomodulin, a transmembrane type chondromodulin-I-related angiogenesis inhibitor, in mouse eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44(5):1814–23. Epub 2003/04/26. doi: 10.1167/iovs.02-0664 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37.Dex S, Alberton P, Willkomm L, Sollradl T, Bago S, Milz S, et al. Tenomodulin is Required for Tendon Endurance Running and Collagen I Fibril Adaptation to Mechanical Load. EBioMedicine. 2017;20:240–54. Epub 2017/06/02. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2017.05.003 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5478207. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38.Seo DW, Li H, Guedez L, Wingfield PT, Diaz T, Salloum R, et al. TIMP-2 mediated inhibition of angiogenesis: an MMP-independent mechanism. Cell. 2003;114(2):171–80. Epub 2003/07/31. doi: 10.1016/s0092-8674(03)00551-8 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39.Lin D, Alberton P, Delgado Caceres M, Prein C, Clausen-Schaumann H, Dong J, et al. Loss of tenomodulin expression is a risk factor for age-related intervertebral disc degeneration. Aging Cell. 2020;19(3):e13091. Epub 2020/02/23. doi: 10.1111/acel.13091 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7059137. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40.Kossmann T, Giebel G, Glombitza A. Rat model for limb lengthening by callus distraction. Res Exp Med (Berl). 1993;193(1):13–20. Epub 1993/01/01. doi: 10.1007/BF02576206 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41.Rowe NM, Mehrara BJ, Dudziak ME, Steinbreck DS, Mackool RJ, Gittes GK, et al. Rat mandibular distraction osteogenesis: Part I. Histologic and radiographic analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998;102(6):2022–32. Epub 1998/11/12. doi: 10.1097/00006534-199811000-00033 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42.Aronson J, Shen XC, Skinner RA, Hogue WR, Badger TM, Lumpkin CK Jr. Rat model of distraction osteogenesis. J Orthop Res. 1997;15(2):221–6. Epub 1997/03/01. doi: 10.1002/jor.1100150210 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280634.r001

Decision Letter 0

Jose Manuel Garcia Aznar

27 Jan 2022

PONE-D-21-40664Chondromodulin is Necessary for Cartilage Callus elongation and Complete Distraction Osteogenesis in MicePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yukata,

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 Mar 13 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,

Jose Manuel Garcia Aznar

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. To comply with PLOS ONE submissions requirements, in your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the experiments involving animals and ensure you have included details on (1) methods of sacrifice, (2) methods of anesthesia and/or analgesia, and (3) efforts to alleviate suffering.

3. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section:

[NO authors have competing interests.]

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

[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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

**********

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

**********

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

**********

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: This paper aims to demonstrate that chondromodulin is necessary for cartilage callus elongation during distraction osteogenesis in mice. They applied the same distraction protocol to mice without chondromodulin (cnmd null group) and a control group. Radiographies, immunohistochemical analysis and other results reveals that a poor callus and less production of cartilage at the cnmd null group. Therefore, authors suggest that regulates chondromodulin mechanical stress induced cartilage callus formation that is necessary for successful bone lengthening.

The publication of this work could help to understand the impact of chondromodulin on chondrogenesis and the difference in cartilage properties with and without chondromodulin. However, the present manuscript needs major changes because the authors obviate that there is controversy about the type of ossification during osteogenic distraction. Studies can be found in which ossification is mainly endochondral, intramembranous or both. They should be cited. Many studies have reported that ossification during distraction osteogenesis is primarily intramembranous, especially in large animals and models closer to humans. This should be addressed in the introduction and discussion of the article, and taken into account as a limitation of the article.

Taking the above into account implies changing the focus of the manuscript on many points. For example, if there is no cartilage in the distraction callus, chondromodulin will not be necessary. In the title may be read “Chondromodulin is Necessary for … and Complete Distraction”. This would not be true in these cases, so it can confuse the reader. In my opinion, according to the outcomes, chondromodulin is being shown to be necessary to create cartilage distraction callus. However, I do not see it essential for carrying out the distraction, since in many cases the distraction is carried out by means of intramembranous ossification.

Another example, lines 271 to 273: “Cnmd null mutation resulted in the suppression of cartilage callus formation in distraction osteogenesis, and the newly generated tissue was fibrous”. This occurs in other studies with normal animals. Why? Discuss it in the article.

Other comments:

Lines 162 to 175, in the text, parenthesis structures are used within parentheses, which makes reading extremely difficult. This section must be organized in another way to be understandable. It is advisable to use tables, footnotes or other resources.

Lines 85 to 101 ¿How many animals were used for each sacrifice time point?

It is not clear how many time points and how many animals were used for each type of analysis. A table summarizing this information would be convenient at the beginning of the results section or end of M&M section.

**********

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

[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. 2023 Feb 16;18(2):e0280634. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280634.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

3 Apr 2022

Re: Manuscript ID: PONE-D-21-40664

Title: Chondromodulin is Necessary for Cartilage elongation and Complete Distraction Osteogenesis in Mice

We thank you and the reviewers for the very useful comments and your time for critical and careful review of our manuscript.

We have responded in a point-by-point fashion to the comments from the Editor and Reviewers and indicated how the suggestions have been incorporated in the revised manuscript where appropriate. We have clearly highlighted all the changes in the manuscript for easy identification. We believe the manuscript has been significantly improved and hope that it is suitable for publication in PLOS ONE.

We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Yours Sincerely,

Kiminori Yukata, MD, PhD.

(On Behalf of All Co-authors)

Dear editors,

We modified our manuscript according to PLOS ONE's style requirement. And, we added some information followed by editor's request.

Responses to Reviewers’ Comments:

Response: Thank you very much for your critical review.　As reviewer suggested, in some situations (e.g., larger animals or shorter latency periods), bone lengthening occurs by predominantly intramembranous bone formation. Cartilage callus elongation and endochondral ossification may not be important, and, chondromodulin may not be necessary in such cases.　About this, we have added some sentences as a limitation.

Please see Page 15, Line 307-311.

Response: Thank you very much for your good suggestion.　 We changed the title to “Chondromodulin is necessary for cartilage callus elongation during distraction osteogenesis in mice”

Please see the new Title in the revised manuscript and cover letter.

Response: Thank you very much for your good question.　Tissues after failed articular cartilage repair procedure are usually composed of fibrous connective tissues and fibrocartilage, which could lack chondromodulin expression. So, we added some sentences about it in the discussion section. Please see Page 13, Line 265-269.

Other comments:

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion.　 We added the supplemental Table 1 about PCR primers’ information.

Lines 85 to 101 ¿How many animals were used for each sacrifice time point?

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion.

We described the number of mice in detail, which were used in this study.

Please see Page 5 line 87-96.

“Radiographs were taken weekly with a soft radiograph apparatus (CMB-2, SOFTEX, Japan) under anesthesia (n=10 for each WT and Cnmd-/-). Radiographic assessment of bone union was performed using postoperative radiographs at 8 weeks after osteotomy. Bone union was defined as when two of two cortices were bridged, partial union was defined as when either side of the cortical bone was not bridged, and non-union was defined as when both two cortices were not bridged. Mice were euthanized with isoflurane and carbon dioxide. For histology, mice were sacrificed 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 12 weeks after osteotomy (n (n=4 for each genotype). For RNA extraction, mice were also sacrificed at 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 weeks after osteotomy (n=4 for each genotype).”

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS response.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(18.3KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280634.r003

Decision Letter 1

Jose Manuel Garcia Aznar

7 Jul 2022

PONE-D-21-40664R1Chondromodulin is necessary for cartilage callus elongation during distraction osteogenesis in micePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yukata,

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 21 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'.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jose Manuel Garcia Aznar

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: Authors perform an in vivo analysis in a mice model to determine the role of chondromodulin in distraction osteogenesis. They do a careful study on the different tissues and their compositions in the distracted callus (histological, radiographic, inmunohistochemical studies). They found that chondromodulin inhibition reduce cartilage in the distracted callus.

The topic of the paper is interesting; authors recognise in the title that the conclusions are limited to the animal model they use (a mice model). In fact, there is much debate in literature about the possibility of a soft/cartilage callus under tensile load as in distraction osteogenesis. Authors state in the paper that the cartilage appears in small animals under this conditions, however they should discuss a little bit about the real mechanical environment in the mice tibia. In fact, I have some doubts about their external fixator capacity to isolate just tensile load in the callus while distracting, probably the compressive and bending loads are also important during the gait cycle. This aspect should be further discussed and the authors should try to determine the real mechanical environment in the callus.

Comments:

Lines 83-84 “The fibula was not broken” In figure 1 it seems that the fibula resulted broken due to the distraction itself, in time points 2-6 weeks after fracture. If this is not the case, the load sharing mechanism between tibia-fibula-fixator would be altered, please discuss a Little bit in the discussion section about the role of fibula.

Lines 85-87. The distraction protocol is described, please include also the total distracted length to make the manuscript easier to read (it is already included in figure 1 legend).

Line 39 Typo “osteogenesis”

Line 131 “in vitro” it should be in cursive fonts.

Figure 1. To use a nomenclature similar to the state of the art replace “Lag phase” by “Latency hase”

Figure 1. Include a scale bar in the radiograph

Lines 160, 243, 251… Acronym of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor should be better rewritten with capital letters VEGF. Same comment for Matrix metallopeptidase (MMP).

Lines 309-313. One of the critical point of the study is cartilage formation in a distracted callus in contrast to previous studies in which intramembranous ossification occur under distraction “perhaps because the latency period was rather long”, the latency period is long for a mice model but other factors could also favour endochondral ossification for example the external fixator as described in the paper could produce some bending and compression movement during the gait of the anima. Please, comment about it also.

**********

7. 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 #2: No

**********

PLoS One. 2023 Feb 16;18(2):e0280634. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280634.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1

26 Aug 2022

Responses to Reviewers’ Comments:

Response: Thank you very much for your comment.

In a rabbit tibial lengthening model, Waanders et al. showed that the gap tissue was exposed not only to tension force but also to cyclic strain of about 15% of the tension force during walking [40].

It means that not only tensile load but also various mechanical forces affect the distraction segment.

So, we added some sentences in the discussion section (Page 15, Line 315-320).

Comments:

Response: Thank you very much for your critical comment. As the reviewer pointed out, we did not break the fibula, but it was naturally broken and lengthened during the distraction period. (Page5, Line 83-84) So, we believe that the mechanical influence of fibula on tibial lengthening is small.

Lines 85-87. The distraction protocol is described, please include also the total distracted length to make the manuscript easier to read (it is already included in figure 1 legend).

Response: We added the total distracted length in the materials and method section. (Page 5, Lines 87-88)

Line 39 Typo “osteogenesis”

Response: We exchanged the word ‘chondrogeneses’ to ‘osteogenesis.’ (Page 3, Line 39)

Line 131 “in vitro” it should be in cursive fonts.

Response: Thank you very much. We corrected it. (Page 7, Line 132)

Figure 1. To use a nomenclature similar to the state of the art replace “Lag phase” by “Latency hase”

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We replaced by ‘Latency phase’ throughout the manuscript and figures. (Line 85, 86, and Figure 2)

Figure 1. Include a scale bar in the radiograph

Response: We added a scale bar in the radiographs of figure 2. Also, we described about it in the figure legends.

Lines 160, 243, 251… Acronym of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor should be better rewritten with capital letters VEGF. Same comment for Matrix metallopeptidase (MMP).

Response: Thank you very much for your critical review. We changed it as the reviewer suggested. Please see the corrected words marked in yellow.

Response: Thank you very much for your comment.

In a rabbit tibial lengthening model, Waanders et al. showed that the gap tissue was exposed not only to tension force but also to cyclic strain of about 15% of the tension force during walking [40].

So, we believe that some bending and compression movement in addition to tension stress would affect cartilage callus formation.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS response 2.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(21.2KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280634.r005

Decision Letter 2

Jose Manuel Garcia Aznar

10 Oct 2022

PONE-D-21-40664R2Chondromodulin is necessary for cartilage callus elongation during distraction osteogenesis in micePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yukata,

Above all, please, try to improve the discussion of your results, it is a clear aspect to be improved.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 24 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'.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jose Manuel Garcia Aznar

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: In general, I find authors have answer to my previous questions but they should justify their answers and more important they should include some discussion in the paper. Also, please highlight the modified parts in the manuscript.

In my previous review I commented “Lines 83-84 “The fibula was not broken” In figure 1 it seems that the fibula resulted broken due to the distraction itself, in time points 2-6 weeks after fracture. If this is not the case, the load sharing mechanism between tibia-fibula-fixator would be altered, please discuss a Little bit in the discussion section about the role of fibula.” And authors answered “Response: Thank you very much for your critical comment. As the reviewer pointed out, we did not break the fibula, but it was naturally broken and lengthened during the distraction period. (Page5, Line 83-84) So, we believe that the mechanical influence of fibula on tibial lengthening is small”

They recognize in the paper that the fibula was broken during distraction, but they do not include any discussion about this in the discussion section, I think the mechanical environment in the fracture site is modified due to the broken fibula the authors just answer to me “we believe that the mechanical influence of fibula on tibial lengthening is small”, please justify and include some comments in the discussion section.

I also commented about the possible bending and compression movement in the gap, even though they recognize it should exit, nevertheless there is no discussion in the paper. They say

Lines 315-317 “Waanders et al. showed that the gap tissue was exposed not only to tension force but also to cyclic strain of about 15% of the tension force during walking” Please rephrase, what do you mean by cyclic strain (tension or compression), one should assume the tension force will result in tension strain. Please rephrase.

Typo:, line 106 “in situ” cursive.

**********

7. 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 #2: No

**********

PLoS One. 2023 Feb 16;18(2):e0280634. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280634.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2

19 Nov 2022

Title: Chondromodulin is necessary for cartilage callus distraction in mice

We thank you and the reviewers for the very useful comments and your time for critical and careful review of our manuscript.

We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Yours Sincerely,

Kiminori Yukata, MD, PhD.

(On Behalf of All Co-authors)

Responses to Reviewers’ Comments:

I also commented about the possible bending and compression movement in the gap, even though they recognize it should exit, nevertheless there is no discussion in the paper. They say

Response: Thank you very much for your careful review and pointing out.

The reviewer recommended us to discuss about the mechanical environment of the lengthened segment. That’s a great idea. So, we added one paragraph about the discussion on it from line 281 to 300. Actually, the extent to which the fibula mechanically affected the tibial lengthening is unclear, but it definitely affected. So we mentioned it in the discussion section.

Typo:, line 106 “in situ” cursive.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We modified it in Line 106.

Finally, we changed the title of this manuscript to ‘Chondromodulin is necessary for cartilage callus distraction in mice.’

Also, we changed some words, which were highlighted yellow.

Because ‘callus distraction’ is more common than ‘callus elongation’

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS response 3.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(19.1KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280634.r007

Decision Letter 3

Jose Manuel Garcia Aznar

5 Jan 2023

Chondromodulin is necessary for cartilage callus distraction in mice

PONE-D-21-40664R3

Dear Dr. Yukata,

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,

Jose Manuel Garcia Aznar

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed all my concerns. In my opinion the paper is now ready for publication in PLOS One.

**********

7. 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 #2: No

**********

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280634.r008

Acceptance letter

Jose Manuel Garcia Aznar

7 Feb 2023

PONE-D-21-40664R3

Chondromodulin is necessary for cartilage callus distraction in mice

Dear Dr. Yukata:

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. Jose Manuel Garcia Aznar

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

Supplementary Materials

S1 Table. Pre-validated Assays on Demand™ (mix of unlabelled PCR primers and Taq-Man^® MGB probe (FAM™ dye labelled)).

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(15KB, docx)}

S1 File

(ZIP)

Click here for additional data file.^{(26.5MB, zip)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS response.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(18.3KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS response 2.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(21.2KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS response 3.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(19.1KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

[pone.0280634.ref001] 1.Inoue H, Kondo J, Koike T, Shukunami C, Hiraki Y. Identification of an autocrine chondrocyte colony-stimulating factor: chondromodulin-I stimulates the colony formation of growth plate chondrocytes in agarose culture. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1997;241(2):395–400. Epub 1998/01/13. doi: 10.1006/bbrc.1997.7820 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0280634.ref002] 2.Hiraki Y, Tanaka H, Inoue H, Kondo J, Kamizono A, Suzuki F. Molecular cloning of a new class of cartilage-specific matrix, chondromodulin-I, which stimulates growth of cultured chondrocytes. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1991;175(3):971–7. Epub 1991/03/29. doi: 10.1016/0006-291x(91)91660-5 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0280634.ref003] 3.Hiraki Y, Inoue H, Iyama K, Kamizono A, Ochiai M, Shukunami C, et al. Identification of chondromodulin I as a novel endothelial cell growth inhibitor. Purification and its localization in the avascular zone of epiphyseal cartilage. J Biol Chem. 1997;272(51):32419–26. doi: 10.1074/jbc.272.51.32419 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0280634.ref004] 4.Nakamichi Y, Shukunami C, Yamada T, Aihara K, Kawano H, Sato T, et al. Chondromodulin I is a bone remodeling factor. Mol Cell Biol. 2003;23(2):636–44. Epub 2003/01/02. doi: 10.1128/MCB.23.2.636-644.2003 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC151528. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0280634.ref005] 5.Yukata K, Matsui Y, Shukunami C, Takimoto A, Goto T, Nishizaki Y, et al. Altered fracture callus formation in chondromodulin-I deficient mice. Bone. 2008;43(6):1047–56. Epub 2008/09/17. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2008.08.111 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0280634.ref006] 6.Zhu Y, Zhang Y, Liu Y, Tao R, Xia H, Zheng R, et al. The influence of Chm-I knockout on ectopic cartilage regeneration and homeostasis maintenance. Tissue Eng Part A. 2015;21(3–4):782–92. Epub 2014/09/25. doi: 10.1089/ten.TEA.2014.0277 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0280634.ref007] 7.Murray PD, Drachman DB. The role of movement in the development of joints and related structures: the head and neck in the chick embryo. J Embryol Exp Morphol. 1969;22(3):349–71. Epub 1969/11/01. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0280634.ref008] 8.Wong M, Carter DR. Articular cartilage functional histomorphology and mechanobiology: a research perspective. Bone. 2003;33(1):1–13. Epub 2003/08/16. doi: 10.1016/s8756-3282(03)00083-8 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0280634.ref009] 9.Takahashi I, Nuckolls GH, Takahashi K, Tanaka O, Semba I, Dashner R, et al. Compressive force promotes sox9, type II collagen and aggrecan and inhibits IL-1beta expression resulting in chondrogenesis in mouse embryonic limb bud mesenchymal cells. J Cell Sci. 1998;111 (Pt 14):2067–76. doi: 10.1242/jcs.111.14.2067 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0280634.ref010] 10.Elder SH, Kimura JH, Soslowsky LJ, Lavagnino M, Goldstein SA. Effect of compressive loading on chondrocyte differentiation in agarose cultures of chick limb-bud cells. J Orthop Res. 2000;18(1):78–86. Epub 2000/03/15. doi: 10.1002/jor.1100180112 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0280634.ref011] 11.Epari DR, Schell H, Bail HJ, Duda GN. Instability prolongs the chondral phase during bone healing in sheep. Bone. 2006;38(6):864–70. Epub 2005/12/20. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2005.10.023 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0280634.ref012] 12.Claes LE, Heigele CA, Neidlinger-Wilke C, Kaspar D, Seidl W, Margevicius KJ, et al. Effects of mechanical factors on the fracture healing process. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;(355 Suppl):S132–47. Epub 1999/01/26. doi: 10.1097/00003086-199810001-00015 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0280634.ref013] 13.Ilizarov GA. The tension-stress effect on the genesis and growth of tissues: Part II. The influence of the rate and frequency of distraction. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;(239):263–85. Epub 1989/02/01. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0280634.ref014] 14.Ilizarov GA. The tension-stress effect on the genesis and growth of tissues. Part I. The influence of stability of fixation and soft-tissue preservation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;(238):249–81. Epub 1989/01/01. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0280634.ref015] 15.Kojimoto H, Yasui N, Goto T, Matsuda S, Shimomura Y. Bone lengthening in rabbits by callus distraction. The role of periosteum and endosteum. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1988;70(4):543–9. Epub 1988/08/01. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.70B4.3403595 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0280634.ref016] 16.Yasui N, Sato M, Ochi T, Kimura T, Kawahata H, Kitamura Y, et al. Three modes of ossification during distraction osteogenesis in the rat. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997;79(5):824–30. Epub 1997/10/23. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.79b5.7423 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0280634.ref017] 17.Sato M, Ochi T, Nakase T, Hirota S, Kitamura Y, Nomura S, et al. Mechanical tension-stress induces expression of bone morphogenetic protein (BMP)-2 and BMP-4, but not BMP-6, BMP-7, and GDF-5 mRNA, during distraction osteogenesis. J Bone Miner Res. 1999;14(7):1084–95. Epub 1999/07/15. doi: 10.1359/jbmr.1999.14.7.1084 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0280634.ref018] 18.Liu Z, Luyten FP, Lammens J, Dequeker J. Molecular signaling in bone fracture healing and distraction osteogenesis. Histol Histopathol. 1999;14(2):587–95. Epub 1999/04/23. doi: 10.14670/HH-14.587 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0280634.ref019] 19.Nishisho T, Yukata K, Matsui Y, Matsuura T, Higashino K, Suganuma K, et al. Angiogenesis and myogenesis in mouse tibialis anterior muscles during distraction osteogenesis: VEGF, its receptors, and myogenin genes expression. J Orthop Res. 2012;30(11):1767–73. Epub 2012/04/25. doi: 10.1002/jor.22136 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0280634.ref020] 20.Isefuku S, Joyner CJ, Simpson AH. A murine model of distraction osteogenesis. Bone. 2000;27(5):661–5. Epub 2000/11/04. doi: 10.1016/s8756-3282(00)00385-9 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0280634.ref021] 21.Tonogai I, Takahashi M, Yukata K, Sato R, Nikawa T, Yasui N, et al. Osteoactivin attenuates skeletal muscle fibrosis after distraction osteogenesis by promoting extracellular matrix degradation/remodeling. J Pediatr Orthop B. 2015;24(2):162–9. Epub 2014/11/19. doi: 10.1097/BPB.0000000000000117 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0280634.ref022] 22.Vu TH, Shipley JM, Bergers G, Berger JE, Helms JA, Hanahan D, et al. MMP-9/gelatinase B is a key regulator of growth plate angiogenesis and apoptosis of hypertrophic chondrocytes. Cell. 1998;93(3):411–22. Epub 1998/05/20. doi: 10.1016/s0092-8674(00)81169-1 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2839071. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0280634.ref023] 23.Holmvall K, Camper L, Johansson S, Kimura JH, Lundgren-Akerlund E. Chondrocyte and chondrosarcoma cell integrins with affinity for collagen type II and their response to mechanical stress. Exp Cell Res. 1995;221(2):496–503. Epub 1995/12/01. doi: 10.1006/excr.1995.1401 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0280634.ref024] 24.Ueki M, Tanaka N, Tanimoto K, Nishio C, Honda K, Lin YY, et al. The effect of mechanical loading on the metabolism of growth plate chondrocytes. Ann Biomed Eng. 2008;36(5):793–800. Epub 2008/02/19. doi: 10.1007/s10439-008-9462-7 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0280634.ref025] 25.Perera PM, Wypasek E, Madhavan S, Rath-Deschner B, Liu J, Nam J, et al. Mechanical signals control SOX-9, VEGF, and c-Myc expression and cell proliferation during inflammation via integrin-linked kinase, B-Raf, and ERK1/2-dependent signaling in articular chondrocytes. Arthritis Res Ther. 2010;12(3):R106. Epub 2010/06/01. doi: 10.1186/ar3039 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2911896. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0280634.ref026] 26.Nehrer S, Spector M, Minas T. Histologic analysis of tissue after failed cartilage repair procedures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;(365):149–62. Epub 2000/01/11. doi: 10.1097/00003086-199908000-00020 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0280634.ref027] 27.LaPrade RF, Bursch LS, Olson EJ, Havlas V, Carlson CS. Histologic and immunohistochemical characteristics of failed articular cartilage resurfacing procedures for osteochondritis of the knee: a case series. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36(2):360–8. Epub 2007/11/17. doi: 10.1177/0363546507308359 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0280634.ref028] 28.Blanke M, Carl HD, Klinger P, Swoboda B, Hennig F, Gelse K. Transplanted chondrocytes inhibit endochondral ossification within cartilage repair tissue. Calcif Tissue Int. 2009;85(5):421–33. Epub 2009/09/19. doi: 10.1007/s00223-009-9288-9 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0280634.ref029] 29.Klinger P, Surmann-Schmitt C, Brem M, Swoboda B, Distler JH, Carl HD, et al. Chondromodulin 1 stabilizes the chondrocyte phenotype and inhibits endochondral ossification of porcine cartilage repair tissue. Arthritis Rheum. 2011;63(9):2721–31. Epub 2011/03/11. doi: 10.1002/art.30335 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0280634.ref030] 30.Chen Z, Wei J, Zhu J, Liu W, Cui J, Li H, et al. Chm-1 gene-modified bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells maintain the chondrogenic phenotype of tissue-engineered cartilage. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2016;7(1):70. Epub 2016/05/07. doi: 10.1186/s13287-016-0328-x ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4858869. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0280634.ref031] 31.Carter DR, Beaupre GS, Giori NJ, Helms JA. Mechanobiology of skeletal regeneration. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;(355 Suppl):S41–55. Epub 1999/01/26. doi: 10.1097/00003086-199810001-00006 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0280634.ref032] 32.Waanders NA, Richards M, Steen H, Kuhn JL, Goldstein SA, Goulet JA. Evaluation of the mechanical environment during distraction osteogenesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;(349):225–34. Epub 1998/05/19. doi: 10.1097/00003086-199804000-00028 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0280634.ref033] 33.Morgan EF, Longaker MT, Carter DR. Relationships between tissue dilatation and differentiation in distraction osteogenesis. Matrix Biol. 2006;25(2):94–103. Epub 2005/12/07. doi: 10.1016/j.matbio.2005.10.006 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2040040. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0280634.ref034] 34.Yoshioka M, Yuasa S, Matsumura K, Kimura K, Shiomi T, Kimura N, et al. Chondromodulin-I maintains cardiac valvular function by preventing angiogenesis. Nat Med. 2006;12(10):1151–9. Epub 2006/09/19. doi: 10.1038/nm1476 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0280634.ref035] 35.Shukunami C, Oshima Y, Hiraki Y. Molecular cloning of tenomodulin, a novel chondromodulin-I related gene. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2001;280(5):1323–7. Epub 2001/02/13. doi: 10.1006/bbrc.2001.4271 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0280634.ref036] 36.Oshima Y, Shukunami C, Honda J, Nishida K, Tashiro F, Miyazaki J, et al. Expression and localization of tenomodulin, a transmembrane type chondromodulin-I-related angiogenesis inhibitor, in mouse eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44(5):1814–23. Epub 2003/04/26. doi: 10.1167/iovs.02-0664 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0280634.ref037] 37.Dex S, Alberton P, Willkomm L, Sollradl T, Bago S, Milz S, et al. Tenomodulin is Required for Tendon Endurance Running and Collagen I Fibril Adaptation to Mechanical Load. EBioMedicine. 2017;20:240–54. Epub 2017/06/02. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2017.05.003 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5478207. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0280634.ref038] 38.Seo DW, Li H, Guedez L, Wingfield PT, Diaz T, Salloum R, et al. TIMP-2 mediated inhibition of angiogenesis: an MMP-independent mechanism. Cell. 2003;114(2):171–80. Epub 2003/07/31. doi: 10.1016/s0092-8674(03)00551-8 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0280634.ref039] 39.Lin D, Alberton P, Delgado Caceres M, Prein C, Clausen-Schaumann H, Dong J, et al. Loss of tenomodulin expression is a risk factor for age-related intervertebral disc degeneration. Aging Cell. 2020;19(3):e13091. Epub 2020/02/23. doi: 10.1111/acel.13091 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7059137. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0280634.ref040] 40.Kossmann T, Giebel G, Glombitza A. Rat model for limb lengthening by callus distraction. Res Exp Med (Berl). 1993;193(1):13–20. Epub 1993/01/01. doi: 10.1007/BF02576206 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0280634.ref041] 41.Rowe NM, Mehrara BJ, Dudziak ME, Steinbreck DS, Mackool RJ, Gittes GK, et al. Rat mandibular distraction osteogenesis: Part I. Histologic and radiographic analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998;102(6):2022–32. Epub 1998/11/12. doi: 10.1097/00006534-199811000-00033 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0280634.ref042] 42.Aronson J, Shen XC, Skinner RA, Hogue WR, Badger TM, Lumpkin CK Jr. Rat model of distraction osteogenesis. J Orthop Res. 1997;15(2):221–6. Epub 1997/03/01. doi: 10.1002/jor.1100150210 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Chondromodulin is necessary for cartilage callus distraction in mice

Kiminori Yukata

Chisa Shukunami

Yoshito Matsui

Aki Takimoto

Tomohiro Goto

Mitsuhiko Takahashi

Atsushi Mihara

Tetsuya Seto

Takashi Sakai

Yuji Hiraki

Natsuo Yasui

Roles

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Experimental animals

Mouse model of distraction osteogenesis in the tibia

Fig 1.

Tissue preparation and staining

Cartilage callus area

In situ hybridization

Immunohistochemical staining

RNA isolation and real-time RT PCR analysis

Statistical analysis

Results

Delayed and incomplete fusion of the bone callus in Cnmd-/- mice

Fig 2. Representative serial radiographs of osteotomized and lengthened tibiae in wild-type and Cnmd-/- mice at 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 12 after osteotomy.

Cnmd and Col2a1 are co-expressed in immature chondrocytes at the lengthened callus in WT mice

Fig 3.

Cnmd null mutation resulted in fibrous callus formation during the early phases of distraction osteogenesis

Fig 4.

Incomplete bone union and remodeling in Cnmd-/- mice

Fig 5. Alcian blue and hematoxylin & eosin-orange G staining sections were prepared from wild-type (WT) and Cnmd-/- mice harvested at 3, 4, 6, 8, 12 weeks after osteotomy.

Delayed angiogenesis and lengthened tissue remodeling during distraction osteogenesis in Cnmd-/- mice

Discussion

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Jose Manuel Garcia Aznar

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Jose Manuel Garcia Aznar

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 1

Decision Letter 2

Jose Manuel Garcia Aznar

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 2

Decision Letter 3

Jose Manuel Garcia Aznar

Roles

Acceptance letter

Jose Manuel Garcia Aznar

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases

Delayed and incomplete fusion of the bone callus in Cnmd^-/- mice

Fig 2. Representative serial radiographs of osteotomized and lengthened tibiae in wild-type and Cnmd^-/- mice at 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 12 after osteotomy.

Incomplete bone union and remodeling in Cnmd^-/- mice

Fig 5. Alcian blue and hematoxylin & eosin-orange G staining sections were prepared from wild-type (WT) and Cnmd^-/- mice harvested at 3, 4, 6, 8, 12 weeks after osteotomy.

Delayed angiogenesis and lengthened tissue remodeling during distraction osteogenesis in Cnmd^-/- mice