A Critical Role of the Bone Marrow Envelope in Human Bone Remodeling.

Proper bone remodeling depends not only on a team of bone-resorbing osteoclasts and bone-forming osteoblasts. It also depends on the site-specific delivery of a large amount of osteoblast lineage cells to the bone remodeling site. How this delivery occurs is poorly known. Here, we gained insight into this mechanism by analyzing the distribution of markers of osteoblastogenesis on bone surfaces and in their bone marrow neighborhood in human cancellous bone. We found a CD271-positive/PDGFß-R-positive cell layer surrounding the bone marrow that provides osteoblastogenic potential along all bone surfaces, whether quiescent or remodeling. This bone marrow envelope cell layer takes the appearance of a canopy above remodeling sites, where it then also shows an upregulation of the proliferation marker Ki67, smooth muscle actin (SMA), tenascin C, fibronectin, and MMP13. This indicates that the canopy is a region of the bone marrow envelope where early markers of osteoblastogenesis are activated concurrently with initiation of bone remodeling. Importantly, the high proliferation index in the canopy is not associated with increasing cell densities at the canopy level, but it is at the bone surface level, thereby supporting delivery of cells from the canopy to the bone surface. This delivery route explains why lack of canopies was previously found to coincide with lack of bone formation, and fits current knowledge on the canopies as a target for regulators of bone remodeling. We conclude that the coordination of bone marrow envelope activities and bone surface activities allows integrating osteoblastogenesis and bone remodeling into the same functional unit, and propose that the bone marrow envelope is critical for preserving bone health. © 2023 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

Bisphosphonates impair the onset of bone formation at remodeling sites.

Bisphosphonates are widely used anti-osteoporotic drugs targeting osteoclasts. They strongly inhibit bone resorption, but also strongly reduce bone formation. This reduced formation is commonly ascribed to the mechanism maintaining the resorption/formation balance during remodeling. The present study provides evidence for an additional mechanism where bisphosphonates actually impair the onset of bone formation after resorption. The evidence is based on morphometric parameters recently developed to assess the activities reversing resorption to formation. Herein, we compare these parameters in cancellous bone of alendronate- and placebo-treated postmenopausal osteoporotic patients. Alendronate increases the prevalence of eroded surfaces characterized by reversal cells/osteoprogenitors at low cell density and remote from active bone surfaces. This indicates deficient cell expansion on eroded surfaces - an event that is indispensable to start formation. Furthermore, alendronate decreases the coverage of these eroded surfaces by remodeling compartment canopies, a putative source of reversal cells/osteoprogenitors. Finally, alendronate strongly decreases the activation frequency of bone formation, and decreases more the formative compared to the eroded surfaces. All these parameters correlate with each other. These observations lead to a model where bisphosphonates hamper the osteoprogenitor recruitment required to initiate bone formation. This effect results in a larger eroded surface, thereby explaining the well-known paradox that bisphosphonates strongly inhibit bone resorption without strongly decreasing eroded surfaces. The possible mechanism for hampered osteoprogenitor recruitment is discussed: bisphosphonates may decrease the release of osteogenic factors by the osteoclasts, and/or bisphosphonates released by osteoclasts may act directly on neighboring osteoprogenitor cells as reported in preclinical studies.

Re-thinking the bone remodeling cycle mechanism and the origin of bone loss.

Proper bone remodeling necessarily requires that osteoblasts reconstruct the bone that osteoclasts have resorbed. However, the cellular events connecting resorption to reconstruction have remained poorly known. The consequence is a fragmentary understanding of the remodeling cycle where only the resorption and formation steps are taken into account. New tools have recently made possible to elucidate how resorption shifts to formation, thereby allowing to comprehend the remodeling cycle as a whole. This new knowledge is reviewed herein. It shows how teams of osteoclasts and osteoblast lineage cells are progressively established and how they are subjected therein to reciprocal interactions. Contrary to the common view, osteoclasts and osteoprogenitors are intermingled on the eroded surfaces. The analysis of the resorption and cell population dynamics shows that osteoprogenitor cell expansion and resorption proceed as an integrated mechanism; that a threshold cell density of osteoprogenitors on the eroded surface is mandatory for onset of bone formation; that the cell initiating osteoprogenitor cell expansion is the osteoclast; and that the osteoclast therefore triggers putative osteoprogenitor reservoirs positioned at proximity of the eroded bone surface (bone lining cells, canopy cells, pericytes). The interplay between magnitude of resorption and rate of cell expansion governs how soon bone reconstruction is initiated and may determine uncoupling and permanent bone loss if a threshold cell density is not reached. The clinical perspectives opened by these findings are discussed.

Early reversal cells in adult human bone remodeling: osteoblastic nature, catabolic functions and interactions with osteoclasts.

The mechanism coupling bone resorption and formation is a burning question that remains incompletely answered through the current investigations on osteoclasts and osteoblasts. An attractive hypothesis is that the reversal cells are likely mediators of this coupling. Their nature is a big matter of debate. The present study performed on human cancellous bone is the first one combining in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry to demonstrate their osteoblastic nature. It shows that the Runx2 and CD56 immunoreactive reversal cells appear to take up TRAcP released by neighboring osteoclasts. Earlier preclinical studies indicate that reversal cells degrade the organic matrix left behind by the osteoclasts and that this degradation is crucial for the initiation of the subsequent bone formation. To our knowledge, this study is the first addressing these catabolic activities in adult human bone through electron microscopy and analysis of molecular markers. Periosteoclastic reversal cells show direct contacts with the osteoclasts and with the demineralized resorption debris. These early reversal cells show (1) ¾-collagen fragments typically generated by extracellular collagenases of the MMP family, (2) MMP-13 (collagenase-3) and (3) the endocytic collagen receptor uPARAP/Endo180. The prevalence of these markers was lower in the later reversal cells, which are located near the osteoid surfaces and morphologically resemble mature bone-forming osteoblasts. In conclusion, this study demonstrates that reversal cells colonizing bone surfaces right after resorption are osteoblast-lineage cells, and extends to adult human bone remodeling their role in rendering eroded surfaces osteogenic.

A joined role of canopy and reversal cells in bone remodeling--lessons from glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis.

Successful bone remodeling demands that osteoblasts restitute the bone removed by osteoclasts. In human cancellous bone, a pivotal role in this restitution is played by the canopies covering the bone remodeling surfaces, since disruption of canopies in multiple myeloma, postmenopausal- and glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis is associated with the absence of progression of the remodeling cycle to bone formation, i.e., uncoupling. An emerging concept explaining this critical role of canopies is that they represent a reservoir of osteoprogenitors to be delivered to reversal surfaces. In postmenopausal osteoporosis, this concept is supported by the coincidence between the absence of canopies and scarcity of cells on reversal surfaces together with abortion of the remodeling cycle. Here we tested whether this concept holds true in glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. A histomorphometric analysis of iliac crest biopsies from patients exposed to long-term glucocorticoid treatment revealed a subpopulation of reversal surfaces corresponding to the characteristics of arrest found in postmenopausal osteoporosis. Importantly, these arrested reversal surfaces were devoid of canopy coverage in almost all biopsies, and their prevalence correlated with a deficiency in bone forming surfaces. Taken together with the other recent data, the functional link between canopies, reversal surface activity, and the extent of bone formation surface in postmenopausal- and glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis, supports a model where bone restitution during remodeling demands recruitment of osteoprogenitors from the canopy onto reversal surfaces. These data suggest that securing the presence of functional local osteoprogenitors deserves attention in the search of strategies to prevent the bone loss that occurs during bone remodeling in pathological situations.

The bone resorption inhibitors odanacatib and alendronate affect post-osteoclastic events differently in ovariectomized rabbits.

Odanacatib (ODN) is a bone resorption inhibitor which differs from standard antiresorptives by its ability to reduce bone resorption without decreasing bone formation. What is the reason for this difference? In contrast with other antiresorptives, such as alendronate (ALN), ODN targets only the very last step of the resorption process. We hypothesize that ODN may therefore modify the remodeling events immediately following osteoclastic resorption. These events belong to the reversal phase and include recruitment of osteoblasts, which is critical for connecting bone resorption to formation. We performed a histomorphometric study of trabecular remodeling in vertebrae of estrogen-deficient rabbits treated or not with ODN or ALN, a model where ODN, but not ALN, was previously shown to preserve bone formation. In line with our hypothesis, we found that ODN treatment compared to ALN results in a shorter reversal phase, faster initiation of osteoid deposition on the eroded surfaces, and higher osteoblast recruitment. The latter is reflected by higher densities of mature bone forming osteoblasts and an increased subpopulation of cuboidal osteoblasts. Furthermore, we found an increase in the interface between osteoclasts and surrounding osteoblast-lineage cells. This increase is expected to favor the osteoclast-osteoblast interactions required for bone formation. Regarding bone resorption itself, we show that ODN, but not ALN, treatment results in shallower resorption lacunae, a geometry favoring bone stiffness. We conclude that, compared to standard antiresorptives, ODN shows distinctive effects on resorption geometry and on reversal phase activities which positively affect osteoblast recruitment and may therefore favor bone formation.

A supra-cellular model for coupling of bone resorption to formation during remodeling: lessons from two bone resorption inhibitors affecting bone formation differently.

The bone matrix is maintained functional through the combined action of bone resorbing osteoclasts and bone forming osteoblasts, in so-called bone remodeling units. The coupling of these two activities is critical for securing bone replenishment and involves osteogenic factors released by the osteoclasts. However, the osteoclasts are separated from the mature bone forming osteoblasts in time and space. Therefore the target cell of these osteoclastic factors has remained unknown. Recent explorations of the physical microenvironment of osteoclasts revealed a cell layer lining the bone marrow and forming a canopy over the whole remodeling surface, spanning from the osteoclasts to the bone forming osteoblasts. Several observations show that these canopy cells are a source of osteoblast progenitors, and we hypothesized therefore that they are the likely cells targeted by the osteogenic factors of the osteoclasts. Here we provide evidence supporting this hypothesis, by comparing the osteoclast-canopy interface in response to two types of bone resorption inhibitors in rabbit lumbar vertebrae. The bisphosphonate alendronate, an inhibitor leading to low bone formation levels, reduces the extent of canopy coverage above osteoclasts. This effect is in accordance with its toxic action on periosteoclastic cells. In contrast, odanacatib, an inhibitor preserving bone formation, increases the extent of the osteoclast-canopy interface. Interestingly, these distinct effects correlate with how fast bone formation follows resorption during these respective treatments. Furthermore, canopy cells exhibit uPARAP/Endo180, a receptor able to bind the collagen made available by osteoclasts, and reported to mediate osteoblast recruitment. Overall these observations support a mechanism where the recruitment of bone forming osteoblasts from the canopy is induced by osteoclastic factors, thereby favoring initiation of bone formation. They lead to a model where the osteoclast-canopy interface is the physical site where coupling of bone resorption to bone formation occurs.

Premature loss of bone remodeling compartment canopies is associated with deficient bone formation: a study of healthy individuals and patients with Cushing's syndrome.

A remarkable property of bone remodeling is that osteoblasts form bone matrix exactly where and when osteoclasts have removed it. The bone remodeling compartment (BRC) canopies that cover bone surfaces undergoing remodeling were proposed to be critical players in this mechanism. Here, we provide support to this hypothesis by analyzing the changes in prevalence of BRC canopies during the progress of the remodeling cycle in a cohort of healthy individuals and in patients with endogenous Cushing's syndrome (CS), and by relating these changes in prevalence with the extent of bone forming surfaces. Both cohorts showed almost 100% canopy coverage above resorbing osteoclasts, and only about 76% above bone forming surfaces. This indicates that BRC canopies are invariably associated with the early stage of the remodeling cycle, but may disappear later. Interestingly, in control and two-thirds of the CS patients, a significant decline in canopy coverage occurred only once bone formation was initiated, but in the remaining third of the CS patients the prevalence of canopies already decreased before bone formation. This canopy loss before initiation of bone formation coincided with significantly less bone-forming surface compared with canopy loss at a later stage. These observations support a model where bone restitution is compromised in the absence of BRC canopies, and apparently does not start when the BRC canopy is lost before initiation of the bone formation step. This model is discussed in the context of possible biological roles of BRC canopies. It suggests that BRC canopies could be privileged targets for treating patients suffering from a negative bone formation-resorption balance.