Search

Bone repair involves bone resorption through osteoclastogenesis and the stimulation of neovascularization and osteogenesis by endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs). However, the role of EPCs in osteoclastogenesis is unclear. In this study, we assess the effects of EPC‐derived exosomes on the migration and osteoclastic differentiation of primary mouse bone marrow‐derived macrophages (BMMs) in vitro using immunofluorescence, western blotting, RT‐PCR and Transwell assays. We also evaluated the effects of EPC‐derived exosomes on the homing and osteoclastic differentiation of transplanted BMMs in a mouse bone fracture model in vivo. We found that EPCs cultured with BMMs secreted exosomes into the medium and, compared with EPCs, exosomes had a higher expression level of LncRNA‐MALAT1. We confirmed that LncRNA‐MALAT1 directly binds to miR‐124 to negatively control miR‐124 activity. Moreover, overexpression of miR‐124 could reverse the migration and osteoclastic differentiation of BMMs induced by EPC‐derived exosomes. A dual‐luciferase reporter assay indicated that the integrin ITGB1 is the target of miR‐124. Mice treated with EPC‐derived exosome‐BMM co‐transplantations exhibited increased neovascularization at the fracture site and enhanced fracture healing compared with those treated with BMMs alone. Overall, our results suggest that EPC‐derived exosomes can promote bone repair by enhancing recruitment and differentiation of osteoclast precursors through LncRNA‐MALAT1.

Patient-specific individual tissue-engineered bones (iTEBs) have been recognized as a promising strategy for treating large bone defects. However, current construction protocols of iTEBs vary between lots and lack standardization and quality control, hampering further research and application. This study was aimed to detail a standardized constructing protocol for iTEBs, which can be used for both clinical and experimental purposes. The procedure was designed and described as follows: scaffold preparation, cell isolation and culture, and fabrication of iTEBs. Manipulation and caution points in each section were detailed. A series of scales on the quality control and safety monitoring was developed. The effectiveness and safety of iTEBs were evaluated. Eventually, the preparing portion, from cell culture to scaffold treatment, usually required 21 days. Generally, the fabrication section took 5 days. The main advantage of this protocol was that each step was standardized and quality controlling and safety monitoring were performed throughout the process to ensure the homogeneity, reliability, and safety. The resulting iTEBs were effective and applicable to both clinical and experimental purposes. Thus, we have established a refined and standardized protocol detailing the construction process of patient-specific iTEBs that comply with strict quality control and safety criteria. This protocol is relatively easy for graduate students or staff working in the field of bone tissue engineering to implement.