Miron Richard J, Zohdi Hamoon, Fujioka-Kobayashi Masako, Bosshardt Dieter D
Department of Oral Surgery and Stomatology, Department of Periodontology, University of Bern, Switzerland; Department Periodontology, College of Dental Medicine, Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL, United States.
Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Bern, Switzerland.
Acta Biomater. 2016 Dec;46:15-28. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2016.09.029. Epub 2016 Sep 22.
Recently accumulating evidence has put into question the role of large multinucleated giant cells (MNGCs) around bone biomaterials. While cells derived from the monocyte/macrophage lineage are one of the first cell types in contact with implanted biomaterials, it was originally thought that specifically in bone tissues, all giant cells were bone-resorbing osteoclasts whereas foreign body giant cells (FBGCs) were found associated with a connective tissue foreign body reaction resulting in fibrous encapsulation and/or material rejection. Despite the great majority of bone grafting materials routinely found with large osteoclasts, a special subclass of bone biomaterials has more recently been found surrounded by large giant cells virtually incapable of resorbing bone grafts even years after their implantation. While original hypotheses believed that a 'foreign body reaction' may be taking place, histological data retrieved from human samples years after their implantation have put these original hypotheses into question by demonstrating better and more stable long-term bone volume around certain bone grafts. Exactly how or why this 'special' subclass of giant cells is capable of maintaining long-term bone volume, or methods to scientifically distinguish them from osteoclasts remains extremely poorly studied. The aim of this review article was to gather the current available literature on giant cell markers and differences in expression patterns between osteoclasts and MNGCs utilizing 19 specific markers including an array of CD-cell surface markers. Furthermore, the concept of now distinguishing between pro-inflammatory M1-MNGCs (previously referred to as FBGCs) as well as wound-healing M2-MNGCs is introduced and discussed.
This review article presents 19 specific cell-surface markers to distinguish between osteoclasts and MNGCs including an array of CD-cell surface markers. Furthermore, the concept of now distinguishing between pro-inflammatory M1-MNGCs (often previously referred to as FBGCs) as well as wound-healing M2-MNGCs is introduced and discussed. The proposed concepts and guidelines aims to guide the next wave of research facilitating the differentiation between osteoclast/MNGCs formation, as well as provides the basis for increasing our understanding of the exact function of MNGCs in bone tissue/biomaterial homeostasis.
最近越来越多的证据对骨生物材料周围的大型多核巨细胞（MNGC）的作用提出了质疑。虽然源自单核细胞/巨噬细胞谱系的细胞是最早与植入生物材料接触的细胞类型之一，但最初人们认为，特别是在骨组织中，所有的巨细胞都是骨吸收破骨细胞，而异物巨细胞（FBGC）则与结缔组织异物反应相关，导致纤维包裹和/或材料排斥。尽管绝大多数骨移植材料通常会发现有大型破骨细胞，但最近发现一种特殊的骨生物材料亚类在植入数年甚至之后都被几乎没有骨吸收能力的大型巨细胞包围。虽然最初的假设认为可能发生了“异物反应”，但从植入数年的人体样本中获取的组织学数据对这些最初的假设提出了质疑，因为这些数据显示某些骨移植周围的长期骨量更好且更稳定。这种“特殊”的巨细胞亚类究竟如何或为何能够维持长期骨量，或者将它们与破骨细胞科学区分开来的方法仍然研究得极少。这篇综述文章的目的是收集关于巨细胞标志物以及破骨细胞和MNGC之间表达模式差异的现有文献，使用19种特定标志物，包括一系列CD细胞表面标志物。此外，还引入并讨论了现在区分促炎性M1 - MNGC（以前称为FBGC）以及伤口愈合性M2 - MNGC的概念。
这篇综述文章介绍了19种区分破骨细胞和MNGC的特定细胞表面标志物，包括一系列CD细胞表面标志物。此外，还引入并讨论了现在区分促炎性M1 - MNGC（通常以前称为FBGC）以及伤口愈合性M2 - MNGC的概念。提出的概念和指南旨在指导下一波研究，促进破骨细胞/MNGC形成的区分，并为加深我们对MNGC在骨组织/生物材料内环境稳定中确切功能的理解提供基础。
