Factors that Affect the Osteoclastogenesis of RAW264.7 Cells

Osteoclasts and their activity are key regulators of bone formation. However, studying osteoclasts is difficult. Primary osteoclast cultures are difficult to maintain and isolate. Also, the amount of cells that are isolated and their properties depend on the origin and differentiation protocols. These protocols are usually developed in a distinct lab and multiple protocols exist. A cell line to study osteoclasts and a thorough study of osteoclast differentiation and culturing is currently lacking. The RAW264.7 cell line is most commonly used to study osteoclast differentiation and its signaling pathways. RAW264.7 cells are not a homogenous cell line. They don’t often exclusively differentiate into osteoclast but also into other multinucleated cells as well including macrophage polykaryons. A challenge of culturing RAW264.7 cells are culture conditions. Different conditions can affect survival, proliferation, and differentiation of RAW264.7 cells. Currently published protocols of culturing RAW264.7 cells often assume multinucleated cells that have three or more nuclei with distinguished osteoclast characteristics (such as TRAP+) as osteoclasts. However, osteoclasts and macrophage polykaryons are almost indistinguishable under a light microscope (TRAP+ with three or more nuclei). The goal of this paper is to examine the effect of culture conditions on the osteoclastogenesis ability of RAW264.7 cells. The focus will be on establishing the crucial parameters for culture density, time of stimulation, RANKL, and L-Gln concentrations. Although we are unable to establish the condition that offers a homogenous population of osteoclasts; nevertheless, we are able to identify the optimal conditions at which osteoclasts are found to be more than macrophage polykaryons. Finally, this article also demonstrates that osteoclasts and macrophage polykaryons can be distinguished by immunofluorescence staining for cathepsin K.

[1]  K. Ochiai,et al.  BIX01294 suppresses osteoclast differentiation on mouse macrophage-like Raw264.7 cells. , 2013, Bosnian journal of basic medical sciences.

[2]  H. Aburatani,et al.  Metabolic regulation of osteoclast differentiation and function , 2013, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[3]  Mahmoud M. Bakr,et al.  Foreign body giant cells and osteoclasts are TRAP positive, have podosome‐belts and both require OC‐STAMP for cell fusion , 2013, Journal of cellular biochemistry.

[4]  Z. Gu,et al.  BMP2/7 heterodimer can modulate all cellular events of the in vitro RANKL-mediated osteoclastogenesis, respectively, in different dose patterns. , 2012, Tissue engineering. Part A.

[5]  P. Collin‐Osdoby,et al.  RANKL-mediated osteoclast formation from murine RAW 264.7 cells. , 2012, Methods in molecular biology.

[6]  A. Nohe,et al.  Bone morphogenetic proteins: a critical review. , 2011, Cellular signalling.

[7]  J. Westendorf,et al.  Bone morphogenic protein 2 directly enhances differentiation of murine osteoclast precursors , 2010, Journal of cellular biochemistry.

[8]  E. Bradley,et al.  Osteoclast culture and resorption assays. , 2008, Methods in molecular biology.

[9]  N. Udagawa,et al.  Generation of osteoclasts in vitro, and assay of osteoclast activity. , 2007, Methods in molecular medicine.

[10]  H. Blair,et al.  Negative Regulation of RANKL-induced Osteoclastic Differentiation in RAW264.7 Cells by Estrogen and Phytoestrogens* , 2005, Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[11]  L. Filgueira,et al.  Fluorescence-based Staining for Tartrate-resistant Acidic Phosphatase (TRAP) in Osteoclasts Combined with Other Fluorescent Dyes and Protocols , 2004, The journal of histochemistry and cytochemistry : official journal of the Histochemistry Society.

[12]  Noriaki Yoshida,et al.  U0126 and PD98059, Specific Inhibitors of MEK, Accelerate Differentiation of RAW264.7 Cells into Osteoclast-like Cells* , 2002, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[13]  S. Morony,et al.  Tumor necrosis factor receptor family member RANK mediates osteoclast differentiation and activation induced by osteoprotegerin ligand. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[14]  N. Udagawa,et al.  A new member of tumor necrosis factor ligand family, ODF/OPGL/TRANCE/RANKL, regulates osteoclast differentiation and function. , 1999, Biochemical and biophysical research communications.

[15]  Sheila J. Jones,et al.  Impaired osteoclastic bone resorption leads to osteopetrosis in cathepsin-K-deficient mice. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[16]  A. Hollander,et al.  Molecular Interaction and Matrix Assembly , 1998, The Biochemical journal.

[17]  D. Lacey,et al.  Osteoprotegerin Ligand Is a Cytokine that Regulates Osteoclast Differentiation and Activation , 1998, Cell.

[18]  G. Wogan,et al.  Growth and viability of macrophages continuously stimulated to produce nitric oxide. , 1997, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[19]  B. Gelb,et al.  Pycnodysostosis, a Lysosomal Disease Caused by Cathepsin K Deficiency , 1996, Science.

[20]  I. Marison,et al.  The importance of ammonia in mammalian cell culture. , 1996, Journal of biotechnology.

[21]  I. James,et al.  Human osteoclast and giant cell differentiation: the apparent switch from nonspecific esterase to tartrate resistant acid phosphatase activity coincides with the in situ expression of osteopontin mRNA. , 1995, The journal of histochemistry and cytochemistry : official journal of the Histochemistry Society.

[22]  N. Udagawa,et al.  Macrophage colony-stimulating factor is indispensable for both proliferation and differentiation of osteoclast progenitors. , 1993, The Journal of clinical investigation.

[23]  J. Quinn,et al.  Bone resorption by macrophage polykaryons of a pilar tumor of scalp. , 1992, Cancer.

[24]  S. Niida,et al.  BriefDefinitive Report Essential Role of Macrophage Colony-Stimulating Factor in the Osteoclast Differentiation Supported by , 2022 .

[25]  J. McGee,et al.  Bone resorption by macrophage polykaryons of giant cell tumour of tendon sheath. , 1991, British Journal of Cancer.

[26]  N. Athanasou,et al.  Immunophenotypic differences between osteoclasts and macrophage polykaryons: immunohistological distinction and implications for osteoclast ontogeny and function. , 1990, Journal of clinical pathology.

[27]  B Crabtree,et al.  The role of high rates of glycolysis and glutamine utilization in rapidly dividing cells , 1985, Bioscience reports.

[28]  P. Ralph,et al.  Functional macrophage cell lines transformed by abelson leukemia virus , 1978, Cell.

[29]  P. Ralph,et al.  Antibody-dependent killing of erythrocyte and tumor targets by macrophage-related cell lines: enhancement by PPD and LPS. , 1977, Journal of immunology.

[30]  L. Levintow,et al.  The role of glutamine in protein biosynthesis in tissue culture. , 1957, The Journal of biological chemistry.