This study provides genetic validation for the long-held belief that sequential release of TGF-β and BMP ligands from the bone matrix contributes to the physiological maintenance of bone mass by balancing the pools of progenitor and mature osteoblasts (
Mundy et al., 1995). It also identifies fibrillin microfibrils as the architectural elements of bone tissue that are principally involved in the storage of TGF-β and BMP complexes. Specifically, our experiments have shown that promiscuous TGF-β signaling is the cell-autonomous phenotype of primary osteoblast cultures derived from the bones of either
Fbn1−/− or
Fbn2−/− mice; they have established that unopposed TGF-β signaling in differentiating
Fbn2-null osteoblasts selectively inhibits osterix and collagen I production; they have implied that fibrillin-1 deposition in the forming bone matrix calibrates the threshold levels of local TGF-β and BMP signals during osteoblast maturation; and they have excluded that fibrillin microfibrils are required to constitute a mineralization-competent bone matrix (). Two broader conclusions can be drawn from this and our previous studies of microfibril mutant mice (
Arteaga-Solis et al., 2001;
Neptune et al., 2003;
Carta et al., 2006;
Habashi et al., 2006). First, fibrillin proteins control in a different manner and with discrete cellular outcomes the bioavailability of local TGF-β and BMP ligands during tissue formation and remodeling. Second, fibrillin assemblies impart contextual specificity to TGF-β and BMP signals by either concentrating the ligands at sites of intended function in the developing embryo (positive regulation, as exemplified by syndactyly in
Fbn2−/− mice) or by restricting their gradual release during postnatal tissue modeling and remodeling (negative regulation, as exemplified by bone loss in
Fbn2−/− mice and aortic aneurysm formation in
Fbn1 mutant mice).
Cell culture experiments have indicated that TGF-β and BMPs have both overlapping and opposing functions in bone formation. On the one hand, TGF-β stimulates the recruitment and proliferation of osteoblast progenitors but inhibits their terminal differentiation; and on the other hand, BMPs cooperate in the former process in addition to promoting osteogenic commitment of MSCs and osteoblast maturation (
Alliston et al., 2008). However, albeit informative, these in vitro analyses have used exogenous stimulators or inhibitors of cell signaling and differentiation to infer the dynamics of locally released TGF-β and BMP signals during bone formation. For example, increased differentiation of C2C12 cells treated with BMP4 in the presence of an ALK5 inhibitor was interpreted to imply that endogenous TGF-β activity maintains normal bone mass by restricting the rate of osteoblast maturation through Smad-directed blockade of BMP signaling (
Maeda et al., 2004). Similarly, genetic studies in mice have not directly interrogated the physiological contribution of matrix-bound TGF-β and BMP signals to bone modeling and remodeling. In this respect,
Fbn-null mice are the first animal models to yield unambiguous insights into the importance of the architectural matrix in modulating the local threshold levels of TGF-β and BMP signals during osteogenic differentiation.
Dynamic changes in ECM composition accompany and influence bone formation and mineralization. Collagens I and III, fibronectin, fibrillins, and large proteoglycans predominate in the matrix of osteoprogenitor cells; as preosteoblasts cease to proliferate and begin to differentiate, collagen I production increases substantially along with continued expression of fibrillins and secretion of small proteoglycans and matricellular proteins; once fully differentiated, osteoblasts produce osteocalcin (
Ramirez, 2009).
Fbn2-null osteoblasts are unable to assemble a mineralization-competent (collagen-rich) ECM, conceivably because promiscuous TGF-β activity delays the emergence of osterix-producing cells. Strong support for this conclusion includes in vivo cell-marking evidence showing that
Fbn2−/− bones contain significantly fewer osteoblasts expressing
Col1a2 and cell culture data documenting the ability of
Fbn2-null cOb to respond to TGF-β antagonism by reactivating
Osx and
Col1a2 expression and resuming matrix mineralization. Along the same lines, others have reported that collagen production is repressed in
Osx−/− mice (which lack differentiated osteoblasts;
Wang et al., 2006) and stimulated in
p53−/− mice (which display
Osx up-regulation and high bone mass;
Nakashima et al., 2002) and that a homozygous osterix mutation causes the collagen I–related condition osteogenesis imperfecta (
Lapunzina et al., 2010). Increased latent TGF-β activation in
Fbn2-null cOb has no apparent effect on cell proliferation. This somewhat surprising result is at least consistent with early in vitro analyses suggesting that exogenous TGF-β modulates cOb proliferation and collagen I production through different mechanisms, which are in part influenced by ligand concentration (
Centrella et al., 1987). Our finding may also reflect the involvement of other signaling pathways that are stimulated as a result of promiscuous TGF-β activity and/or a structurally impaired ECM (
Carta et al., 2009). Experimental context may also reconcile the unremarkable levels of
Runx2 mRNA observed in
Fbn2-null cOb and the down-regulation of
Runx2 transcription previously reported in TGF-β–treated osteoblastic cells (
Alliston et al., 2001).
Genetic interaction between fibrillin-2 and BMP7 in the forming mouse limbs originally predicted that extracellular microfibrils might control the bioavailability of other TGF-β family members (
Arteaga-Solis et al., 2001). This prediction was subsequently corroborated by in vitro binding assays showing that the prodomain of several BMPs can bind with comparable affinity to the N-terminal regions of both fibrillin-1 and -2 (
Sengle et al., 2008b). Additional analyses have led to the proposal that fibrillins may act as storage scaffolds that distribute, concentrate, and confer latency to BMPs conceivably in a stage and tissue-specific manner (
Gregory et al., 2005;
Sengle et al., 2008a). Our finding that maturing
Fbn1-null osteoblast cultures are characterized by elevated BMP signaling, less matrix-bound BMP, and normal
Bmp mRNA levels is a very strong indication that fibrillin-1 microfibrils are indeed involved in sequestering BMP ligands in the bone matrix. Although heightened BMP signaling in
Fbn1-null osteoblast cultures implies a context-specific mechanism that overrides the potential of fibrillin-2 to bind BMPs, it is still possible that fibrillin-2 might regulate BMP signaling earlier in osteoblastogenesis, as our study did not examine whether loss of
Fbn2 expression also impairs BMP-driven osteogenic commitment. In line with evidence of competitive LTBP and fibulin binding with fibrillin-1 (
Ono et al., 2009), one or more ECM molecules may compete with BMP prodomains for the N termini of fibrillins at different stages of bone matrix assembly. A similar mechanism may also explain the reason why dysregulated BMP signaling is only seen in the forming digits of
Fbn2−/− mice despite abundant fibrillin-1 production (
Arteaga-Solis et al., 2001). It is also interesting to note that BMP signaling is low in the developing autopods of
Fbn2−/− mice (as indicated by the syndactyly phenotype of
Fbn2+/−;
Bmp7+/− mice;
Arteaga-Solis et al., 2001) and high in the growing and remodeling bones of
Fbn1 mutant mice (as inferred by the BMP bioassay of
Fbn1-null osteoblasts; ). Collectively, these observations therefore support the hypothesis that extracellular microfibrils can control BMP bioavailability (and by extrapolation TGF-β bioavailability) both positively or negatively depending on developmental and physiological contexts and in a fibrillin-specific manner.
Although our findings have clearly established a causal relationship between fibrillin synthesis, matrix sequestration of TGF-β and BMP complexes, and progression of osteogenic differentiation, they have also raised several important new questions about the mechanisms underlying microfibril-mediated control of local TGF-β and BMP signaling. One question is whether latent TGF-β activation in a fibrillin-deficient state may reflect greater availability of the substrate to physiologically normal levels of activators, greater stimulation of activators by a structurally abnormal matrix or a combination of both mechanisms. A corollary to this question is whether or not the same mechanism of latent TGF-β activation operates in all affected tissues of fibrillin mutant mice. This information is particularly relevant to the clinical management of organ-specific manifestations in MFS. Indeed, although systemic inhibition of TGF-β signaling (via angiotensin receptor blockade) mitigates aortic aneurysm progression in MFS mice and patients (
Habashi et al., 2006;
Brooke, et al., 2008), preliminary data suggest that angiotensin receptor blockade therapy is ineffective to improve osteopenia in
Fbn1 mutant mice. As already noted, our study has left unresolved the important problem of how potentially equal interactions between fibrillins and TGF-β family members may impart spatiotemporal specificity to signaling events. This question is germane to the unresolved issue of how in vitro interactions between fibrillins and several other ECM proteins translate into the in vivo assembly of morphologically discrete macroaggregates. One attractive possibility is that cells may coordinate microfibril biogenesis at the plasma membrane with growth factor targeting to the ECM, as recent in vitro evidence suggests that fibronectin assemblies and cell surface receptors regulate both fibrillin polymerization and LTBP incorporation in the matrix (
Dallas et al., 2005;
Chen et al., 2007;
Hubmacher et al., 2008;
Sabatier et al., 2009). Moreover, the finding that fibrillin-2 molecules become gradually embedded within fibrillin-1 microfibrils during matrix maturation supports the notion that the dynamics of microfibril assembly may also determine the spatial distribution of signaling complexes within the ECM (
Charbonneau et al., 2003,
2010). In this view, the tridimensional arrangement of fibrillin microfibrils may specify both the timely release and the optimal concentration of individual TGF-β family members and ultimately the proper behavior of resident cells, such as osteoblasts and osteoclasts during bone remodeling and fracture healing. In line with this postulate, our parallel study has implicated the fibrillins in modulating bone resorption as well through osteoblast-supported osteoclastogenesis (
Nistala et al., 2010). In conclusion, this study has yielded important new insights into the extracellular control of local TGF-β and BMP signaling and implicitly, into the molecular pathophysiology of human diseases that are associated with primary or secondary deficits of the bone matrix.