Next Article in Journal
“Alphabet” Selenoproteins: Implications in Pathology
Next Article in Special Issue
Ethanol Extract of Radix Asteris Suppresses Osteoclast Differentiation and Alleviates Osteoporosis
Previous Article in Journal
PANoptosis: Mechanism and Role in Pulmonary Diseases
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJMS
Volume 24
Issue 20
10.3390/ijms242015342
ijms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Extracellular Signal-Regulated Kinases Play Essential but Contrasting Roles in Osteoclast Differentiation

by
Chaekyun Kim
BK21 Program in Biomedical Science & Engineering, Laboratory for Leukocyte Signaling Research, Department of Pharmacology, College of Medicine, Inha University, Incheon 22212, Republic of Korea
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24(20), 15342; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms242015342
Submission received: 22 September 2023 / Revised: 16 October 2023 / Accepted: 17 October 2023 / Published: 19 October 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Research on Bone Cells in Health and Disease)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Bone homeostasis is regulated by the balanced actions of osteoblasts that form the bone and osteoclasts (OCs) that resorb the bone. Bone-resorbing OCs are differentiated from hematopoietic monocyte/macrophage lineage cells, whereas osteoblasts are derived from mesenchymal progenitors. OC differentiation is induced by two key cytokines, macrophage colony-stimulating factor (M-CSF), a factor essential for the proliferation and survival of the OCs, and receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand (RANKL), a factor for responsible for the differentiation of the OCs. Mitogen-activated protein kinases (MAPKs), including extracellular signal-regulated kinases (ERKs), p38, and c-Jun N-terminal kinases, play an essential role in regulating the proliferation, differentiation, and function of OCs. ERKs have been known to play a critical role in the differentiation and activation of OCs. In most cases, ERKs positively regulate OC differentiation and function. However, several reports present conflicting conclusions. Interestingly, the inhibition of OC differentiation by ERK1/2 is observed only in OCs differentiated from RAW 264.7 cells. Therefore, in this review, we summarize the current understanding of the conflicting actions of ERK1/2 in OC differentiation.

1. Bone Homeostasis

Bones undergo continuous renewal through the process of bone remodeling throughout an individual’s lifetime. In adult humans, approximately 10% of the total bone content is remodeled every year [1], and this renewal occurs through the destruction and rebuilding of bone at about 1 to 2 million microscopic foci per adult skeleton [2]. The regulation of bone remodeling is highly complex, and bone homeostasis is achieved by the well-balanced actions of bone-forming osteoblasts and bone-destroying osteoclasts (OCs). Osteoblasts are the cells that form new bones, and they also play a central role in the regulation of OC formation and bone resorption through the production of the parathyroid hormone-related protein (PTHrP), macrophage colony-stimulating factor (M-CSF), receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB (NF-κB) ligand (RANKL), and osteoprotegerin (OPG). M-CSF and RANKL are crucial players for OC differentiation and activity. OCs resorb bone by dissolution of the inorganic components and digestion of the bone matrix by secreting hydrogen ions, cysteine proteases, and collagenases. The imbalance between osteoblasts and OCs can lead to skeletal diseases like osteoporosis, osteopetrosis, and rheumatoid arthritis.

2. OC Formation and Function

2.1. Formation of OCs

OCs originate from common myeloid progenitors that give rise to granulocyte-macrophage colony-forming units (GM-CFU) and then further differentiate into OCs and other cells [3]. The various stages in the formation of OCs include proliferation, maturation, migration, and differentiation of the myeloid progenitors. The differentiation of OCs is induced by two crucial determinants: M-CSF, which is essential for OC survival, and RANKL, which acts as a differentiation factor of OCs [4,5]. The binding of RANKL to its receptor RANK recruits tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-receptor-associated factors (TRAFs), which then activate downstream signaling molecules including mitogen-activated protein kinases (MAPKs), NF-κB, and activator protein-1 (AP-1), leading to the activation of the nuclear factor of activated T cells 1 (NFATc1) [3]. TRAF family proteins such as TRAF2, TRAF3, and TRAF5 bind to RANK and activate the transcription factors including NF-κB, AP-1, and NFATc1 required for OC differentiation, while TRAF6 is the major adaptor protein responsible for the RANKL-induced signaling cascade [6,7]. It is well known that cytokines play a critical role in OC differentiation and the balance between osteoclastogenic and anti-osteoclastogenic cytokines is important for maintaining OC differentiation. Osteoclastogenic cytokines including TNF-α, interleukin-1 (IL-1), -6, -7, -8, -11, -15, -17, -23, and -34, promote OC differentiation, whereas anti-osteoclastogenic cytokines, including interferon (IFN)-α, -β, and -γ, IL-3, -4, -10, -12, -27, and -33 inhibit OC differentiation [8]. The fully differentiated OCs have a short life span, and their survival is promoted by M-CSF, RANKL, IL-1, and calcitonin [6,9,10,11,12]. Estrogen induces apoptosis of OCs and inhibits OC survival [13,14]. Transforming growth factor β (TGF-β) has both stimulatory and inhibitory effect on OC survival [15,16].

2.2. Characteristics of OCs

OCs are characterized as tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase (TRAP)-positive multinucleated cells containing more than three nuclei. RANKL-RANK signaling is crucial in OC formation, as RANK- or RANKL-deficient mice have been found to exhibit abnormal OC development [17,18]. RANKL induces the expression of various genes necessary for OC differentiation and function, such as αvβ3 integrin, TRAP, cathepsin K (CTSK), matrix metalloproteinase 9 (MMP9), OC-associated receptor (OSCAR), calcitonin receptor (CTR), and dendritic cell-specific transmembrane protein (DC-STAMP). TRAP is an iron-containing metalloprotein enzyme expressed in OCs, activated macrophages, and dendritic cells. It plays an essential role in various processes such as skeletal development, collagen processing, bone mineralization, cytokine production by macrophages and dendritic cells, macrophage recruitment, and dendritic cell maturation [19]. TRAP is crucial for maintaining bone and collagen density. TRAP knockout mice exhibit altered collagen synthesis and degradation, reduced bone resorption, and increased bone density [20].

2.3. Bone Resorption by OCs

The activation of OCs is characterized by the formation of the ruffled border and the creation of an acidic resorption pit known as Howship’s lacunae. The low pH within the resorption pit dissolves the bone mineral and activates acid proteases, such as cathepsins, that further degrade the organic bone matrix [21]. Initially, OCs adhere tightly to the bone surface and then secrete protons, and proton-activated hydrolytic enzymes into the pit formed between the bone and the OCs [22]. OCs contain many lysosomes which contain TRAP and CTSK, and the formation of the pit occurs through the fusion of lysosomes with the ruffled border [23]. ATPase and carbonic anhydrase II are key players which are responsible for acidification of the resorption fit. Carbonic anhydrase II converts carbon dioxide (CO2) to carbonic acid (H2CO3), which subsequently undergoes ionization to form carbonate and hydrogen ions, and ATPase transfers protons from the cytoplasm into the resorption pit [21,24,25].

3. BMM-Derived OCs and RAW 264.7-Derived OCs

Bone marrow cells are efficiently differentiated into OCs in the presence of M-CSF and RANKL. In addition to bone marrow macrophages (BMMs), splenocytes and peripheral blood monocytes can also be differentiated into OCs in the presence of these factors [26,27,28]. Although BMMs are commonly used for OC differentiation in vitro, RAW 264.7 cells, a transformed macrophage-like cell line derived from the lymphoma of a male BALB/c mouse infected with the Abelson murine leukemia virus, have also been known to differentiate into OCs [29,30]. The RAW 264.7 cell is a pure macrophage/OC precursor population that is readily available, easy to culture, and can rapidly differentiate into highly bone-resorptive OC with its hallmark characteristics.
Studies have shown that OCs derived from RAW 264.7 cells (RAW-OCs) exhibit characteristics like those derived from BMMs (BMM-OCs) [31]. RAW 264.7 cell is an immortal and transfectable cell line that exhibits the properties of BMM-OC and is more amenable to genetic manipulation than BMM. Therefore, it is a valuable model for exploring the cellular and molecular regulation of OC differentiation and activation. In a comparative study which examined the steady-state expression levels of mRNA of over 400 genes, the R2 value for the pair-wise comparison of BMM-OCs and RAW-OCs was 0.7599, which is similar to those reported in comparisons of the same tissue and cell line analyzed at different times using cDNA array profiling [32]. On the other hand, in a comparative study determined by using quantitative proteomics, the R2 value was around 0.13, which indicates low concordance [33].
There are fundamental differences between BMM-OCs and RAW-OCs. However, not many studies comparing these cells have been conducted to date (Table 1). The primary distinction lies in the differentiation requirements of BMMs and RAW 264.7 cells; BMMs need both M-CSF and RANKL to differentiate into OCs, while RAW 264.7 cells can readily differentiate into OCs when treated with RANKL alone [3,31]. According to a proteomics study [33], the expression of OC markers is typically comparable in BMM-OCs and RAW-OCs. However, the weak correlation observed between shared proteins in the two cell types suggests significant differences between them. Additionally, RAW-OCs exhibit prolonged lifespans compared to BMM-OCs. Cheng et al. [34] investigated whether RANKL and M-CSF were essential cytokines for the OC differentiation of RAW 264.7 cells. RANKL increased OC formation and OC marker gene expression, but the addition of M-CSF significantly decreased OC formation and gene expression. Moreover, it was also found that BMM-OCs and RAW-OCs exhibit opposing differentiation responses when subjected to ERK inhibition [35].

4. Role of MAPKs in OC Differentiation

MAPKs are evolutionary conserved enzymes connecting cell-surface receptors to critical regulatory targets within cells. They play a vital role in regulating various cellular processes, such as proliferation, differentiation, development, cell cycle, and cell death [43,44]. Mammals express at least four distinct groups of MAPKs, such as extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK)1/2, c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK)1/2/3, p38α/β/γ/δ, and ERK5. Other MAPKs including ERK3, ERK4, ERK7/8, and Ste20p-related kinases have been discovered [45]. Although MAPKs act in parallel with other cell-signaling systems, intercommunication between the MAPK pathways is very likely, and signal integration transpires at various levels.
The differentiation of BMMs into OCs is regulated by the binding of M-CSF and RANKL to their respective receptors, colony-stimulating factor 1 receptor (CSF1R) and RANK. Both M-CSF and RANKL act through MAPKs during OC differentiation [46,47]. Activation of MAPKs by M-CSF primarily regulates the proliferation of OC precursors [48], and the activation by RANKL is primarily involved in the differentiation of OCs [49], indicating that M-CSF and RANKL have distinct effects on MAPKs. As an example, M-CSF triggers an initial phase of MAPK activation, while RANKL induces both early (5 to 20 min and 1 h) and delayed (8 to 24 h and 24 h) activation of p38 MAPK and ERK in BMMs [39,47]. Therefore, understanding the distinct effects of M-CSF and RANKL on MAPKs leads to a better understanding of OC differentiation.

5. Role of ERKs in OC Differentiation

5.1. Similarities and Differences between ERK1 and ERK2

ERK signaling is recognized as a critical mechanism by which a variety of extracellular signals regulate cellular functions, including proliferation, differentiation, and cell cycle progression. The ERK isoforms are listed in Table 2. The ERK1 and ERK2 isoforms are highly conserved (84%) kinases that are activated through phosphorylation on threonine and tyrosine residues in the TEY sequence by the dual specificity MAPK kinase MEK [45]. The protein expression level of ERK1 is lower than ERK2 across vertebrates. For example, the total and activated ERK1 were found to be four times less abundant than ERK2 in NIH3T3 cells [50]. The low expression of ERK1 in mice was found to contribute to its faster evolutionary rate [51,52,53].
ERK1 and ERK2 exhibit similar characteristics and functionalities. They share a common docking domain and docking groove, which contribute to similar substrate specificities and activation kinetics [54,55]. They are activated by the same upstream kinase module, and no agonist capable of selectively activating only one of the two kinases has been found [50]. Double silencing of ERK1 and ERK2 is as effective as silencing ERK2 alone in slowing cell proliferation, underscoring the significance of ERK2 in terms of its potency or quantity. However, disruption of ERK1 or ERK2 reveals that the two kinases have isoform-specific functions [45,50,53,56,57,58,59,60]. Mice deficient in ERK1 were found to be viable and exhibited no overt phenotype [61], whereas mice lacking ERK2 were embryonic lethal and ERK1 could not compensate for the loss of ERK2 [62,63,64].

5.2. ERK1/2 in OC Differentiation

We assumed that the levels of expression of ERK2 are higher than ERK1 in OCs as in other mammalian tissues [51,52,53]. Although He et al. [65] showed a higher expression level of ERK1 than ERK2 in OC progenitor cells, ERK1 probably has a higher affinity for the antibody compared to ERK2. ERK1/2 are essential for OC differentiation and function. It has been reported earlier that the genetic disruption of ERK1 and ERK2 causes a delay in OC formation by suppressing the RANKL production of osteoblasts [66]. Also, the disruption of ERK1 diminished OC progenitor cell numbers, pit formation, and M-CSF-mediated adhesion and migration, while the disruption of ERK2 reduced OC nucleation and bone resorption without altering OC differentiation, adhesion, and migration [65]. ERK2 could not compensate for the loss of ERK1 in the OCs, whereas ERK1 could compensate for ERK2 disruption. However, these results are contrary to earlier observations where ERK2 shows higher potency and abundance [61,62,63,64]. Taken together, these results suggest that ERK1 and ERK2 play non-redundant isoform-specific functions in OCs (Table 3).

6. The Positive Role of ERK1/2 in OC Differentiation

Activation of ERK1/2 induced by M-CSF mainly promotes the proliferation and survival of OC precursors, and that being triggered by RANKL is responsible for regulating OC formation and function [49]. ERK1 and ERK2 positively regulate the proliferation and differentiation of OCs [39,47,65,66,67]. Moreover, cytokines and growth factors, such as IL-1α, IL-1β, IL-6, IL-15, IL-34, macrophage inflammatory protein-1α (MIP-1α), granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), TNF-α, and fibroblast growth factor-2 (FGF-2) have been known to promote osteoclastogenesis through the activation of ERKs [47,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79]. Bone morphogenetic protein 9 (BMP9) also positively regulates OC differentiation through ERKs [80]. However, there are conflicting findings regarding the role of cytokines in OC formation. While IL-34 has been shown to activate OC formation [81,82], it is worth nothing that IL-34 has no impact on both in vitro osteoclastogenesis and osteoporosis in ovariectomized rat [83]. The role of IL-35 in osteoclastogenesis is also controversial [84,85]. IL-3, IL-4, TGF-β, osteoactivin, and prostaglandin D2 are known to inhibit OC differentiation by suppressing ERK activation [47,86,87].
Studies suggest that the genetic disruption of ERK1 leads to defects in OC differentiation and function in mice, while disruption of ERK2 does not impair OC differentiation [65]. While ERK1 was largely capable of compensating for ERK2 disruption, ERK2 could not compensate for the loss of ERK1 in OCs. These results indicate that ERK1 plays a more critical role than ERK2 during OC differentiation, despite its relatively low expression [51,52,53]. Pharmacological MEK/ERK inhibitors, such as PD98059, PD0325091, U0126, and FR180204 which inhibited RANKL-induced ERK1/2 phosphorylation, dose-dependently inhibited OC formation [67,86,88]. Moreover, ERK inhibitors significantly inhibited cell migration and in turn cell–cell fusion [39]. PD98059 completely suppressed the fusion and formation of multinuclear cells without affecting the expression of OC markers [39,89]. Moreover, the withdrawal of MEK/ERK inhibitors substantially restored OC formation. The ability of ERKs to positively regulate OC differentiation by suppressing OC apoptosis has also been demonstrated. Dominant negative Ras overexpression has been reported to induce the apoptosis of OCs, and ERK activation by MEK1 prevented apoptosis [90]. PD98059 also promoted the apoptosis of OCs [91].

7. The Negative Role of ERK1/2 in OC Differentiation

As described above, it has been shown that ERKs positively regulate OC differentiation and function. However, some findings to the contrary also indicate that ERKs may play a negative role during OC differentiation [35,40,41,42]. Hotokezaka et al. [40] demonstrated that U0126 and PD98059 hindered the differentiation of RAW 264.7 cells into OCs when the cell numbers were low (2000~4000 cells/96-well), but enhanced the differentiation when the cell numbers were high (>8000 cells/96-well). This implies that RAW 264.7 cells have the potential to differentiate into OCs when ERK is inactivated if the cell density is sufficient for contact and fusion to occur. It is not surprising that the inhibition of ERK at low cell numbers reduced OC differentiation due to the lack of cell contact and fusion. However, contrary to the result shown in RAW 264.7 cells, ERK inhibition decreased BMM-OCs despite sufficient cell numbers [35] (our unpublished data). These results suggest that the regulation of OC differentiation by ERK is influenced by factors other than cell numbers. Moreover, U0126 did not alter OC differentiation in RAW 264.7 cells and reversed the decline induced by OPG [41], suggesting a negative role of ERKs in OC differentiation. We also found that ERK inhibitors and ERK1/2-specific small interfering RNA (siRNA) enhanced OC differentiation in RAW 264.7 cells [35,42] (our unpublished data), which confirms that ERK deficiency or inhibition promotes OC differentiation in RAW 264.7 cells.
Although Russo et al. [39] concluded that ERK activates OC differentiation in RAW 264.7 cells, MEK/ERK inhibitors PD98059 and FR180204 increased the expression of OC differentiation markers, such as NFATc1 and TRAP, and TRAF6 and CTSK, respectively. However, it is worth noting that the changes did not reach statistical significance. This suggests that ERK inhibition does not collectively inhibit all molecules involved in OC differentiation but rather stimulates the expression of some of them. This can be explained in part by the findings that showed the different subcellular localizations between phospho-ERKs and OC markers during OC maturation in RAW 264.7 cells [92]. In any case, the enhancement of RANKL-induced OC differentiation through ERK inhibition in RAW 264.7 cells suggests that ERK can play a negative regulatory role in osteoclastogenesis (Figure 1). The negative effect of ERK on hematopoietic cell differentiation is not a new observation. Guihard et al. [58] found that the deletion of ERK1 induced enhanced splenic erythropoiesis, characterized by an accumulation of erythroid progenitors in the spleen. However, the suppression of BMM-OCs by ERK inhibition suggested that ERK also exerts a positive regulatory role during OC differentiation [35].
It is noteworthy that all studies reporting the increase in OC differentiation by ERK inhibitors were conducted in RAW 264.7 cells [35,40,41,42]. The knockdown of the ERK1 or ERK2 gene in RAW 264.7 cells augmented OC differentiation and the expression of OC markers [35]. Although we concluded that ERK exerts a positive regulatory effect on OC differentiation in BMMs and a negative impact on RAW 264.7 cells, numerous studies have shown a positive effect of ERK on OC differentiation in RAW 264.7 cells [72,85,93,94]. The mechanisms by which ERK inhibition leads to an increase in OC differentiation in RAW 264.7 cells remain unclear. It does not seem to be caused by the cell number or the inhibitor itself. MEK/ERK inhibitors PD98059, PD0325091, U0126, and FR180204 possess distinct structures but exhibit a similar ability to enhance OC differentiation in RAW 264.7 cells. As a possible mechanism, we proposed the increase in glutathione (GSH) levels, activation of AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK), and inhibition of anti-osteoclastogenic factors [35,42]. However, these conditions do not clearly explain how ERKs inhibit OC differentiation. Hence, further investigations are necessary to elucidate the underlying mechanism responsible for the contradictory roles of ERKs in OC differentiation.

8. ERK5 in OC Differentiation

ERK5 shares its homology with ERK1/2, but ERK5 does not interact with MEK1 or MEK2 [95]. Nonetheless, the ERK1/2 and ERK5 pathways are responsive to MEK1/2 inhibitors, such as U0126 and PD98059 [96]. Despite their similarities, the targeted deletion of ERK5 in mice has revealed that the ERK5 pathway has distinctive characteristics and plays a critical role in cardiovascular development and endothelial cell function [97,98]. It was found that M-CSF activated ERK5 and OC differentiation [99]. The role of ERK5 in osteoblasts and OCs was not found to be consistent [99,100,101,102]. MEK5/ERK5 inhibitors BIX02189 and XMD 8-92 and MEK5 knockdown inhibited OC differentiation in RAW 264.7 cells [99]. However, the deletion of ERK5 led to severe spinal deformity associated with increased OC activity; the reduction of ERK5 increased OC numbers and expression of OC markers including RANK, CTSK, and NFATc1 in BMMs [103]. Furthermore, the MEK5 inhibitors BIX02188 and BIX02189 stimulated RANKL-induced OC formation in cultures from wild type mice, suggesting that ERK5 negatively regulates OC differentiation.

9. p38 MAPK and JNK in OC Differentiation

The p38 MAPK pathway plays a key role in the regulation of OC formation and maturation, and thus, in bone resorption and remodeling [3,68,104,105]. p38 MAPK stimulates the downstream activation of the transcriptional regulator microphthalmia-associated transcription factor (MITF), which controls the expression of the genes encoding TRAP and CTSK [3,106]. The p38 MAPK contains four isoforms of p38 (α, β, γ, and δ) and p38α is the most expressed isoform in OCs that plays a key role in OC differentiation and bone resorption [107]. p38α deficiency has been shown to induce an increase in bone mass, with a decrease in OC numbers and bone resorption [105]. The expression of the dominant negative forms of p38α in BMMs and RAW 264.7 cells results in complete blockage of RANKL-induced osteoclastogenesis [68]. Specific inhibitors of p38 MAPK, PD169316 and SB203580 have been shown to suppress OC differentiation [40,42,104] in RAW 264.7 cells. SB203580 binds to the ATP pocket of the activated p38 MAPK and inhibits phosphorylation of the downstream targets, which leads to the inhibition of OC differentiation. Nevertheless, SB203580 did not inhibit the survival of OC and bone-resorption activity [104]. Although the ERK inhibitor PD98059 did not inhibit OC differentiation in RAW 264.7 cells, SB203580 inhibited the OC differentiation both in BMMs and RAW 264.7 cells [42,68,104]. These results are consistent with our finding that SB203580 inhibits the differentiation in both cells but PD98059 increases the differentiation of RAW 264.7 cells to OCs [35,42].
It has been reported that M-CSF and RANKL activate JNK signaling [108,109]. BMMs isolated from JNK1 knockout mice or carrying a mutated form of c-Jun that cannot be phosphorylated by the JNKs showed a reduction in OC differentiation and bone resorption activity [110]. Blockade of JNK activity at the pre-fusion stage of OC resulted in the reversion of TRAP-positive cells to TRAP-negative cells, even in the continuous presence of RANKL, demonstrating that the JNK pathway is required for maintaining osteoclastic commitment [111]. Moreover, impairment of JNK signaling by the overexpression of dominant-negative JNK1, c-Jun, and c-Fos, or the JNK-specific inhibitor SP600125 abrogated the anti-apoptotic effect of RANKL in OCs [108], indicating that JNK/c-Jun signaling mediates the RANKL-induced anti-apoptotic process in mature OCs. In addition, epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors AG1478 and afatinib suppressed OC differentiation by inhibiting JNK activation, while afatinib slightly increased ERK phosphorylation [112,113]. Taken together, the results indicate that p38 MAPK and JNK positively regulate OC differentiation and function.

10. Conclusions

Remarkable discoveries have been made to broaden the knowledge of the molecular mechanisms involved in the formation and differentiation of OCs. Among the signaling molecules regulating OC differentiation, MAPKs play a critical role. p38 MAPK and JNK positively regulate OC differentiation, whereas ERKs have been reported to regulate OC differentiation positively and negatively. An intriguing point is that the negative regulation of OC differentiation by ERK1/2 either solely through RANKL signaling or in conjunction with both RANKL and M-CSF has been observed exclusively in RAW 264.7 cells. However, there is no evidence that this phenomenon is unique to RAW 264.7 cells.
To better understand this phenomenon, both BMMs and RAW 264.7 cells were treated with various ERK inhibitors, such as PD98059, U0126, and FR180204. The ERK inhibitors suppressed OC differentiation in BMMs but increased it in RAW 264.7 cells in a dose-dependent manner. Moreover, transfection with ERK1 and ERK2 siRNA in RAW 264.7 cells also increased OC differentiation [35,42] (our unpublished data). To our current knowledge, it is difficult to explain the reason for the contrasting results of ERK1/2 in OC differentiation. In fact, there are many papers in which ERK1 and ERK2 have been shown to positively regulate OC differentiation in RAW 264.7 cells. Moreover, many papers have reported that several compounds that affect OC differentiation exert their action through the positive regulatory role of ERK. Hence, elucidating this is a great challenge. The inability to identify a clear mechanism for the role of ERK in OC differentiation can be mainly attributed to the complex nature of the OC differentiation process. Therefore, this review has been unable to provide an answer to the conflicting role of ERKs in OC differentiation. However, this review may raise the right questions and contribute to the research on the role of ERK in the differentiation of OCs.

Funding

This study was supported by the Inha University Research Grant.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Alliston, T.; Derynck, R. Medicine: Interfering with bone remodelling. Nature 2002, 416, 686–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Rodan, G.A.; Martin, T.J. Therapeutic approaches to bone diseases. Science 2000, 289, 1508–1514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Boyle, W.J.; Simonet, W.S.; Lacey, D.L. Osteoclast differentiation and activation. Nature 2003, 423, 337–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Hattersley, G.; Owens, J.; Flanagan, A.M.; Chambers, T.J. Macrophage colony stimulating factor (M-CSF) is essential for osteoclast formation in vitro. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 1991, 177, 526–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Kong, Y.Y.; Boyle, W.J.; Penninger, J.M. Osteoprotegerin ligand: A common link between osteoclastogenesis, lymph node formation and lymphocyte development. Immunol. Cell Biol. 1999, 77, 188–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Naito, A.; Azuma, S.; Tanaka, S.; Miyazaki, T.; Takaki, S.; Takatsu, K.; Nakao, K.; Nakamura, K.; Katsuki, M.; Yamamoto, T.; et al. Severe osteopetrosis, defective interleukin-1 signalling and lymph node organogenesis in TRAF6-deficient mice. Genes Cells 1999, 4, 353–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lamothe, B.; Webster, W.K.; Gopinathan, A.; Besse, A.; Campos, A.D.; Darnay, B.G. TRAF6 ubiquitin ligase is essential for RANKL signaling and osteoclast differentiation. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2007, 359, 1044–1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Amarasekara, D.S.; Yun, H.; Kim, S.; Lee, N.; Kim, H.; Rho, J. Regulation of osteoclast differentiation by cytokine networks. Immune Netw. 2018, 18, e8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Fuller, K.; Owens, J.M.; Jagger, C.J.; Wilson, A.; Moss, R.; Chambers, T.J. Macrophage colony-stimulating factor stimulates survival and chemotactic behavior in isolated osteoclasts. J. Exp. Med. 1993, 178, 1733–1744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Selander, K.S.; Harkonen, P.L.; Valve, E.; Monkkonen, J.; Hannuniemi, R.; Vaananen, H.K. Calcitonin promotes osteoclast survival in vitro. Mol. Cell. Endocrinol. 1996, 122, 119–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Jimi, E.; Akiyama, S.; Tsurukai, T.; Okahashi, N.; Kobayashi, K.; Udagawa, N.; Nishihara, T.; Takahashi, N.; Suda, T. Osteoclast differentiation factor acts as a multifunctional regulator in murine osteoclast differentiation and function. J. Immunol. 1999, 163, 434–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Lacey, D.L.; Tan, H.L.; Lu, J.; Kaufman, S.; Van, G.; Qiu, W.; Rattan, A.; Scully, S.; Fletcher, F.; Juan, T.; et al. Osteoprotegerin ligand modulates murine osteoclast survival in vitro and in vivo. Am. J. Pathol. 2000, 157, 435–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Kameda, T.; Mano, H.; Yuasa, T.; Mori, Y.; Miyazawa, K.; Shiokawa, M.; Nakamaru, Y.; Hiroi, E.; Hiura, K.; Kameda, A.; et al. Estrogen inhibits bone resorption by directly inducing apoptosis of the bone-resorbing osteoclasts. J. Exp. Med. 1997, 186, 489–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Hughes, D.E.; Dai, A.; Tiffee, J.C.; Li, H.H.; Mundy, G.R.; Boyce, B.F. Estrogen promotes apoptosis of murine osteoclasts mediated by TGF-beta. Nat. Med. 1996, 2, 1132–1136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Chenu, C.; Pfeilschifter, J.; Mundy, G.R.; Roodman, G.D. Transforming growth factor beta inhibits formation of osteoclast-like cells in long-term human marrow cultures. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1988, 85, 5683–5687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Fuller, K.; Lean, J.M.; Bayley, K.E.; Wani, M.R.; Chambers, T.J. A role for TGFbeta(1) in osteoclast differentiation and survival. J. Cell Sci. 2000, 113 Pt 13, 2445–2453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Dougall, W.C.; Glaccum, M.; Charrier, K.; Rohrbach, K.; Brasel, K.; De Smedt, T.; Daro, E.; Smith, J.; Tometsko, M.E.; Maliszewski, C.R.; et al. RANK is essential for osteoclast and lymph node development. Genes Dev. 1999, 13, 2412–2424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kong, Y.Y.; Yoshida, H.; Sarosi, I.; Tan, H.L.; Timms, E.; Capparelli, C.; Morony, S.; Oliveira-dos-Santos, A.J.; Van, G.; Itie, A.; et al. OPGL is a key regulator of osteoclastogenesis, lymphocyte development and lymph-node organogenesis. Nature 1999, 397, 315–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hayman, A.R. Tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase (TRAP) and the osteoclast/immune cell dichotomy. Autoimmunity 2008, 41, 218–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hayman, A.R.; Jones, S.J.; Boyde, A.; Foster, D.; Colledge, W.H.; Carlton, M.B.; Evans, M.J.; Cox, T.M. Mice lacking tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase (Acp 5) have disrupted endochondral ossification and mild osteopetrosis. Development 1996, 122, 3151–3162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Marcoline, F.V.; Ishida, Y.; Mindell, J.A.; Nayak, S.; Grabe, M. A mathematical model of osteoclast acidification during bone resorption. Bone 2016, 93, 167–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Rousselle, A.V.; Heymann, D. Osteoclastic acidification pathways during bone resorption. Bone 2002, 30, 533–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Stenbeck, G. Formation and function of the ruffled border in osteoclasts. Semin. Cell Dev. Biol. 2002, 13, 285–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. O’Brien, C.A.; Nakashima, T.; Takayanagi, H. Osteocyte control of osteoclastogenesis. Bone 2013, 54, 258–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Hienz, S.A.; Paliwal, S.; Ivanovski, S. Mechanisms of bone resorption in periodontitis. J. Immunol. Res. 2015, 2015, 615486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Orcel, P.; Bielakoff, J.; de Vernejoul, M.C. Formation of multinucleated cells with osteoclast precursor features in human cord monocytes cultures. Anat. Rec. 1990, 226, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sugimoto, T.; Kanatani, M.; Kaji, H.; Yamaguchi, T.; Fukase, M.; Chihara, K. Second messenger signaling of PTH- and PTHRP-stimulated osteoclast-like cell formation from hemopoietic blast cells. Am. J. Physiol. 1993, 265, E367–E373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Reinke, D.C.; Kogawa, M.; Barratt, K.R.; Morris, H.A.; Anderson, P.H.; Atkins, G.J. Evidence for altered osteoclastogenesis in splenocyte cultures from Cyp27b1 knockout mice. J. Steroid. Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2016, 164, 353–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Raschke, W.C.; Baird, S.; Ralph, P.; Nakoinz, I. Functional macrophage cell lines transformed by Abelson leukemia virus. Cell 1978, 15, 261–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Shore, S.K.; Tantravahi, R.V.; Reddy, E.P. Transforming pathways activated by the v-Abl tyrosine kinase. Oncogene 2002, 21, 8568–8576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Collin-Osdoby, P.; Osdoby, P. RANKL-mediated osteoclast formation from murine RAW 264.7 cells. Methods Mol. Biol. 2012, 816, 187–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Cuetara, B.L.; Crotti, T.N.; O’Donoghue, A.J.; McHugh, K.P. Cloning and characterization of osteoclast precursors from the RAW264.7 cell line. In Vitr. Cell. Dev. Biol. Anim. 2006, 42, 182–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Ng, A.Y.; Tu, C.; Shen, S.; Xu, D.; Oursler, M.J.; Qu, J.; Yang, S. Comparative characterization of osteoclasts derived from murine bone marrow macrophages and RAW 264.7 cells using quantitative proteomics. JBMR Plus 2018, 2, 328–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Cheng, Y.; Liu, H.; Li, J.; Ma, Y.; Song, C.; Wang, Y.; Li, P.; Chen, Y.; Zhang, Z. Evaluation of culture conditions for osteoclastogenesis in RAW264.7 cells. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0277871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Choi, E.B.; Agidigbi, T.S.; Kang, I.S.; Kim, C. ERK inhibition increases RANKL-induced osteoclast differentiation in RAW 264.7 cells by stimulating AMPK activation and RANK expression and inhibiting anti-osteoclastogenic factor expression. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 13512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Seo, S.W.; Lee, D.; Minematsu, H.; Kim, A.D.; Shin, M.; Cho, S.K.; Kim, D.W.; Yang, J.; Lee, F.Y. Targeting extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK) signaling has therapeutic implications for inflammatory osteolysis. Bone 2010, 46, 695–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Oh, J.H.; Lee, J.Y.; Joung, S.H.; Oh, Y.T.; Kim, H.S.; Lee, N.K. Insulin enhances RANKL-induced osteoclastogenesis via ERK1/2 activation and induction of NFATc1 and Atp6v0d2. Cell. Signal. 2015, 27, 2325–2331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ihn, H.J.; Lee, D.; Lee, T.; Kim, S.H.; Shin, H.I.; Bae, Y.C.; Hong, J.M.; Park, E.K. Inhibitory effects of KP-A159, a thiazolopyridine drivative, on osteoclast differentiation, function, and inflammatory bone loss via suppression of RANKL-induced MAP Kinase signaling pathway. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0142201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Russo, R.; Mallia, S.; Zito, F.; Lampiasi, N. Long-lasting activity of ERK kinase depends on NFATc1 induction and is involved in cell migration-fusion in murine macrophages RAW264.7. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 8965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hotokezaka, H.; Sakai, E.; Kanaoka, K.; Saito, K.; Matsuo, K.; Kitaura, H.; Yoshida, N.; Nakayama, K. U0126 and PD98059, specific inhibitors of MEK, accelerate differentiation of RAW264.7 cells into osteoclast-like cells. J. Biol. Chem. 2002, 277, 47366–47372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Zhao, H.; Liu, X.; Zou, H.; Dai, N.; Yao, L.; Gao, Q.; Liu, W.; Gu, J.; Yuan, Y.; Bian, J.; et al. Osteoprotegerin induces podosome disassembly in osteoclasts through calcium, ERK, and p38 MAPK signaling pathways. Cytokine 2015, 71, 199–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Agidigbi, T.S.; Kang, I.S.; Kim, C. Inhibition of MEK/ERK upregulates GSH production and increases RANKL-induced osteoclast differentiation in RAW 264.7 cells. Free Radic. Res. 2020, 54, 894–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Robinson, M.J.; Cobb, M.H. Mitogen-activated protein kinase pathways. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 1997, 9, 180–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Chang, L.; Karin, M. Mammalian MAP kinase signalling cascades. Nature 2001, 410, 37–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Boulton, T.G.; Nye, S.H.; Robbins, D.J.; Ip, N.Y.; Radziejewska, E.; Morgenbesser, S.D.; DePinho, R.A.; Panayotatos, N.; Cobb, M.H.; Yancopoulos, G.D. ERKs: A family of protein-serine/threonine kinases that are activated and tyrosine phosphorylated in response to insulin and NGF. Cell 1991, 65, 663–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Lee, K.; Chung, Y.H.; Ahn, H.; Kim, H.; Rho, J.; Jeong, D. Selective regulation of MAPK signaling mediates RANKL-dependent osteoclast differentiation. Int. J. Biol. Sci. 2016, 12, 235–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lee, K.; Seo, I.; Choi, M.H.; Jeong, D. Roles of mitogen-activated protein kinases in osteoclast biology. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 3004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ross, F.P. M-CSF, c-Fms, and signaling in osteoclasts and their precursors. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2006, 1068, 110–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Wada, T.; Nakashima, T.; Hiroshi, N.; Penninger, J.M. RANKL-RANK signaling in osteoclastogenesis and bone disease. Trends Mol. Med. 2006, 12, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lefloch, R.; Pouyssegur, J.; Lenormand, P. Single and combined silencing of ERK1 and ERK2 reveals their positive contribution to growth signaling depending on their expression levels. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2008, 28, 511–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Busca, R.; Christen, R.; Lovern, M.; Clifford, A.M.; Yue, J.X.; Goss, G.G.; Pouyssegur, J.; Lenormand, P. ERK1 and ERK2 present functional redundancy in tetrapods despite higher evolution rate of ERK1. BMC Evol. Biol. 2015, 15, 179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Busca, R.; Pouyssegur, J.; Lenormand, P. ERK1 and ERK2 MAP kinases: Specific roles or functional redundancy? Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2016, 4, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Fremin, C.; Saba-El-Leil, M.K.; Levesque, K.; Ang, S.L.; Meloche, S. Functional redundancy of ERK1 and ERK2 MAP kinases during development. Cell Rep. 2015, 12, 913–921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Tanoue, T.; Adachi, M.; Moriguchi, T.; Nishida, E. A conserved docking motif in MAP kinases common to substrates, activators and regulators. Nat. Cell Biol. 2000, 2, 110–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Yoon, S.; Seger, R. The extracellular signal-regulated kinase: Multiple substrates regulate diverse cellular functions. Growth Factors 2006, 24, 21–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Bost, F.; Aouadi, M.; Caron, L.; Even, P.; Belmonte, N.; Prot, M.; Dani, C.; Hofman, P.; Pages, G.; Pouyssegur, J.; et al. The extracellular signal-regulated kinase isoform ERK1 is specifically required for in vitro and in vivo adipogenesis. Diabetes 2005, 54, 402–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Bourcier, C.; Jacquel, A.; Hess, J.; Peyrottes, I.; Angel, P.; Hofman, P.; Auberger, P.; Pouyssegur, J.; Pages, G. p44 mitogen-activated protein kinase (extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1)-dependent signaling contributes to epithelial skin carcinogenesis. Cancer Res. 2006, 66, 2700–2707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Guihard, S.; Clay, D.; Cocault, L.; Saulnier, N.; Opolon, P.; Souyri, M.; Pages, G.; Pouyssegur, J.; Porteu, F.; Gaudry, M. The MAPK ERK1 is a negative regulator of the adult steady-state splenic erythropoiesis. Blood 2010, 115, 3686–3694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Heffron, D.S.; Landreth, G.E.; Samuels, I.S.; Mandell, J.W. Brain-specific deletion of extracellular signal-regulated kinase 2 mitogen-activated protein kinase leads to aberrant cortical collagen deposition. Am. J. Pathol. 2009, 175, 2586–2599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Satoh, Y.; Endo, S.; Ikeda, T.; Yamada, K.; Ito, M.; Kuroki, M.; Hiramoto, T.; Imamura, O.; Kobayashi, Y.; Watanabe, Y.; et al. Extracellular signal-regulated kinase 2 (ERK2) knockdown mice show deficits in long-term memory; ERK2 has a specific function in learning and memory. J. Neurosci. 2007, 27, 10765–10776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Pages, G.; Guerin, S.; Grall, D.; Bonino, F.; Smith, A.; Anjuere, F.; Auberger, P.; Pouyssegur, J. Defective thymocyte maturation in p44 MAP kinase (Erk 1) knockout mice. Science 1999, 286, 1374–1377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Saba-El-Leil, M.K.; Vella, F.D.; Vernay, B.; Voisin, L.; Chen, L.; Labrecque, N.; Ang, S.L.; Meloche, S. An essential function of the mitogen-activated protein kinase Erk2 in mouse trophoblast development. EMBO Rep. 2003, 4, 964–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Hatano, N.; Mori, Y.; Oh-hora, M.; Kosugi, A.; Fujikawa, T.; Nakai, N.; Niwa, H.; Miyazaki, J.; Hamaoka, T.; Ogata, M. Essential role for ERK2 mitogen-activated protein kinase in placental development. Genes Cells 2003, 8, 847–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Yao, Y.; Li, W.; Wu, J.; Germann, U.A.; Su, M.S.; Kuida, K.; Boucher, D.M. Extracellular signal-regulated kinase 2 is necessary for mesoderm differentiation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2003, 100, 12759–12764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. He, Y.; Staser, K.; Rhodes, S.D.; Liu, Y.; Wu, X.; Park, S.J.; Yuan, J.; Yang, X.; Li, X.; Jiang, L.; et al. Erk1 positively regulates osteoclast differentiation and bone resorptive activity. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e24780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Matsushita, T.; Chan, Y.Y.; Kawanami, A.; Balmes, G.; Landreth, G.E.; Murakami, S. Extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1 (ERK1) and ERK2 play essential roles in osteoblast differentiation and in supporting osteoclastogenesis. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2009, 29, 5843–5857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Jiang, T.; Gong, Y.; Zhang, W.; Qiu, J.; Zheng, X.; Li, Z.; Yang, G.; Hong, Z. PD0325901, an ERK inhibitor, attenuates RANKL-induced osteoclast formation and mitigates cartilage inflammation by inhibiting the NF-kappaB and MAPK pathways. Bioorg. Chem. 2023, 132, 106321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Matsumoto, M.; Sudo, T.; Saito, T.; Osada, H.; Tsujimoto, M. Involvement of p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase signaling pathway in osteoclastogenesis mediated by receptor activator of NF-kappa B ligand (RANKL). J. Biol. Chem. 2000, 275, 31155–31161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Lee, Z.H.; Lee, S.E.; Kim, C.W.; Lee, S.H.; Kim, S.W.; Kwack, K.; Walsh, K.; Kim, H.H. IL-1alpha stimulation of osteoclast survival through the PI 3-kinase/Akt and ERK pathways. J. Biochem. 2002, 131, 161–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Chung, Y.H.; Choi, B.; Song, D.H.; Song, Y.; Kang, S.W.; Yoon, S.Y.; Kim, S.W.; Lee, H.K.; Chang, E.J. Interleukin-1beta promotes the LC3-mediated secretory function of osteoclast precursors by stimulating the Ca(2)(+)-dependent activation of ERK. Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol. 2014, 54, 198–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Feng, W.; Liu, H.; Luo, T.; Liu, D.; Du, J.; Sun, J.; Wang, W.; Han, X.; Yang, K.; Guo, J.; et al. Combination of IL-6 and sIL-6R differentially regulate varying levels of RANKL-induced osteoclastogenesis through NF-kappaB, ERK and JNK signaling pathways. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 41411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Okabe, I.; Kikuchi, T.; Mogi, M.; Takeda, H.; Aino, M.; Kamiya, Y.; Fujimura, T.; Goto, H.; Okada, K.; Hasegawa, Y.; et al. IL-15 and RANKL play a synergistically important role in osteoclastogenesis. J. Cell. Biochem. 2017, 118, 739–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Baud’huin, M.; Renault, R.; Charrier, C.; Riet, A.; Moreau, A.; Brion, R.; Gouin, F.; Duplomb, L.; Heymann, D. Interleukin-34 is expressed by giant cell tumours of bone and plays a key role in RANKL-induced osteoclastogenesis. J. Pathol. 2010, 221, 77–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Wang, F.; Min, H.S.; Shan, H.; Yin, F.; Jiang, C.; Zong, Y.; Ma, X.; Lin, Y.; Zhou, Z.; Yu, X. IL-34 aggravates steroid-induced osteonecrosis of the femoral head via promoting osteoclast differentiation. Immune Netw. 2022, 22, e25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Tsubaki, M.; Kato, C.; Isono, A.; Kaneko, J.; Isozaki, M.; Satou, T.; Itoh, T.; Kidera, Y.; Tanimori, Y.; Yanae, M.; et al. Macrophage inflammatory protein-1alpha induces osteoclast formation by activation of the MEK/ERK/c-Fos pathway and inhibition of the p38MAPK/IRF-3/IFN-beta pathway. J. Cell. Biochem. 2010, 111, 1661–1672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Lee, M.S.; Kim, H.S.; Yeon, J.T.; Choi, S.W.; Chun, C.H.; Kwak, H.B.; Oh, J. GM-CSF regulates fusion of mononuclear osteoclasts into bone-resorbing osteoclasts by activating the Ras/ERK pathway. J. Immunol. 2009, 183, 3390–3399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Lee, S.E.; Chung, W.J.; Kwak, H.B.; Chung, C.H.; Kwack, K.B.; Lee, Z.H.; Kim, H.H. Tumor necrosis factor-alpha supports the survival of osteoclasts through the activation of Akt and ERK. J. Biol. Chem. 2001, 276, 49343–49349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Kawaguchi, H.; Katagiri, M.; Chikazu, D. Osteoclastic bone resorption through receptor tyrosine kinase and extracellular signal-regulated kinase signaling in mature osteoclasts. Mod. Rheumatol. 2004, 14, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Wen, X.; Hu, G.; Xiao, X.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, Q.; Guo, H.; Li, X.; Liu, Q.; Li, H. FGF2 positively regulates osteoclastogenesis via activating the ERK-CREB pathway. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 2022, 727, 109348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Fong, D.; Bisson, M.; Laberge, G.; McManus, S.; Grenier, G.; Faucheux, N.; Roux, S. Bone morphogenetic protein-9 activates Smad and ERK pathways and supports human osteoclast function and survival in vitro. Cell. Signal. 2013, 25, 717–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Chen, Z.; Buki, K.; Vaaraniemi, J.; Gu, G.; Vaananen, H.K. The critical role of IL-34 in osteoclastogenesis. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e18689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Baghdadi, M.; Ishikawa, K.; Nakanishi, S.; Murata, T.; Umeyama, Y.; Kobayashi, T.; Kameda, Y.; Endo, H.; Wada, H.; Bogen, B.; et al. A role for IL-34 in osteolytic disease of multiple myeloma. Blood Adv. 2019, 3, 541–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Xu, J.; Fu, L.; Bai, J.; Zhong, H.; Kuang, Z.; Zhou, C.; Hu, B.; Ni, L.; Ying, L.; Chen, E.; et al. Low-dose IL-34 has no effect on osteoclastogenesis but promotes osteogenesis of hBMSCs partly via activation of the PI3K/AKT and ERK signaling pathways. Stem. Cell Res. Ther. 2021, 12, 268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Peng, M.; Wang, Y.; Qiang, L.; Xu, Y.; Li, C.; Li, T.; Zhou, X.; Xiao, M.; Wang, J. Interleukin-35 inhibits TNF-alpha-induced osteoclastogenesis and promotes apoptosis via shifting the activation from TNF receptor-associated death domain (TRADD)-TRAF2 to TRADD-Fas-associated death domain by JAK1/STAT1. Front. Immunol. 2018, 9, 1417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Kamiya, Y.; Kikuchi, T.; Goto, H.; Okabe, I.; Takayanagi, Y.; Suzuki, Y.; Sawada, N.; Okabe, T.; Suzuki, Y.; Kondo, S.; et al. IL-35 and RANKL synergistically induce osteoclastogenesis in RAW264.7 mouse monocytic cells. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 2069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Wei, S.; Wang, M.W.; Teitelbaum, S.L.; Ross, F.P. Interleukin-4 reversibly inhibits osteoclastogenesis via inhibition of NF-kappa B and mitogen-activated protein kinase signaling. J. Biol. Chem. 2002, 277, 6622–6630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Houde, N.; Chamoux, E.; Bisson, M.; Roux, S. Transforming growth factor-beta1 (TGF-beta1) induces human osteoclast apoptosis by up-regulating Bim. J. Biol. Chem. 2009, 284, 23397–23404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Yan, J.; Chen, S.; Zhang, Y.; Li, X.; Li, Y.; Wu, X.; Yuan, J.; Robling, A.G.; Kapur, R.; Chan, R.J.; et al. Rac1 mediates the osteoclast gains-in-function induced by haploinsufficiency of Nf1. Hum. Mol. Genet. 2008, 17, 936–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Oh, J.H.; Lee, J.Y.; Park, J.H.; No, J.H.; Lee, N.K. Obatoclax regulates the proliferation and fusion of osteoclast precursors through the inhibition of ERK activation by RANKL. Mol. Cells 2015, 38, 279–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Miyazaki, T.; Katagiri, H.; Kanegae, Y.; Takayanagi, H.; Sawada, Y.; Yamamoto, A.; Pando, M.P.; Asano, T.; Verma, I.M.; Oda, H.; et al. Reciprocal role of ERK and NF-kappaB pathways in survival and activation of osteoclasts. J. Cell Biol. 2000, 148, 333–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Nakamura, H.; Hirata, A.; Tsuji, T.; Yamamoto, T. Role of osteoclast extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK) in cell survival and maintenance of cell polarity. J. Bone Miner. Res. 2003, 18, 1198–1205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Lampiasi, N.; Russo, R.; Kireev, I.; Strelkova, O.; Zhironkina, O.; Zito, F. Osteoclasts differentiation from murine RAW 264.7 cells stimulated by RANKL: Timing and Behavior. Biology 2021, 10, 117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Fang, C.; He, M.; Li, D.; Xu, Q. YTHDF2 mediates LPS-induced osteoclastogenesis and inflammatory response via the NF-kappaB and MAPK signaling pathways. Cell. Signal. 2021, 85, 110060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Fu, Y.; Gu, J.; Wang, Y.; Yuan, Y.; Liu, X.; Bian, J.; Liu, Z. Involvement of the mitogen-activated protein kinase signaling pathway in osteoprotegerin-induced inhibition of osteoclast differentiation and maturation. Mol. Med. Rep. 2015, 12, 6939–6945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Zhou, G.; Bao, Z.Q.; Dixon, J.E. Components of a new human protein kinase signal transduction pathway. J. Biol. Chem. 1995, 270, 12665–12669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Nishimoto, S.; Nishida, E. MAPK signalling: ERK5 versus ERK1/2. EMBO Rep. 2006, 7, 782–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Wang, X.; Merritt, A.J.; Seyfried, J.; Guo, C.; Papadakis, E.S.; Finegan, K.G.; Kayahara, M.; Dixon, J.; Boot-Handford, R.P.; Cartwright, E.J.; et al. Targeted deletion of mek5 causes early embryonic death and defects in the extracellular signal-regulated kinase 5/myocyte enhancer factor 2 cell survival pathway. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2005, 25, 336–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Hayashi, M.; Kim, S.W.; Imanaka-Yoshida, K.; Yoshida, T.; Abel, E.D.; Eliceiri, B.; Yang, Y.; Ulevitch, R.J.; Lee, J.D. Targeted deletion of BMK1/ERK5 in adult mice perturbs vascular integrity and leads to endothelial failure. J. Clin. Investig. 2004, 113, 1138–1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Amano, S.; Chang, Y.T.; Fukui, Y. ERK5 activation is essential for osteoclast differentiation. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0125054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Kaneshiro, S.; Otsuki, D.; Yoshida, K.; Yoshikawa, H.; Higuchi, C. MEK5 suppresses osteoblastic differentiation. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2015, 463, 241–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Ding, N.; Geng, B.; Li, Z.; Yang, Q.; Yan, L.; Wan, L.; Zhang, B.; Wang, C.; Xia, Y. Fluid shear stress promotes osteoblast proliferation through the NFATc1-ERK5 pathway. Connect. Tissue Res. 2019, 60, 107–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Iezaki, T.; Fukasawa, K.; Horie, T.; Park, G.; Robinson, S.; Nakaya, M.; Fujita, H.; Onishi, Y.; Ozaki, K.; Kanayama, T.; et al. The MAPK Erk5 is necessary for proper skeletogenesis involving a Smurf-Smad-Sox9 molecular axis. Development 2018, 145, dev164004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Loveridge, C.J.; van ‘t Hof, R.J.; Charlesworth, G.; King, A.; Tan, E.H.; Rose, L.; Daroszewska, A.; Prior, A.; Ahmad, I.; Welsh, M.; et al. Analysis of Nkx3.1:Cre-driven Erk5 deletion reveals a profound spinal deformity which is linked to increased osteoclast activity. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 13241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Li, X.; Udagawa, N.; Itoh, K.; Suda, K.; Murase, Y.; Nishihara, T.; Suda, T.; Takahashi, N. p38 MAPK-mediated signals are required for inducing osteoclast differentiation but not for osteoclast function. Endocrinology 2002, 143, 3105–3113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Cong, Q.; Jia, H.; Li, P.; Qiu, S.; Yeh, J.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, Z.L.; Ao, J.; Li, B.; Liu, H. p38alpha MAPK regulates proliferation and differentiation of osteoclast progenitors and bone remodeling in an aging-dependent manner. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 45964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Mansky, K.C.; Marfatia, K.; Purdom, G.H.; Luchin, A.; Hume, D.A.; Ostrowski, M.C. The microphthalmia transcription factor (MITF) contains two N-terminal domains required for transactivation of osteoclast target promoters and rescue of mi mutant osteoclasts. J. Leukoc. Biol. 2002, 71, 295–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Bohm, C.; Hayer, S.; Kilian, A.; Zaiss, M.M.; Finger, S.; Hess, A.; Engelke, K.; Kollias, G.; Kronke, G.; Zwerina, J.; et al. The alpha-isoform of p38 MAPK specifically regulates arthritic bone loss. J. Immunol. 2009, 183, 5938–5947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Ikeda, F.; Matsubara, T.; Tsurukai, T.; Hata, K.; Nishimura, R.; Yoneda, T. JNK/c-Jun signaling mediates an anti-apoptotic effect of RANKL in osteoclasts. J. Bone Miner. Res. 2008, 23, 907–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Otero, J.E.; Dai, S.; Foglia, D.; Alhawagri, M.; Vacher, J.; Pasparakis, M.; Abu-Amer, Y. Defective osteoclastogenesis by IKKbeta-null precursors is a result of receptor activator of NF-kappaB ligand (RANKL)-induced JNK-dependent apoptosis and impaired differentiation. J. Biol. Chem. 2008, 283, 24546–24553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. David, J.P.; Sabapathy, K.; Hoffmann, O.; Idarraga, M.H.; Wagner, E.F. JNK1 modulates osteoclastogenesis through both c-Jun phosphorylation-dependent and -independent mechanisms. J. Cell Sci. 2002, 115, 4317–4325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Chang, E.J.; Ha, J.; Huang, H.; Kim, H.J.; Woo, J.H.; Lee, Y.; Lee, Z.H.; Kim, J.H.; Kim, H.H. The JNK-dependent CaMK pathway restrains the reversion of committed cells during osteoclast differentiation. J. Cell Sci. 2008, 121, 2555–2564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Yi, T.; Lee, H.L.; Cha, J.H.; Ko, S.I.; Kim, H.J.; Shin, H.I.; Woo, K.M.; Ryoo, H.M.; Kim, G.S.; Baek, J.H. Epidermal growth factor receptor regulates osteoclast differentiation and survival through cross-talking with RANK signaling. J. Cell Physiol. 2008, 217, 409–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Ihn, H.J.; Kim, J.A.; Bae, Y.C.; Shin, H.I.; Baek, M.C.; Park, E.K. Afatinib ameliorates osteoclast differentiation and function through downregulation of RANK signaling pathways. BMB Rep. 2017, 50, 150–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ijms 24 15342 g001
Figure 1. The contrasting roles of ERK1/2 in OC differentiation. ERK1/2 have been reported to regulate OC differentiation positively and negatively. ERK1/2 positively regulate M-CSF and RNAKL-induced OC differentiation in BMMs. However, inhibition of ERK1/2 increases RANKL-induced OC differentiation in RAW 264.7 cells.
Figure 1. The contrasting roles of ERK1/2 in OC differentiation. ERK1/2 have been reported to regulate OC differentiation positively and negatively. ERK1/2 positively regulate M-CSF and RNAKL-induced OC differentiation in BMMs. However, inhibition of ERK1/2 increases RANKL-induced OC differentiation in RAW 264.7 cells.
Ijms 24 15342 g001
Table 1. Differences between bone marrow macrophage-derived osteoclast (BMM-OC) and RAW 264.7 cell-derived osteoclast (RAW-OC).
Table 1. Differences between bone marrow macrophage-derived osteoclast (BMM-OC) and RAW 264.7 cell-derived osteoclast (RAW-OC).
BMM-OCRAW-OCReferences
v-Abl expressionNoYes[29,30]
Cytokine requirement for differentiationM-CSF and RANKLRANKL[3,31,34,35]
Increased gene expressionACTC1, AP-1, ATP6v0d2, CAH, CARD10, COF2, CTSK, ENDOG, FN1, GIT1, ITGAV, ITGβ3, JUNB, MCL1, MMP9, MYP2, NFATc1, NF-κB2, OSCAR, PXN, RPA2, RRAS, SRC, TPM2, TRAPATP6v0d2, AP-1, CAH, CDK6, DAP12, FRA2, GAB2, GSN, ITGAX, JUNB, MCM3 and -5, MMP9, NFATc1, PCNA, POLD1, RELA, SRC, TRAP[33]
Decreased gene expressionBLNK, CDC2, CDK1, ERK1, FCRγ, c-FMS, IQGAP2, ITGA6, LIG1, MCM2, -3, and -4, NFATc2, NF-κB1, PCNA, POLE3, p90RSK, RELA, RPA1 and -3, TK1, TREM2BLNK, FCRγ, c-FMS, PI3K[33]
Apoptosis at 5 days 16 h78%42%[33]
ERK inhibitioninhibits OC differentiation [35,36,37,38]
inhibits OC differentiation[39]
enhances OC differentiation[35,40,41,42]
Table 2. Isoforms of ERK family members and their inhibitors.
Table 2. Isoforms of ERK family members and their inhibitors.
ERK IsoformsOther NamesGene Names (Human)Gene Names (Mouse)Inhibitors
Typical ERKsERK1MAPK3, p44 MAPKMAPK3Mapk3FR180204, LY3214996 (Temuterkib), PD0325091, PD0325901 (Mirdametinib), PD98059, Selumetinib, U0126
ERK2MAPK1, p42 MAPKMAPK1Mapk1FR180204, LY3214996, PD0325091, PD0325901, PD98059, Selumetinib, U0126
ERK5BMK1, MAPK7MAPK7Mapk7BIX02188, BIX02188, XMD8-92
Atypical ERKsERK3ERK6, MAPK6, MAPK12MAPK6, MAPK12Mapk4
ERK4MAPK4, p63 MAPKMAPK4Mapk4
ERK7/8MAPK15MAPK15Mapk15 (rat)
Table 3. Effects of ERK1 and ERK2 in RANKL-induced OC differentiation.
Table 3. Effects of ERK1 and ERK2 in RANKL-induced OC differentiation.
ERK IsoformsCellsCytokinesMethodsEffect on OC FormationOC-Specific Gene ExpressionReferences
ERK1/2BMMsM-CSF + RANKLGene deletionERK1: positive
ERK2: ns *		 [65]
ERK1/2BMMsM-CSF + RANKLPD98059,
U0126		ERK1/2: positive [35]
ERK1/2BMMsM-CSF + RANKLPD0235901ERK1/2: positiveACP5, V-ATPase D2, CTSK, DC-STAMP, c-Fos, NFATc1[67]
ERK1/2BMMsM-CSF + RANKLPD98059ERK1/2: no effect [68]
ERK2RAW 264.7RANKLERK2 siRNAERK2: negativeCTSK, DC-STAMP, NFATc1[35]
ERK1/2RAW 264.7M-CSF + RANKLPD98059ERK1/2: no effect [68]
ERK1/2RAW 264.7RANKLPD98059,
U0126		ERK1/2: negativeCTR, CTSK, DC-STAMP, NFATc1, TRAP[40]
[42]
[35]
ERK1/2RAW 264.7M-CSF + RANKLU0126ERK1/2: ns [41]
ERK1/2RAW 264.7RANKLFR180204ERK1/2: positiveupregulation: CTSK (ns), TRAF6 (ns)
downregulation: DC-STAMP, MMP9, NFATc1, TRAP		[39]
PD98059upregulation: NFATc1 (ns), TRAP (ns)
downregulation: CTSK (ns), MMP9 (ns)
* ns: not statistically significant.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kim, C. Extracellular Signal-Regulated Kinases Play Essential but Contrasting Roles in Osteoclast Differentiation. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 15342. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms242015342

AMA Style

Kim C. Extracellular Signal-Regulated Kinases Play Essential but Contrasting Roles in Osteoclast Differentiation. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2023; 24(20):15342. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms242015342

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kim, Chaekyun. 2023. "Extracellular Signal-Regulated Kinases Play Essential but Contrasting Roles in Osteoclast Differentiation" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 24, no. 20: 15342. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms242015342

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop