Bone Development: Overview of Bone Cells and Signaling

  • Anna Teti
Pediatrics and Skeletal Development (Craig Langman and Maria Luisa Bianchi, Section Editors)


Vertebrates evolved elaborating a structure made up of more than 200 bones and cartilages articulated with one another to form the skeleton, through which locomotion, organ protection, lodging of hematopoiesis, and mineral homeostasis are allowed. Skeletogenesis starts at the fetal stage, along with marrow hematopoiesis, and evolves postnatally through modeling and remodeling processes that permit skeletal mass buildup. Preservation of skeletal mass is then implemented by balanced remodeling, which ensures continuous renovation of the tissue to allow its mechanical, structural, and metabolic properties to remain unaltered until ageing or diseases disrupt this equilibrium. Skeletal homeostasis is fulfilled by specialized bone cells in association with systemic and local regulators. Herein I review landmark discoveries that shed light on the intricate mesh connecting bone cells among themselves and with other systems, thus representing the cellular basis of normal and abnormal bone development and homeostasis.


Bone development Osteoblast Osteocyte Osteoclast Cell signaling Bone turnover Hormonal regulation 



No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Gray H. Anatomy of the Human Body. Available at
  2. 2.
    Bone Health and Osteoporosis. A Report of the Surgeon General. Available at
  3. 3.
    Gilbert SF. The paraxial and intermediate mesoderm. In: Gilbert SF, editor. Developmental Biology, 6th edition. Chapter 14. Sunderland (MA): Sinauer Associates; 2000. p. 465–90.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shapiro F. Bone development and its relation to fracture repair. The role of mesenchymal osteoblasts and surface osteoblasts. Eur Cell Mater. 2008;15:53–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gentry SD, Bramblett CA. The Anatomy and Biology of the Human Skeleton. Texas A&M University Press; 1988, 4.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Seeman E. Bone modeling and remodeling. Crit Rev Eukaryot Gene Expr. 2009;19:219–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Robling AG, Turner CH. Mechanical signaling for bone modeling and remodeling. Crit Rev Eukaryot Gene Expr. 2009;19:319–38.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Feng X, McDonald JM. Disorders of bone remodeling. Annu Rev Pathol. 2011;6:121–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wang J, Zhou J, Cheng CM, et al. Evidence supporting dual, IGF-I-independent and IGF-I-dependent, roles for GH in promoting longitudinal bone growth. J Endocrinol. 2004;180:247–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gogakos AI, Duncan Bassett JH, Williams GR. Thyroid and bone. Arch Biochem Biophys. 2010;503:129–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Agrawal M, Zhu G, Sun L, Zaidi M, Iqbal J. The role of FSH and TSH in bone loss and its clinical relevance. Curr Osteoporos Rep. 2010;8:205–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Falahati-Nini A, Riggs BL, Atkinson EJ, et al. Relative contributions of testosterone and estrogen in regulating bone resorption and formation in normal elderly men. J Clin Invest. 2000;106:1553–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Clarke BL, Khosla S. Female reproductive system and bone. Arch Biochem Biophys. 2010;503:118–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    De Benedetti F, Rucci N, Del Fattore A, et al. Impaired skeletal development in interleukin-6-transgenic mice: a model for the impact of chronic inflammation on the growing skeletal system. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;54:3551–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hoshino K, Hanyu T, Arai K, Takahashi HE. Mineral density and histomorphometric assessment of bone changes in the proximal tibia early after induction of type II collagen-induced arthritis in growing and mature rats. J Bone Miner Metab. 2001;19:76–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kitamura H, Kawata H, Takahashi F, et al. Bone marrow neutrophilia and suppressed bone turnover in human interleukin-6 transgenic mice: a cellular relationship among hematopoietic cells, osteoblasts, and osteoclasts mediated by stromal cells in bone marrow. Am J Pathol. 1995;147:1682–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sims NA, Jenkins BJ, Quinn JM, et al. Glycoprotein 130 regulates bone turnover and bone size by distinct downstream signaling pathways. J Clin Invest. 2004;113:379–89.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Matthews JL, Talmage RV, Martin JH, Davis WL. Osteoblasts, bone lining cells, and the bone fluid compartment. In: Meunier PU, editor. Bone Histomorphometry. London: Springer; 1977. p. 242.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Verborgt O, Gibson GJ, Schaffler MB. Loss of osteocyte integrity in association with microdamage and bone remodeling after fatigue in vivo. J Bone Miner Res. 2000;15:60–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Emerton KB, Hu B, Woo AA, et al. Osteocyte apoptosis and control of bone resorption following ovariectomy in mice. Bone. 2010;46:577–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Verborgt O, Tatton NA, Majeska RJ, Schaffler MB. Spatial distribution of Bax and Bcl-2 in osteocytes after bone fatigue: complementary roles in bone remodeling regulation? J Bone Miner Res. 2002;17:907–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    • Mulcahy LE, Taylor D, Lee TC, Duffy GP. RANKL and OPG activity is regulated by injury size in networks of osteocyte-like cells. Bone. 2011;48:182–8. This paper focuses on microdamage and uses a bone environment simulated in culture in which MLO-Y4 osteocyte-like cells were embedded in gel to form a network that could be subjected to planar, crack-like defects of constant area and varying thickness. The results showed that RANKL increased and osteoprotegerin decreased depending on injury size and time following application. The work demonstrates that injury alone suffices to induce changes in osteoclastogenic cytokine concentrations.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hanada R, Hanada T, Penninger JM. Physiology and pathophysiology of the RANKL/RANK system. Biol Chem. 2010;391:1365–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    •• Ishii T, Shimazu Y, Nishiyama I, Kikuta J, Ishii M. The role of sphingosine 1-phosphate in migration of osteoclast precursors; an application of intravital two-photon microscopy. Mol Cells. 2011; 31:399–403. The paper demonstrates that S1P controls the trafficking of osteoclast precursors between the circulation and bone marrow cavities via G protein–coupled receptors (S1PRs). While S1PR1 activates chemoattraction toward S1P in bone marrow, where S1P concentration is low, S1PR2 induces chemorepulsion in blood, where S1P concentration is high. The work made use of intravital multiphoton imaging of bone tissues, which enabled in situ visualization of cell behaviors in intact tissue. Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yu X, Huang Y, Collin-Osdoby P, Osdoby P. Stromal cell-derived factor-1 (SDF-1) recruits osteoclast precursors by inducing chemotaxis, matrix metalloproteinase-9 (MMP-9) activity, and collagen transmigration. J Bone Miner Res. 2003;18:1404–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kim MS, Day CJ, Morrison NA. MCP-1 is induced by receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB ligand, promotes human osteoclast fusion, and rescues granulocyte macrophage colony stimulating factor suppression of osteoclast formation. J Biol Chem. 2005;280:16163–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yu X, Huang Y, Collin-Osdoby P, Osdoby P. CCR1 chemokines promote the chemotactic recruitment, RANKL development, and motility of osteoclasts and are induced by inflammatory cytokines in osteoblasts. J Bone Miner Res. 2004;19:2065–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    • Peruzzi B, Teti A. The physiology and pathophysiology of the osteoclasts. Clinic Rev Bone Miner Metab. Epub 2011 Apr 2. This article expands the concepts associated with the pathophysiology of the osteoclasts, providing up-to-date information on their function and involvement in bone diseases. Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    • Novack DV, Faccio R. Osteoclast motility: putting the brakes on bone resorption. Ageing Res Rev. 2011;10:54–61. This review discusses the signaling complexes assembled by α v β 3 integrin, M-CSF, and the immunoreceptor tyrosine-based activation motif receptor DAP12 at the membrane, and their downstream mediators that control osteoclast motility and function via the cytoskeleton.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    • Zou W, Teitelbaum SL. Integrins, growth factors, and the osteoclast cytoskeleton. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2010;1192:27–31. This review discusses the role of α v β 3 integrin and the downstream signaling in the secretory lysosome insertion into the osteoclast bone-facing plasma membrane to form the ruffled border. It also describes how integrin/bone recognition promotes formation of actin rings, isolating the resorbing lacuna from the general extracellular space.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    •• Schmidt S, Nakchbandi I, Ruppert R, et al. Kindlin-3-mediated signaling from multiple integrin classes is required for osteoclast-mediated bone resorption. J Cell Biol. 2011;192:883–97. This paper describes the role of the blood cell–specific kindlin-3 protein in osteoclast cytoskeletal remodeling and podosome formation. Kindlin-3–deficient mice were shown to develop severe osteopetrosis because of profound adhesion and spreading defects in osteoclasts. Loss of kindlin-3 impaired the activation of β 1 , β 2 , and β 3 integrin complexes expressed by osteoclasts, which in turn prevented podosome and sealing zone formation required for bone resorption.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wadas TJ, Deng H, Sprague JE, et al. Targeting the alphavbeta3 integrin for small-animal PET/CT of osteolytic bone metastases. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:1873–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nakamura I, Duong LT, Rodan SB, Rodan GA. Involvement of alphaVbeta3 integrins in osteoclast function. J Bone Miner Metab. 2007;25:337–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Marchisio PC, Cirillo D, Naldini L, et al. Cell-substratum interaction of cultured avian osteoclasts is mediated by specific adhesion structures. J Cell Biol. 1984;99:1696–705.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jurdic P, Saltel F, Chabadel A, Destaing O. Podosome and sealing zone: specificity of the osteoclast model. Eur J Cell Biol. 2006;85:195–202.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Teitelbaum SL, Ross FP. Genetic regulation of osteoclast development and function. Nat Rev Genet. 2003;4:638–49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Del Fattore A, Teti A, Rucci N. Osteoclast receptors and signaling. Arch Biochem Biophys. 2008;473:147–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    George S, Brenner A, Sarantopoulos J, Bukowski RM. RANK ligand: effects of inhibition. Curr Oncol Rep. 2010;12:80–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Raisz LG. Physiology and pathophysiology of bone remodeling. Clin Chem. 1999;45:1353–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pevsner-Fischer M, Levin S, Zipori D. The origins of mesenchymal stromal cell heterogeneity. Stem Cell Rev. 2011; Epub Jan 14.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ziros PG, Basdra EK, Papavassiliou AG. Runx2: of bone and stretch. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 2008;40:1659–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Henriksen K, Neutzsky-Wulff AV, Bonewald LF, Karsdal MA. Local communication on and within bone controls bone remodeling. Bone. 2009;44:1026–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    •• Rachner TD, Khosla S, Hofbauer LC. Osteoporosis: now and the future. Lancet. 2011;377:1276–87. This review describes the novel treatment strategies that have been developed to inhibit excessive bone resorption and increase bone formation. It discusses the most promising novel treatments, including denosumab, a monoclonal antibody for RANKL; odanacatib, a specific inhibitor of the osteoclast cysteine-proteinase cathepsin K; and antibodies against sclerostin and dickkopf-1, two inhibitors of bone formation.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Moester MJ, Papapoulos SE, Löwik CW, van Bezooijen RL. Sclerostin: current knowledge and future perspectives. Calcif Tissue Int. 2010;87:99–107.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Civitelli R. Cell-cell communication in the osteoblast/osteocyte lineage. Arch Biochem Biophys. 2008;473:188–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sims NA, Gooi JH. Bone remodeling: Multiple cellular interactions required for coupling of bone formation and resorption. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2008;19:444–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Fukumoto S, Martin TJ. Bone as an endocrine organ. Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2009;20:230–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    • Teti A, Zallone A. Do osteocytes contribute to bone mineral homeostasis? Osteocytic osteolysis revisited. Bone. 2009;44:11–6. This paper provides current views on what is known about the ability of osteocytes to mobilize bone mineral. It is a re-examination of osteocytic osteolysis that might stimulate new interest and open new perspectives on osteocyte biology and the cellular mechanisms that control bone homeostasis.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    • Powell Jr WF, Barry KJ, Tulum I, et al. Targeted ablation of the PTH/PTHrP receptor in osteocytes impairs bone structure and homeostatic calcemic responses. J Endocrinol. 2011;209:21–32. To understand the role of PTH signaling through the PTH/PTHrP receptors (PPR) in osteocytes and to determine the role(s) of these cells in mediating the effects of the hormone, in this paper, mice in which PPR expression was specifically ablated in osteocytes were generated. The mice showed a mild osteopenia associated with an increase in Sost and sclerostin expression. When PPR knockout mice were subjected to a low-calcium diet to induce secondary hyperparathyroidism, their blood calcium levels were lower than those of controls, and PTH did not suppress Sost and sclerostin expression in these animals, suggesting an important role for PTH signaling in osteocytes for bone remodeling and calcium homeostasis.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Xia X, Batra N, Shi Q, et al. Prostaglandin promotion of osteocyte gap junction function through transcriptional regulation of connexin 43 by glycogen synthase kinase 3/beta-catenin signaling. Mol Cell Biol. 2010;30:206–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    • Temiyasathit S, Jacobs CR. Osteocyte primary cilium and its role in bone mechanotransduction. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2010;1192:422–8. Primary cilia have been shown to be critical in development and have been implicated in mechanosensing in various tissue types, including liver and kidney. In this review, the authors discuss the potential role for primary cilia in bone mechanotransduction and underscore possible developments for future study.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Harris SE, Gluhak-Heinrich J, Harris MA, et al. DMP1 and MEPE expression are elevated in osteocytes after mechanical loading in vivo: theoretical role in controlling mineral quality in the perilacunar matrix. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact. 2007;7:313–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    •• Busse B, Djonic D, Milovanovic P, et al. Decrease in the osteocyte lacunar density accompanied by hypermineralized lacunar occlusion reveals failure and delay of remodeling in aged human bone. Aging Cell. 2010;9:1065–75. Ageing impacts bone resistance and mechanical properties. The authors observed intralacunar hypermineralization accompanied by a decrease in total osteocyte lacunar density in aged bones, which may contribute to failure or delayed bone repair in older adults. They concluded that a decreased osteocyte lacunar density is deleterious for canalicular fluid flow, reducing the detection of microdamages. They also hypothesize that hypermineralized osteocyte lacunae may increase bone brittleness and render the bone fragile.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    • Bonewald LF. The amazing osteocyte. J Bone Miner Res. 2011;26:229–38. This is an updated and comprehensive review on the many roles played by osteocytes in bone homeostasis.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Rodan GA, Martin TJ. Role of osteoblasts in hormonal control of bone resorption—a hypothesis. Calcif Tissue Int. 1981;33:349–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Silve CM, Hradek GT, Jones AL, Arnaud CD. Parathyroid hormone receptor in intact embryonic chicken bone: characterization and cellular localization. J Cell Biol. 1982;94:379–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Arriagada G, Henriquez B, Moena D, et al. Recruitment and subnuclear distribution of the regulatory machinery during 1alpha,25-dihydroxy vitamin D3-mediated transcriptional upregulation in osteoblasts. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2010;121:156–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Martin TJ, Sims NA. Osteoclast-derived activity in the coupling of bone formation to resorption. Trends Mol Med. 2005;11:76–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ryu J, Kim HJ, Chang EJ, et al. Sphingosine 1-phosphate as a regulator of osteoclast differentiation and osteoclast-osteoblast coupling. EMBO J. 2006;25:5840–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Del Fattore A, Fornari R, Van Wesenbeeck L, et al. A new heterozygous mutation (R714C) of the osteopetrosis gene, pleckstrin homolog domain containing family M (with run domain) member 1 (PLEKHM1), impairs vesicular acidification and increases TRACP secretion in osteoclasts. J Bone Miner Res. 2008;23:380–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Zhao C, Irie N, Takada Y, et al. Bidirectional ephrinB2-EphB4 signaling controls bone homeostasis. Cell Metab. 2006;4:111–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    • Teti A, Eastell R. The central role of the skeleton in chronic diseases. Arch Biochem Biophys. 2010;503:1–160. This is a special issue in which all articles were dedicated to the interaction between bone and all other systems of the body. It provides a comprehensive view of the changes occurring in chronic diseases in which the skeleton plays prominent roles.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Drüeke TB. Klotho, FGF23, and FGF receptors in chronic kidney disease: a yin-yang situation? Kidney Int. 2010;78:1057–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Silver J, Naveh-Many T. FGF23 and the parathyroid glands. Pediatr Nephrol. 2010;25:2241–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Stubbs JR, Egwuonwu S. Is fibroblast growth factor 23 a harbinger of mortality in CKD? Pediatr Nephrol. 2011; Mar 10 [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Lu Y, Feng JQ. FGF23 in skeletal modeling and remodeling. Curr Osteoporos Rep. 2011;9:103–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Wolf G. Function of the bone protein osteocalcin: definitive evidence. Nutr Rev. 1996;54:332–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    •• Fulzele K, Riddle RC, DiGirolamo DJ, et al. Insulin receptor signaling in osteoblasts regulates postnatal bone acquisition and body composition. Cell. 2010;142:309–19. This and the following paper opened up a new discipline in which the hormonal role of osteocalcin is highlighted. Here, it is demonstrated that in its undercarboxylated, hormonal form, osteocalcin regulates fat deposition and is a potent insulin secretagogue. Insulin receptor signaling is activated in osteoblasts and controls osteoblast development and osteocalcin expression by suppressing the Runx2 inhibitor Twist2. The results indicate the existence of a bone–pancreas endocrine loop through which insulin signaling in the osteoblast ensures osteoblast differentiation and stimulates osteocalcin production, which in turn regulates insulin sensitivity and pancreatic insulin secretion.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    •• Ferron M, Wei J, Yoshizawa T, et al. Insulin signaling in osteoblasts integrates bone remodeling and energy metabolism. Cell. 2010;142:296–308. Published back-to-back with the previous paper, in this work, the loop regulating energy expenditure through osteocalcin is fully confirmed. The authors demonstrated that insulin signaling in osteoblasts is necessary for glucose metabolism because it increases osteocalcin activity. To achieve this function, insulin signaling in osteoblasts reduces osteoprotegerin expression, stimulating osteoclastic bone resorption. Because bone resorption occurs at acidic pH, which decarboxylates proteins, osteoclasts determine the carboxylation status and function of osteocalcin. Therefore, insulin signaling in osteoblasts regulates glucose metabolism in a bone resorption–dependent manner.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    •• Oury F, Sumara G, Sumara O, et al. Endocrine regulation of male fertility by the skeleton. Cell. 2011;144:796–809. In this paper, the hormonal role of osteocalcin is extended to the regulation of male fertility. The authors showed that osteoblasts induce testosterone production by the testis, while they do not change estrogen production by the ovary. Analyses of cell-specific loss-of-function and gain-of-function models revealed that osteocalcin performs this endocrine function. By binding to a G protein–coupled receptor expressed in the Leydig cells of the testes, osteocalcin regulates in a CREB-dependent manner the expression of enzymes that are required for testosterone synthesis, promoting germ cell survival. This study expands the physiologic roles of osteocalcin and provides the first evidence that the skeleton is an endocrine regulator of reproduction.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Del Fattore A, Capannolo M, Rucci N. Bone and bone marrow: the same organ. Arch Biochem Biophys. 2010;503:28–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    •• Yadav VK, Ryu JH, Suda N, Tanaka KF, Gingrich JA, Schütz G, et al. Lrp5 controls bone formation by inhibiting serotonin synthesis in the duodenum. Cell. 2008;135:825–37. This article, along with that by Cui et al. [73••], is very controversial. This paper supports the concept that the effect of LPRP5 in bone is not direct but rather mediated by gut serotonin, with a mechanism independent of brain serotonin that does not cross the blood–brain barrier. The paper by Cui et al. [73••] confutes this hypothesis and supports the concept of a direct role of LRP5 in bone cells. Both studies make use of genetic approaches and complex animal models and also allude to human diseases. This is one of the most powerful controversies in the bone field in recent years and will require further studies, preferably conducted by independent groups.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    •• Cui Y, Niziolek PJ, Macdonald BT, Zylstra CR, Alenina N, Robinson DR, et al. Lrp5 functions in bone to regulate bone mass. Nat Med. 2011;17:684–91. This article, along with that by Yadav et al, [72••], is very controversial. This paper confutes the hypothesis by Yadav et al. [72••] and supports the concept of a direct role of LRP5 in bone cells. Both studies make use of genetic approaches and complex animal models and also allude to human diseases.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    • Warman ML, Cormier-Daire V, Hall C, Krakow D, Lachman R, LeMerrer M, et al. Nosology and classification of genetic skeletal disorders: 2010 revision. Am J Med Genet A. 2011;155A:943–68. This article is a comprehensive analysis of all the clinically recognized genetic skeletal diseases. It describes 456 diseases separated into 40 groups according to common affected molecules or biochemical pathways. It updates previous nosologic analysis using well-defined criteria. It was created by an expert group nominated ad hoc by the International Skeletal Dysplasia Society, which ensured adequate representation of clinical, radiologic, and molecular expertise. The paper is very useful for clinicians to help correct diagnosis, and for scientists involved in the medical genetics of skeletal diseases.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Experimental MedicineUniversity of L’AquilaL’AquilaItaly

Personalised recommendations