Download PDF

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 472, Issue 2, pp 396–404 | Cite as

Osteogenic Gene Expression Correlates With Development of Heterotopic Ossification in War Wounds

  • Korboi N. Evans
  • Benjamin K. Potter
  • Trevor S. Brown
  • Thomas A. Davis
  • Eric A. Elster
  • Jonathan A. Forsberg
Clinical Research
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Background

Heterotopic ossification (HO) is a frequent complication of modern wartime extremity injuries. The biological mechanisms responsible for the development of HO in traumatic wounds remain elusive.

Question/purposes

The aims of our study were to (1) characterize the expression profile of osteogenesis-related gene transcripts in traumatic war wounds in which HO developed; and (2) determine whether expression at the mRNA level correlated with functional protein expression and HO formation.

Methods

Biopsy specimens from 54 high-energy penetrating extremity wounds obtained at the initial and final surgical débridements were evaluated. The levels of selected osteogenic-related gene transcripts from RNA extracts were assessed by quantitative reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) analysis. As a result of its key role in osteogenesis, the concentration of BMP-2 in the effluent of 29 wounds also was determined.

Results

The transcripts of 13 genes (ALPL [p = 0.006], BMP-2 [p < 0.001], BMP-3 [p = 0.06], COL2A1 [p < 0.001], COLL10A1 [p < 0.001], COL11A1 [p = 0.006], COMP [p = 0.02], CSF2 [p = 0.003], CSF3 [p = 0.012], MMP8 [p < 0.001], MMP9 [p = 0.014], SMAD1 [p = 0.024], and VEGFA [p = 0.017]) were upregulated greater than twofold in wounds in which HO developed compared with wounds in which it did not develop. Gene transcript expression of BMP-2 also correlated directly with functional protein expression in the wounds that formed HO (p = 0.029).

Conclusions

Important differences exist in the osteogenic gene expression profile of wounds in which HO developed compared with wounds in which it did not develop. The upregulation of multiple osteogenesis-related gene transcripts indicates the presence of a proosteogenic environment necessary for ectopic bone formation in traumatic wounds.

Clinical Relevance

Understanding the osteogenic environment associated with war wounds may allow for the development of novel therapeutic strategies for HO.

Keywords

Heterotopic Ossification Endochondral Ossification Ectopic Bone Formation Cartilaginous Matrix Heterotopic Ossification Formation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Introduction

Heterotopic ossification (HO) is the formation of mature lamellar bone in soft tissue. Familial forms of the condition include progressive osseous heteroplasia and Albright hereditary osteodystrophy [48]. Recurrent mutations in the BMP type-1 receptor, activin receptor IA (ACVR1), and local changes in the expression of BMP-4 and its receptor (BMPR1A) have been linked to the rare genetic disorder fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva [11, 13, 18, 20, 26]. The more common acquired forms of HO frequently occur as a complication of THA, elbow or acetabular fractures requiring surgical treatment, soft tissue injury secondary to trauma or deep muscle dissection, and traumatic brain or spinal cord injuries [3, 7, 8, 25, 49].

Regardless of etiology, it is theorized that the pathogenesis of HO requires several factors, the first being an inducing agent or event. This can be the result of closed or penetrating trauma resulting in damage to the bone or surrounding musculature. The concomitant hematoma may then deliver the mesenchymal progenitor cells or committed osteoblast precursor cells from the surrounding tissue or systemic circulation. Finally, an environment conducive to osteogenesis primed by local and systemic mediators is required [13]. As such, injured soft tissues in the setting of a dysregulated posttraumatic inflammatory response may represent an ideal environment for the dysplastic differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells toward osteoblastic lineage and ectopic bone formation [37].

Heterotopic ossification has proven to be a common and problematic complication of modern wartime extremity injuries, and it causes patient morbidity and loss of function [16, 39]. Studies suggest the rate of ectopic bone formation in combat-related injuries is substantially higher than prior estimates reported in civilian trauma populations [16, 39]. Despite several studies investigating systemic factors and the in vitro measurement of osteoblastic activity of cells from heterotopic bone [2, 27, 45], the biological mechanisms responsible for HO as a result of traumatic injury have not been defined.

Advances in molecular profiling technologies have identified effector molecules, transcription factors, and regulatory genes involved in the tightly regulated process of bone metabolism [1]. A similar understanding of the molecular and cellular mechanisms associated with ectopic bone formation may lead to targeted therapies aimed at effective prevention, diagnosis, and treatment for patients with or at risk of HO. Given the high prevalence of HO in combat-related wounds, we asked whether expression at the mRNA level would correlate with the development of radiographically apparent HO.

The aims of our study were (1) to characterize the expression profile of osteogenesis-related gene transcripts in traumatic war wounds in which HO developed; and (2) determine whether expression at the mRNA level correlated with functional protein expression and HO formation.

Patients and Methods

To determine the expression level of gene transcripts involved in the development of HO in traumatic wounds, 34 wounded US service members with 54 wounds were enrolled in this prospective observational study. We included patients with high-energy, penetrating extremity wounds (< 75 cm2) to one or more extremities, which were evacuated to the National Naval Medical Center from combat zones within Iraq and Afghanistan. Those with confounding premorbid systemic conditions including diabetes, immune disorders, connective tissue disorders, or any conditions requiring immunosuppressive agents and patients with prior extremity surgery complicated by infection were excluded and not enrolled. All patients were male with a mean age of 23.4 (range, 18–42 years) who presented to our institution a mean 5.6 (SD 2.6) days after having undergone intercontinental aeromedical evacuation from theater through Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany. Up to three extremity wounds per patient were studied. In patients with more than three wounds, the largest three wounds were chosen for analysis based on wound volume (cm3) from clinical and radiographic measurements and calculations from digital photographs using PictZar® planimetry software (BioVisual Technologies, Elmwood Park, NJ, USA). All patients underwent surgical débridement every 48 to 72 hours after arrival at our institution until definitive wound closure or coverage. Wound effluent from the vacuum-assisted wound closure device without a gel-pack (V.A.C.®; Kinetic Concepts, Inc, San Antonio, TX, USA) and a 1-cm3 tissue biopsy specimen from the center of the wound bed were obtained prospectively at each surgical débridement. Tissue biopsy specimens were placed in an RNA preservation medium (RNAlater™; Ambion Inc, Austin, TX, USA) and all samples stored at −80ºC until analysis. Bacterial colonization and eventual wound outcome also were defined as previously described [22]. Colonization was defined as greater than 104 total bacteria on tissue-based quantitative bacteriology using standard techniques. The study was approved by the institutional review boards of the National Naval Medical Center and the Naval Medical Research Center. All patients signed informed consent to participate in this study and one patient died and thus was lost to followup.

Biopsy specimens from the 54 wounds obtained at the initial and final surgical débridements before definitive closure or soft tissue coverage were used for analysis to explore the temporal pattern of expression. Our power analysis indicated that 10 wounds per group were required to have an 80% power to detect a twofold threshold of differential gene expression (SAS, Cary, NC, USA). Total RNA was extracted and purified according to the manufacturer’s instructions using the RNeasy® Fibrous Tissue Mini Kit (Qiagen Inc, Valencia, CA, USA) from 30 mg of tissue sample after homogenization. The samples were incubated in the presence of DNase1 to minimize genomic DNA contamination. RNA quantity and purity were assessed spectroscopically using the NanoDrop Spectrophotometer (NanoDrop Technologies Inc, Wilmington, DE, USA) and RNA integrity assessed by microcapillary electrophoresis (Agilent 2100 BioAnalyzer; Agilent Technologies Inc, Santa Clara, CA, USA). RNA integrity values for all samples in this study were 7.0 or greater. Using the RT2 First Strand Kit (SABiosciences, Frederick, MD, USA), 1 μg of total RNA was reverse-transcribed into cDNA for quantitative reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). A commercially available low-density RT-PCR array of 96 primer sets (including respective forward and reverse primers) for 84 osteogenesis-focused, five housekeeping, and seven quality control genes (SABiosciences, Gaithersburg, MD, USA) was used to assess gene expression in duplicate. Quantitative RT-PCR and dissociation curve analyses were performed using the ABI PRISM® 7900HT Sequence Detection System (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA) with SYBR® Green (SABiosciences) detection. Amplification parameters were as follows: one cycle of 50°C for 2 minutes and 95°C for 10 minutes followed by 40 cycles of 95°C for 30 seconds and 60°C for 1 minute. RT-PCR data were analyzed using the Sequence Detection System Version 2.1 included with the ABI Prism 7900HT SDS and Microsoft Excel. The threshold was manually set and the baseline was set automatically to get the threshold cycle (Ct) value for each target. GAPDH was used as an endogenous housekeeping control gene for normalization. HO and non-HO samples were run in duplicate wherein Ct measurements per samples were normalized using GAPDH. Relative expression between HO and non-HO tissue was determined using the comparative Ct method (2-ΔΔCt) [31]. Results are expressed as the mean ± SD difference in relative expression. Transcription of a particular gene transcript in BMMSCs was considered to be differentially up- or downregulated if it was differentially expressed by at least twofold when compared with the expression level in HSPCs and vice versa for the reverse analysis. Assays with Ct values greater than 35 cycles were excluded from analysis.

HO was defined as the formation of ectopic matrix mineralization in soft tissues evident on routine AP and lateral radiographic views of the involved extremity at a minimum of 2 months after injury, as previously described [17, 39]. The minimum time for radiographic followup was selected based on previous studies from this and other surgical patient populations showing that HO is reliably evident radiographically within 2 months of the inciting event [4, 16, 34, 35, 39]. A two-author blinded independent review of radiographs was performed to determine the presence of ectopic bone with complete agreement between reviewers. HO developed in 47% (16 of 34) of the study patients (Table 1).
Table 1

Patient demographics

Demographic information

Number of patients (N = 34)

Heterotopic ossification (N = 16; 47%)

No heterotopic ossification (N = 18; 53%)

p value

Age (years; mean ± SD)

 

25.4 ± 6.8

21.8 ± 4.3

0.086†

Sex

 Male

34

16 (100%)

18 (100%)

Not applicable

 Female

0

0

0

Combat theater

 Iraq

26

12 (75%)

14 (78%)

1.0*

 Afghanistan

8

4 (25%)

4 (22%)

Evacuation time from theater in days (mean ± SD)

 

6.4 ± 2.9

4.8 ± 2.2

0.082†

BMI (kg/m2; mean ± SD)

 

25.3 ± 4.3

24.9 ± 3.6

0.74†

Tobacco use

 No

24

13 (81%)

11 (61%)

0.27*

 Yes

8

3 (19%)

7 (39%)

Injury Severity Score (mean ± SD)

 

25.7 ± 13.4

14.5 ± 6.8

0.006†

Traumatic brain injury

 No

6

1 (6%)

5 (28%)

0.18*

 Yes

28

15 (94%)

13 (72%)

* Fisher’s exact test; †Student’s t-test; BMI = body mass index.

To investigate the correlation of gene transcript expression at the mRNA level with functional protein expression and biologic relevance, the presence and concentration of BMP-2 in the effluent of a cohort of 29 wounds (selected based on sample availability; 14 HO, 15 non-HO wounds) were determined according to the manufacturer’s instructions using the Human BMP-2 ELISA Kit (R&D Systems, Minneapolis, MN, USA). Data were analyzed on a “per wound” basis, because not every wound in every patient formed HO. BMP-2 was selected for this subset analysis because it is a key regulator of bone formation and its ability to act as a potent osteoinductive agent when targeting osteoprogenitor cell populations has been shown repeatedly in vivo and in vitro [9, 32, 38].

Statistical differences between continuous variables were evaluated using Student’s t-test. Equality of variance for continuous variables was determined using Levene’s test. Associations between categorical variables were studied with Fisher’s exact test or chi-square analysis as appropriate. Individual samples were compared with an average of control expression values of wounds in which HO did not develop. Transcript quantification was derived using the comparative threshold cycle method and reported as an n-fold difference in the experimental to the control samples [31]. Differential gene expression was considered significant when there was a twofold or greater difference in expression between the two groups and a two-tailed p value < 0.05. Differences in gene expression and nonparametric means were evaluated using the Mann-Whitney U test. The coefficient of determination was used to assess the correlation between mRNA and functional protein levels. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS Version 16.0 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL, USA). Data are represented as mean ± SEM unless otherwise specified.

Results

The mean duration of clinical and radiographic followup was 12.4 months (range, 5–17 months). There was no difference in followup between the study cohorts with and without HO (11.3 months versus 12.5 months; p = 0.17). There also were no differences with respect to patient demographics between the two groups. The mean Injury Severity Score (ISS) was significantly higher (p = 0.006) in the HO cohort. Of the 54 total wounds investigated, 24 (44%) showed radiographic evidence of HO (Table 2). There were significant differences between the two cohorts in terms of wound healing, size of the wound, presence of a traumatic amputation, and bacterial colonization (p < 0.05).
Table 2

Wound demographics

Wound demographic information

Number of wounds (N = 54)

Heterotopic ossification (N = 24; 44%)

Number with heterotopic ossification (N = 30; 56%)

p value

Mechanism of injury

 Gunshot wound

3

1 (4%)

2 (7%)

0.496‡

 Blast

50

22 (92%)

28 (93%)

 Crush

1

1 (4%)

0

Wound outcome

 Normal healing

40

12 (50%)

28 (93%)

< 0.001*

 Impaired healing (delayed closure or dehiscence)

14

12 (50%)

2 (7%)

Number of surgical débridements (mean ± SD)

 

4.5 ± 3.3

3.2 ± 2.3

0.135†

Wound location

 Upper extremity

12

2 (8%)

10 (33%)

0.167‡

 Lower extremity

42

22 (92%)

20 (67%)

Traumatic amputation

 No

30

9 (37%)

21 (70%)

0.027*

 Yes

24

15 (63%)

9 (30%)

Size of wound (cm3) (mean ± SD)

 

613.4 ± 615.4

173.7 ± 252.9

0.003†

Associated vascular injury

 No

44

17 (71%)

27 (90%)

0.089*

 Yes

10

7 (29%)

3 (10%)

Wound colonization

 No

19

2 (8%)

17 (57%)

< 0.001*

 Yes

35

22 (92%)

13 (43%)

Wound closure method

 Suture

41

18 (75%)

23 (77%)

0.741*

 Skin graft

13

6 (25%)

7 (23%)

* Fisher’s exact test; †Student’s t-test; ‡chi-square test.

Several key genes involved in osteogenesis were upregulated at the transcript level in wounds in which HO developed. Of the 84 osteogenesis-focused gene transcripts analyzed, 13 (ALPL, BMP-2, BMP-3, COL2A1, COLL10A1, COL11A1, COMP, CSF2, CSF3, MMP8, MMP9, SMAD1, VEGFA) were upregulated greater than twofold at the initial débridement in wounds in which HO developed compared with wounds in which HO did not develop (Table 3). When analyzing transcript levels at the final débridement, transcripts of the same 13 genes were upregulated in wounds in which HO developed but showed a greater fold change when compared with the initial débridement. Several genes (ANXA5, BGN, COL1A, COL3A1, COL5A1, COL12A1, COL14A1, COL15A1, CTSK, ITGB1, MMP2, SERPINH1) involved in the development and maintenance of the integrity of the extracellular matrix during wound healing were highly expressed in wounds at the initial and final débridements from both cohorts (Ct ≤ 25). Because these genes were highly expressed in both groups at the initial and final débridements, we observed no significant change.
Table 3

Gene expression analysis

Gene

Initial dèbridement

Final dèbridement

Fold change (normalized to GAPDH)

95% CI

p value

Fold change (normalized to GAPDH)

95% CI

p value

ALPL

4.1

3.5–4.8

0.006

6.2

5.7–6.8

0.054

BMP-2

4.8

4.3–5.4

< 0.001

8.2

7.7–8.8

< 0.001

BMP-3

2.1

1.6–2.5

0.06

2.9

2.4–3.3

0.083

COL2A1

4.7

4.2–5.3

< 0.001

8.4

8.1–8.9

0.004

COL10A1

4.3

3.6–5.0

< 0.001

8.5

7.8–9.1

0.001

COL11A1

6.0

5.1–6.8

0.006

10.8

9.2–10.4

0.010

COMP

4.2

3.8–4.6

0.02

7.9

7.3–8.4

0.032

CSF2

4.8

4.2–5.3

0.003

8.7

8.2–9.5

0.003

CSF3

5.8

5.2–6.3

0.012

9.2

8.5–9.9

0.024

MMP8

5.8

5.4–6.5

< 0.001

9.3

8.7–9.6

< 0.001

MMP9

4.5

4.1–5.1

0.014

9.1

8.8–9.5

0.03

SMAD1

4.4

3.9–5.2

0.024

8.1

7.5–9.0

0.028

VEGF-A

4.2

3.6–4.8

0.017

8.3

7.8–8.9

0.001

Expression values represented as fold change in wounds in which heterotopic ossification (HO) developed compared with control expression values of wounds in which HO did not develop at initial and final surgical débridements. Differences in gene expression between groups evaluated using the Mann-Whitney U test; ALPL = alkaline phosphatase, COL = collagen alpha, COMP = collagen oligometric matrix protein, CSF = colony stimulating factor, MMP = matrix metalloproteinase; SMAD1 = SMAD family member.

Gene expression at the mRNA level correlated directly with functional protein expression. The coefficient of determination (r2) for the expression of BMP-2 transcripts in relation to observed concentrations in the wound effluent was 0.76. Additionally, the effluent of wounds in which HO developed expressed higher levels of BMP-2 compared with wounds in which HO did not develop. There was no difference in the concentration of BMP-2 in the effluent of both groups at the initial débridement (p = 0.22; Fig. 1). However, there was a 2.5-fold increase in the concentration of BMP-2 in the effluent of wounds in which HO developed at the final débridement (p = 0.029; Fig. 1). This suggests that BMP-2 may play a critical role in regulating the development of combat-related HO.
Fig. 1

BMP-2 concentration in the wound effluent is depicted at the initial (n = 14 HO wounds, n = 15 non-HO wounds) and final débridement (n = 14 HO wounds, n = 15 non-HO wounds). The débridements are further stratified by wounds in which HO developed (HO) and wounds in which HO did not develop (non-HO). Data are depicted as mean ± SEM. * p < 0.05.

Discussion

Heterotopic ossification is exceedingly common after combat-related extremity trauma. Regardless of etiology, the pathogenesis of HO is multifactorial and requires the interaction of several biologic mediators and cell types. Efforts to identify the molecular mechanisms associated with its development have focused on the conditions permissive to osteogenesis in the cellular microenvironment [10, 15, 29]. An understanding of these mechanisms could lead to better means of risk stratification and prophylaxis. In this study, we investigated the expression pattern of genes related to osteogenesis in traumatic wounds, compared gene expression levels between cohorts with and without HO, and confirmed that a correlation exists between transcript levels and functional protein expression for BMP-2, a key regulator of bone formation.

The findings of our study must be interpreted in the context of its limitations. First, analysis of transcript expression was performed in a relatively homogeneous population with specific injury patterns and the findings presented may not be applicable to all populations at risk for HO. Second, analysis of selected mRNA transcripts was determined at initial and final débridements and the exact pattern of temporal expression related to the pathogenesis of ectopic bone formation was not determined nor was an analysis of systemic mediators. However, analysis of traumatic wounds at these times provides an accurate assessment of the posttraumatic environment conducive to osteogenesis because in vivo studies have shown fibroproliferative chondrogenesis by 7 days and heterotopic osteogenesis by 14 days after injury [19, 44].

Gene Upregulation in Patients Who Developed Heterotopic Ossification

The development of HO is theorized to require differentiation of mesenchymal progenitor cells toward chondrocyte and osteoblastic lineage, necessary steps for endochondral ossification [25]. As seen in our study, the expression of transcripts necessary for synthesis of cartilaginous matrix (COL2A1, COL10A1, COL11A1, COMP) and tissue remodeling (MMP8, MMP9) were upregulated in wounds in which HO developed. Specifically, COL2A1 encodes type II collagen, the chief component of cartilaginous matrix, whereas COL10A1 encodes type X collagen, a marker for hypertrophic chondrocytes intimately associated with calcification of the cartilaginous matrix [40, 43].

Transcript levels of genes necessary for the growth, remodeling, and maintenance of the extracellular matrix in wound healing were highly expressed in wounds from both groups, suggesting their importance in the pathogenesis of HO. In addition, transcript levels of genes encoding type I collagen (COL1A1, COL1A2), the predominant structural component of bone, also were highly expressed in both groups [43]. Significant differences between the two cohorts, however, were found regarding systemic injury severity and the local inflammatory response to injury. Patients who had HO develop sustained more severe systemic injuries as evident by elevated ISS (Table 1). Furthermore, the increased expression of genes encoding inflammatory cytokines (CSF2/GM-CSF, CSF3/G-CSF) suggests that a more pronounced inflammatory microenvironment is present in wounds in which HO developed. The increased bioburden imparted by bacterial colonization also may contribute to the proinflammatory microenvironment, and we noted a significantly increased rate of critical bacterial colonization in the HO cohort, similar to that previously described in combat casualties [15]. The expression of mitogenic growth factors and proinflammatory cytokines has also been shown to be upregulated during bacterial colonization and specifically after exposure to lipopolysaccharide [6].

Functional Protein Expression and Heterotopic Ossification

Soft tissue injury in the setting of a hyperinflammatory response has been shown to contribute substantially to ectopic skeletogenesis [16, 25, 32]. Specifically, the expression of BMP-2 and related osteoinductive morphogens by tissue macrophages and other inflammatory mediators is highly upregulated at sites of muscular damage and soft tissue injury [6, 25, 41]. Overactive BMP signaling has been implicated in the development of HO [25, 46, 48]. Notably, the expression of BMP-2 transcripts was upregulated in wounds that had HO develop at the initial and final débridements. Our findings are consistent with those of previous reports in which muscle injury and associated inflammatory changes were reported as sufficient to trigger the development of ectopic bone in the setting of increased BMP expression [25, 32]. Several human and animal studies have further implicated the role of BMPs and their downstream signaling pathways in the pathogenesis of HO [21, 24, 53]. The upregulation of SMAD1, a gene encoding protein that serves as a signal transducer and transcriptional modulator of BMP signaling, further supports this observation [47].

Angiogenesis is an absolute requirement for endochondral ossification, successful fracture union, and the formation of ectopic bone [1, 5]. Thus, it was not surprising that VEGFA expression was upregulated in wounds in which HO developed. A hypoxic environment during the early stages of endochondral bone formation is necessary for differentiation of progenitor cells toward chondrocyte lineage [14, 38, 50]. However, the final event in endochondral ossification and ectopic bone growth is replacement of the avascular cartilage template by highly vascularized bone. Hypoxic induction of VEGFA expression necessary for angiogenesis appears to be a ubiquitous response mediated by hypoxia inducible factor-1α [30, 33].

The expression of BMP-2 in wounds in which HO developed also plays a critical role in the expression of VEGFA. The ability of BMPs to increase the levels of VEGFA mRNA in a concentration and time-dependent fashion has been shown [12, 23, 51]. Additional synergy between diffusible osteogenic morphogens and proangiogenic factors has been shown to enhance the rate of ectopic bone growth through modulation of angiogenesis, recruitment and induction of local progenitor cells, and enhancement of cell survival [28, 42]. Increased expression of BMP-2 and VEGFA transcripts in wounds that had ectopic bone develop further emphasizes their importance in the pathogenesis of HO. The ability of BMP antagonists and antiangiogenic therapy to slow or inhibit ectopic bone growth by altering the microenvironment conducive for osteogenesis holds promise for future mechanistic and gene-directed therapy [36, 44, 52].

Conclusions

Our data suggest the process of ectopic bone formation is initiated shortly after a traumatic insult, findings consistent with those of others [4, 44]. Wounds in which HO developed exhibited an elevated, protracted inflammatory state and may account for the increased levels of mRNA transcripts observed at the final débridement. A similar trend was noted in the temporal pattern of BMP-2 expression at the protein level. The interactions among the inflammatory response to injury, overexpression of genes related to osteogenesis, and expression of BMPs in the microenvironment parallel the clinical observation of more severe forms of HO occurring in patients with more severe injuries. Therefore, these results offer the opportunity to use the identified genes as markers to predict the development of HO in severely injured patients.

We also showed that significantly different osteopromotive gene expression profiles are present in combat-related wounds that have HO develop as compared with similar wounds in which HO does not form and that mRNA expression correlated directly with functional protein expression in wound effluent for BMP-2. The overexpression of selected gene transcripts related to ectopic matrix mineralization and endochondral bone formation indicates the presence of a microenvironment conducive to osteogenesis in traumatic wounds with BMP-2 potentially serving as a critical regulatory modulator. Continued research into the mechanisms responsible for the formation of HO is needed to further identify patients at risk and potential therapeutic targets for this and other patient populations.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Fred Gage CRRP, and Nancy K. Porterfield BS, for their valuable assistance in sample preparation, assay validation, and data compilation. The multidisciplinary care of these patients would not have been possible without the dedicated efforts of everyone at the National Military Medical Center. Civilian and military personnel have rendered skilled and compassionate care for these patients. All of our efforts are dedicated to those who have been placed in harm’s way for the good of our nation.

References

  1. 1.
    Allori RC, Sailon AM, Warren SM. Biological basis of bone formation, remodeling, and repair—part I: biochemical signaling molecules. Tissue Eng Part B Rev. 2008;14:259–273.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bidner SM, Rubins IM, Desjardins JV, Zukor DJ, Gotzman D. Evidence for a humoral mechanism for enhanced osteogenesis after head injury. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990;55:1144–1149.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brooker AF, Bowerman JW, Robinson RA, Riley LHJ. Ectopic ossification following total hip replacement. Incidence and a method of classification. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1973;55:1629–1632.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burd TA, Hughes MS, Anglen JO. Heterotopic ossification prophylaxis with indomethacin increases the risk of long-bone nonunion. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2003;85:700–705.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carano RA, Filvaroff EH. Angiogenesis and bone repair. Drug Discov Today. 2003;8:980–989.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Champagne CM, Takebe J, Offenbacher S, Cooper LF. Macrophage cell lines produce osteoinductive signals that include bone morphogenetic protein-2. Bone. 2002;30:26–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chan KT. Heterotopic ossification in traumatic brain injury. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;84:145–146.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chandrasenan J, Dias R, Lunn PG. Heterotopic ossification after the Outerbridge-Kashiwagi procedure in the elbow. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17:15–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chen D, zhao M, Mundy GR. Bone morphogenetic proteins. Growth Factors. 2004;22:233–241.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Davis TA, O’Brien FP, Anam K, Grijalva S, Potter BK, Elster EA. Heterotopic ossification in complex orthopaedic combat wounds: quantification and characterization of osteogenic precursor cell activity in traumatized muscle. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93:1122–1131.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    de la Pena LS, Billings PC, Fiori JL, Ahn J, Kaplan FS, Shore EM. Fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva (FOP), a disorder of ectopic osteogenesis, misregulates cell surface expression and trafficking of bmpria. J Bone Miner Res. 2005;20:1168–1176.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Deckers MM, Karperien M, van der Bent C, Yamashita T, Papapoulos SE, Lowik CW. Expression of vascular endothelial growth factors and their receptors during osteoblast differentiation. Endocrinology. 2000;141:1667–1674.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ekelund A, Brosjo O, Nilsson OS. Experimental induction of heterotopic bone. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1991;263:102–112.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Emans PJ, Spaapen F, Surtel DA, Reilly KM, Cremers A, Van Rhijn LW, Bulstra SK, Voncken JW, Kuijer R. A novel in vivo model to study endochondral bone formation; HIF-1alpha activation and bmp expression. Bone. 2007;40:409–418.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Evans KN, Forsberg JA, Potter BK, Hawksworth JS, Brown TS, Andersen R, Dunne JR, Tadaki D, Elster EA. Inflammatory cytokine and chemokine expression is associated with heterotopic ossification in high-energy penetrating war injuries. J Orthop Trauma. 2012;26:e204–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Forsberg JA, Pepek JM, Wagner S, Wilson K, Flint J, Andersen RC, Tadaki D, Stojadinovic A, Elster EA. Heterotopic ossification in high-energy wartime extremity injuries: incidence and risk factors. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:1084–1091.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Forsberg JA, Potter BK. Heterotopic ossification in wartime wounds. J Surg Orthop Adv. 2010;19:54–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Furuya H, Ikezoe K, Wang L, Ohyagi Y, Motomura K, Fujii N, Kira J, Fukumaki Y. A unique case of fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva with an ACVR1 mutation, g356d, other than the common mutation (r206 h). Am J Med Genet A. 2008;146:459–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Glaser DL, Economides AN, Wang L, Liu X, Kimble RD, Fandl JP, Wilson JM, Stahl N, Kaplan FS, Shore EM. In vivo somatic cell gene transfer of an engineered noggin mutein prevents BMP4-induced heterotopic ossification. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85:2332–2342.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Groppe JC, Shore EM, Kaplan FS. Functional modeling of th EACVR1 (r206 h) mutation in fop. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;462:87–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hassel S, Schmitt S, Hartung A, Roth M, Nohe A, Petersen N, Ehrlich M, Henis YI, Sebald W, Knaus P. Initiation of SMAD-dependent and SMAD-independent signaling via distinct BMP-receptor complexes. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85(Suppl 3):44–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hawksworth JS, Stojadinovic A, Gage FA, Tadaki DK, Perdue PW, Forsberg J, Davis TA, Dunne JR, Denobile JW, Brown TS, Elster EA. Inflammatory biomarkers in combat wound healing. Ann Surg. 2009;250:1002–1007.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kakudo N, Kusumoto K, Wang YB, Iguchi Y, Ogawa Y. Immunolocalization of vascular endothelial growth factor on intramuscular ectopic osteoinduction by bone morphogenetic protein-2. Life Sci. 2006;79:1847–1855.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kan L, Hu M, Gomes WA, Kesler JA. Transgenic mice overexpressing BMP4 develop a fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva (FOP)-like phenotype. Am J Pathol. 2004;165:1107–1115.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kaplan FS, Glaser DL, Hebela N, Shore EM. Heterotopic ossification. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2004;12:116–125.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kaplan FS, Xu M, Seemann P, Connor JM, Glaser DL, Carroll L, Delai P, Fastnacht-Urban E, Forman SJ, Gillessen-Kaesbach G, Hoover-Fong J, Koster B, Pauli RM, Reardon W, Zaidi SA, Zasloff MA, Morhart R, Mundlos S, Groppe JC, Shore EM. Classic and atypical fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva (FOP) phenotypes are caused by mutations in the bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) type I receptor ACVR1. Hum Mutat. 2008;20:379–390.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kaysinger KK, Ramp WK, Lang GJ, Gruber HE. Comparison of human osteoblasts and osteogenic cells from heterotopic bone. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997;342:181–191.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kempen DH, Lu L, Heijink A, Hefferan TE, Creemers LB, Maran A, Yaszemski MJ, Dhert WJ. Effect of local sequential VEGF and BMP-2 delivery on ectopic and orthotopic bone regeneration. Biomaterials. 2009;30:2816–2825.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kim SY, Choi HY, Myung KB, Choi YW. The expression of molecular mediators in the idiopathic cutaneous calcification and ossification. J Cutan Pathol. 2008;35:826–831.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Levy AP, Levy NS, Wegner S, Goldberg MA. Transcriptional regulation of the rat vascular endothelial growth factor gene by hypoxia. J Biol Chem. 1995;270:13333–13340.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Livak KJ, Schmittgen TD. Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative pcr and the 2(-delta delta c[t]) method. Methods. 2001;25:402–408.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lounev VY, Ramachandran R, Wosczyna MN, Yamamoto M, Maidment AD, Shore EM, Glaser DL, Goldhamer DJ, Kaplan FS. Identification of progenitor cells that contribute to heterotopic skeletogenesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:652–663.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Madan A, Curtin PT. A 24-base-pair sequence 3′ to the human erythropoetin gene contains a hypoxia-responsive transcriptional enhancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1993;90:3928–3932.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Moed BR, Karges DE. Prophylactic indomethacin for the prevention of heterotopic ossification after acetabular fracture surgery in high-risk patients. J Orthop Trauma. 1994;8:34–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Moore TJ. Functional outcome following surgical excision of heterotopic ossification in patients with traumatic brain injury. J Orthop Trauma. 1993;7:11–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nakamura Y, Wakitani S, Nakayama J, Wakabayashi S, Horiuchi H, Takaoka K. Temporal and spatial expression profiles of bmp receptors and noggin during BMP-2-induced ectopic bone formation. J Bone Miner Res. 2003;18:1854–1862.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nesti LJ, Jackson WM, Shanti RM, Koehler SM, Aragon AB, Bailey JR, Sracic MK, Freedman BA, Giuliani JR, Tuan RS. Differentiation potential of multipotent progenitor cells derived from war-traumatized muscle tissue. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:2390–2398.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Olmsted-Davis E, Gannon FH, Ozen M, Ittmann MM, Gugala Z, Hipp JA, Moran KM, Fouletier-Dilling CM, Schumara-Martin S, Lindsey RW, Heggeness MH, Brenner MK, Davis AR. Hypoxic adipocytes pattern early heterotopic bone formation. Am J Pathol. 2007;170:620–632.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Potter BK, Burns TC, Lacap AP, Granville RR, Gajewski DA. Heterotopic ossification following traumatic and combat-related amputations. Prevalence, risk factors, and preliminary results of excision. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:476–486.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Reginato AM, Sanz-Rodriguez C, Jimenez SA. Biosynthesis and characterization of type x olalgen in human fetal epiphyseal growth plate cartilage. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 1995;3:105–116.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rifas L, Cheng SL, Shen V, Peck WA. Monokines produced by macrophages stimulate the growth of osteoblasts. Connect Tissue Res. 1989;23:163–178.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Samee M, Kasugai S, Kondo H, Ohya K, Shimokawa H, Kuroda S. Bone morphogenetic protein-2 (BMP-2) and vascular endotheslial growth factor (VEGF) transfection to human periosteal cells enhances osteoblastic differentiation and bone formation. J Pharmacol Sci. 2008;108:18–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sandberg M, Autio-Harmainen H, Vuorio E. Localization of the expression of types I, III, and IV collagen, TGF-beta 1 and c-FOS genes in developing human calvarial bones. Dev Biol. 1988;130:324–334.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sawyer JR, Myers MA, Rosier RN, Puzas JE. Heterotopic ossification: clinical and celluar aspects. Calcif Tissue Int. 1991;49:208–215.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sell S, Gaissmaier C, Fritz J, Herr G, Esenwein S, Kusswetter W, Volkmann R, Wittkowski KM, Rodermann HP. Different behavior of human osteoblast-like cells isolated from normal and heterotopic bone in vitro. Calcif Tissue Int. 1998;62:51–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Shafritz AB, Shore EM, Gannon FH, Zasloff MA, Taub R, Muenke M, Kaplan FS. Overexpression of an osteogenic morphogen in fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:555–561.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Shi X, Yang X, Chen D, Chang Z, Cao X. SMAD1 interacts with homeobox DNA-binding proteins in bone morphogenetic protein signaling. J Biol Chem. 1999;274:13711–13717.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Shore EM, Glaser DL, Gannon FH. Osteogenic induction in hereditary disorders of heterotopic ossification. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000;374:303–316.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Simonsen LL, Sonne-Holm S, Krasheninnikoff M, Engberg AW. Symptomatic heterotopic ossification after very severe traumatic brain injury in 114 patients: incidence and risk factors. Injury. 2007;38:1146–1150.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Sun X, Wei Y. The role of hypoxia-inducible factor in osteogenesis and chondrogenesis. Cytotherapy. 2009;11:261–267.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Yeh LC, Lee JC. Osteogenic protein-1 increases gene expression of vascualr endotheslial growth factor in primary cultures of fetal rat calvaria cells. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 1999;153:113–124.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Yin M, Gentili C, Koyama E, Zasloff MA, Pacifici M. Antiangiogenic treatment delays chondrocyte maturation and bone formation during limb skeletogenesis. J Bone Miner Res. 2002;17:56–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Zhang F, Qiu T, Wu X, Wan C, Shi W, Wang YB, Chen J, Wan M, Clemens TL, Cao X. Sustained BMP signaling in osteoblasts stimulates bone formation by promoting angiogenesis and osteoblast differentiation. J Bone Miner Res. 2009;24:1224–1233.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Korboi N. Evans
    • 1
    • 2
  • Benjamin K. Potter
    • 2
    • 3
  • Trevor S. Brown
    • 1
  • Thomas A. Davis
    • 1
  • Eric A. Elster
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  • Jonathan A. Forsberg
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Regenerative Medicine DepartmentNaval Medical Research CenterSilver SpringUSA
  2. 2.Department of OrthopaedicsWalter Reed National Military Medical CenterBethesdaUSA
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryUniformed Services University of Health SciencesBethesdaUSA
  4. 4.Department of SurgeryNational Naval Medical CenterBethesdaUSA

Personalised recommendations