Histochemistry

, Volume 84, Issue 4–6, pp 342–347 | Cite as

Identification of osteocytes in osteoblast-like cell cultures using a monoclonal antibody specifically directed against osteocytes

  • P. J. Nijweide
  • R. J. P. Mulder
Original Articles

Summary

The development of a monoclonal antibody, OB 7.3, directed against a cell surface antigenic site on osteocytes is described.

Osteoblast-like cells were enzymatically isolated from calvaria of chicken embryos after removal of the periostea. The cells were cultured for 6 days, harvested and used to immunize mice. One of the monoclonal antibodies obtained, OB 7.3, reacted specifically with the cell surface of osteocytes. In frozen sections of bone only osteocytes were stained, all other cells present, including mature osteoblasts, were negative. Liver, kidney, spleen, intestine, bloodvessel and skin were also completely negative. Using the monoclonal OB 7.3, positive cells could be demonstrated in sparse osteoblast-like cell cultures. The OB 7.3 positive cells had a stellate morphology and were therefore identified as osteocytes. They behaved in culture as osteocytes in bone tissue in that they formed a network of cell processes connecting osteocytes with each other or with other neighbouring cells. Monoclonal OB 7.3 offers the possibility of isolating osteocytes thereby providing the means for a detailed study of their biochemical properties.

Keywords

Public Health Cell Culture Monoclonal Antibody Cell Surface Bone Tissue 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Astaldi GCB, Janssen MC, Lansdorp PM, Willems C, Zeylemaker WP, Oosterhof F (1980) Human endothelial culture supernatant (HECS): a growth factor for hybridomas. Immunol 125:1411–1414Google Scholar
  2. Binderman I, Duksin D, Harell A, Katzir E, Sachs L (1974) Formation of bone tissue in culture from isolated bone cells. J Cell Biol 61:427–439Google Scholar
  3. Boyde A, Jones SJ, Binderman I, Harell A (1976) Scanning electron microscopy of bone cells in culture. Cell Tissue Res 166:65–70Google Scholar
  4. Burger EH, Boonekamp PM, Nijweide PJ (1985) Osteoblast and osteoclast precursors in primary cultures of calvarial bone cells. Anat Rec (in press)Google Scholar
  5. Fazekas de St. Growth S, Scheidegger D (1980) Production of monoclonal antibodies: strategy and tactics. J Immunol Methods 35:1–21Google Scholar
  6. Köhler G, Milstein G (1975) continuous cultures of fused cells secreting antibody of predefined specificity. Nature 256:495–497Google Scholar
  7. Luben RA, Wong GL, Cohn DV (1976) Biochemical characterization with parathormone and calcitonin of isolated bone cells: provisional identification of osteoclasts and osteoblasts. Endocrinology 99:526–534Google Scholar
  8. Miller SS, Wolf AM, Arnaud CD (1977) Bone cells in culture: morphological transformation by hormones. Science 192:1340–1343Google Scholar
  9. Nijweide PJ, van der Plas A, Scherft JP (1981) Biochemical and histological studies on various bone cell preparations. Calcif Tissue Int 33:529–540Google Scholar
  10. Nijweide PJ, van Iperen-van Gent AS, Kawilarang-de Haas EWM, van der Plas A, Wassenaar AM (1982) Bone formation and calcification by isolated osteoblastlike cells. J Cell Biol 93:318–323Google Scholar
  11. Nijweide PJ, Vrijheid-Lammers T, Mulder RJP, Blok J (1985) Cell surface antigens on osteoclasts and related cells in the quail studied with monoclonal antibodies. Histochemistry 83:315–324Google Scholar
  12. Peck WA, Birge SJ, Fedak SA (1964) Bone cells: biochemical and biological studies after enzymatic isolation. Science 146:1476–1477Google Scholar
  13. Peck WA, Burks JK, Wilkins J, Rodan SB, Rodan GA (1977) Evidence for preferential effects of parathyroid hormone, calcitonin and adenosine on bone and periosteum. Endocrinology 100:1357–1364Google Scholar
  14. Rifkin BR, Brand JS, Cushing JE, Coleman SJ, Sanavi F (1980) Fine structure of fetal rat calvarium; provisional identification of preosteoclasts. Calcif Tissue Int 31:21–28Google Scholar
  15. Rodan GA, Rodan SB (1984) Expression of the osteoblastic phenotype. In: Peck, WA (ed) Bone and mineral rescarch, vol 2. Elsevier, Amsterdam New York Oxford, pp 244–285Google Scholar
  16. Sheridan JD, Atkinson MM (1985) Physiological role of permeable junctions: some possibilities. Annu Rev Physiol 47:337–353Google Scholar
  17. Smith DM, Johnston CC, Severson AR, (1973) Studies on the metabolism of separated bone cells. I. Techniques of separation and identification. Calcif Tissue Res 11:56–69Google Scholar
  18. Tsuru S, Kitani H, Oguchi M, Mashiko M, Zinnaka Y, Shimoura Y (1984) Separation of osteoblast-like cells from bone marrow by fluorescence-activated cell sorting. J Histochem Cytochem 32:43–48Google Scholar
  19. Weinger JM, Holtrop ME (1974) An ultrastructural study of bone cells: the occurence of microtubules, microfilaments and tight junctions. Calcif Tissue Res 14:15–29Google Scholar
  20. Wong GL, Cohn DV (1975) Target cells for parathormone and calcitonin are different: enrichment for each cell type by sequential digestion of mouse calvaria and selective adhesion to polymeric surfaces. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 72:3167–3171Google Scholar
  21. Wong GL, Kocour BAS (1983) Differential serum dependence of cultured osteoclastic and osteoblastic bone cells. Calcif Tissue Int 35:778–782Google Scholar
  22. Yagiela JA, Woodbury DM (1977) Enzymatic isolation of osteoblasts from fetal rat calvaria. Anat Rec 188:287–306Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. J. Nijweide
    • 1
  • R. J. P. Mulder
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory for Cell Biology and HistologyUniversity of LeidenLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations