Homogenic Evaluation for Spatial Distribution in Osteoclast Differentiation.

Hyun-Sook Lim, Hong-In Shin, Daewon Jeong
Author Information
  1. Hyun-Sook Lim: Department of Public Health Administration, Hanyang Women's University, Seoul, Korea.
  2. Hong-In Shin: Department of Oral Pathology, School of Dentistry, Institute for Hard Tissue and Bio-Tooth Regeneration, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea.
  3. Daewon Jeong: Laboratory of Bone Metabolism and Control, Department of Microbiology, Yeungnam University College of Medicine, Daegu, Korea.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cells have heterogeneous cellular diversity in size, morphology, cell cycle, metabolism, differentiation degree, and spatial distribution. The shift of specific cells towards the desired cells is crucial for maintaining uniform cellular function and can be represented by homogeneity and heterogeneity. Here, we developed a simple and direct method for evaluating the homogeneous distribution of desired cells in a constant region.
METHODS: We differentiated osteoclast progenitors into bone-resorbing multinucleated giant osteoclasts in a 2-dimensional culture plate under 2 conditions. Cells were stained with tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase to assess osteoclast differentiation, images were taken using a microscope and divided into sectors, and the number of osteoclasts (≥3 nuclei) in each sector was counted. To assess the homogeneity of the spatial distribution of osteoclasts, the standard deviation (SD) was calculated from the mean number of osteoclasts within each sector.
RESULTS: From the 2 groups, a value with a SD close to 0 indicates high spatial homogeneity while a relatively high SD represents low spatial homogeneity.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that spatial homogeneity can be represented as SD.

Keywords

References

  1. Acta Pharmacol Sin. 2015 Oct;36(10):1219-27 [PMID: 26388155]
  2. Adv Pharm Bull. 2017 Sep;7(3):339-348 [PMID: 29071215]
  3. Science. 1997 May 30;276(5317):1425-8 [PMID: 9162012]
  4. FASEB J. 2008 Mar;22(3):898-909 [PMID: 17942827]
  5. Int J Mol Sci. 2016 Aug 09;17(8): [PMID: 27517906]
  6. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Mar 24;106(12):4606-10 [PMID: 19273855]
  7. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Aug 16;102(33):11594-9 [PMID: 16049098]
  8. Blood. 2012 Apr 26;119(17):3900-7 [PMID: 22408258]
  9. Differentiation. 2016 Jul-Aug;92(1-2):41-51 [PMID: 27012163]
  10. BMJ. 1996 Jun 29;312(7047):1654 [PMID: 8664723]
  11. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Apr 3;104(14):5722-6 [PMID: 17389399]
  12. Stem Cells. 2008 Nov;26(11):2921-7 [PMID: 18703661]
  13. Adv Mater. 2012 Nov 2;24(41):5543-7, 5542 [PMID: 22941804]
  14. Cancer Cell. 2020 Apr 13;37(4):471-484 [PMID: 32289271]
  15. Cell. 2013 Sep 12;154(6):1194-205 [PMID: 24034244]
  16. Cell Stem Cell. 2015 May 7;16(5):465-76 [PMID: 25957902]

Grants

  1. 2022R1A2C1002736/National Research Foundation of Korea
  2. 2022R1A5A2018865/National Research Foundation of Korea

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0spatialhomogeneitydistributionosteoclastsSDdifferentiationcellsCellscellulardesiredcanrepresentedosteoclast2assessnumbersectorhighSpatialOsteoclastBACKGROUND:heterogeneousdiversitysizemorphologycellcyclemetabolismdegreeshiftspecifictowardscrucialmaintaininguniformfunctionheterogeneitydevelopedsimpledirectmethodevaluatinghomogeneousconstantregionMETHODS:differentiatedprogenitorsbone-resorbingmultinucleatedgiant2-dimensionalcultureplateconditionsstainedtartrate-resistantacidphosphataseimagestakenusingmicroscopedividedsectors≥3nucleicountedstandarddeviationcalculatedmeanwithinRESULTS:groupsvalueclose0indicatesrelativelyrepresentslowCONCLUSIONS:findingssuggestHomogenicEvaluationDistributionDifferentiationCellHeterogeneityHomogeneity

Similar Articles

Cited By