Meirav, Trebicz-Geffen, Dror, Robinson, Zoharia, Evron, Tova, Glaser, Mati, Fridkin, Yehuda, Kollander, Israel, Vlodavsky, Neta, Ilan, Kit Fong, Law, Kathryn S E, Cheah, Danny, Chan, Haim, Werner, and Zvi, Nevo
We read the paper by Trebicz-Geffen published in the April issue of the International Journal of Experimental Pathology with interest (Trebicz-Geffen et al. 2008). In their study, the authors reported molecular analysis of the multiple osteochondroma (MO)-associated EXT1 gene [MO (Bovee & Hogendoorn 2002) was previously known as hereditary multiple exostoses (HME) (Solomon 1964)], and documented their findings with mRNA and protein measurements, and with DNA sequence analysis. As these results are difficult to reconcile with aspects of current understanding of EXT1 function, and with previous studies on EXT1 and EXT2 expression in hereditary MO and solitary osteochondromas (SO), we would like to comment on their results in perspective. Their observation that EXT1 mRNA and protein levels are elevated in patients with MO who carry an EXT1 mutation was surprising. EXT1 has been shown to act as a tumour suppressor gene (Bovee et al. 1999; Bernard et al. 2001). In a subset (but not all) of MO patients, loss of the remaining wild type allele can be shown in the osteochondromas (Bovee et al. 1999). As 70% of the mutations found in EXT1 are non-sense frame shift or splice site mutations, leading to a premature stopcodon (Wuyts & Van Hul 2000), one would expect down-regulation at both mRNA and protein levels in MO. We reported that EXT1 and/or EXT2 mRNA levels are down-regulated in MO as compared with normal human growth plate (Hameetman et al. 2007a), and decreased levels of EXT1 and/or EXT2 protein in the cartilage cap cells of MOs have been reported previously (Bernard et al. 2001). In addition, their observation that normal EXT1 levels are present in SOs is surprising. Somatic mutations of EXT1 and EXT2 are very rare or absent in these tumours (Hecht et al. 1997, Hecht et al. 2002; Bernard et al. 2001). Recently, however, we have shown that homozygous deletion of EXT1 occurs in the cartilaginous cap of SOs (Hameetman et al. 2007b), suggesting that (similar to MOs) EXT1 is inactivated in SOs. These findings suggest that EXT1 mRNA and protein levels are likely to be down-regulated in both conditions, and this has been confirmed at the mRNA level (Hameetman et al. 2007a). The authors do not discuss these discrepancies. They propose that up-regulation of EXT1 is a compensation mechanism for the defective EXT1. This is difficult to reconcile with the alternative, which is that inactivation of EXT1 is causative for osteochondromas. An explanation for these conflicting data may lie in the different tissues that were used in the two studies. Our study used fresh frozen material from the cartilage cap, with confirmed cartilaginous morphology, whereas their study used cultured cartilage cap cells, without clarifying which markers were used to confirm this. It is therefore impossible to exclude that the cultured cells had a fibroblast-like phenotype without evidence about morphology and biochemistry. Furthermore, as control material, we used normal age-matched growth plate, and they used normal cartilage from patients undergoing total joint replacement. EXT1 mRNA expression is high in both human (Hameetman et al. 2007a) and mouse (Stickens et al. 2000) growth plate. Endogenous EXT1 mRNA levels have not been determined previously in human articular cartilage, and have not been documented in elderly people with severe osteoarthritis, which is the most likely source of material for their study. However, high EXT expression would not be expected, because proliferating and prehypertrophic chondrocytes (i.e. the cells that express EXT in the growth plate) are infrequent in articular cartilage. Moreover, postpuberty, one would expect low or absence of expression of EXT in human articular cartilage, as the downstream signalling targets of EXT, such as Wnt, transforming growth factor, and bone morphogenetic protein, are also altered to favour chondrocyte catabolic activity (Hopwood et al. 2007). The immunohistochemical staining of EXT1 in articular cartilage is difficult to evaluate but does not suggest high expression in figures 5 and 6 of the paper. Comparison to low EXT expression in articular cartilage will mean that there appears to be an increase in osteochondromas, whereas comparison with high endogenous EXT1 expression in growth plate cartilage will suggest down regulation. As osteochondromas are presumed to arise from growth plate cartilage (Hameetman et al. 2007b; Clement et al. 2008), we believe that this is the more relevant control. Another explanation, which could account for the difference in findings, may lie in the approach used for the Western blot analysis. Pre-immune sera showed different patterns in normal, SO and hereditary MO samples. The use of a standard more stably expressed internal control, such as alpha tubulin, could overcome this problem and might lead to different conclusions. Thus we suggest that the findings are difficult to interpret based upon current understanding on the function of EXT1, and on comparative expression (Bernard et al. 2001; Hameetman et al. 2007a), and that there are technical issues, including choice of positive controls, which might account for the observations reported.