Search

The current models of osteoclastic bone resorption focus on immobile osteoclasts sitting on the bone surface and drilling a pit into the bone matrix. It recently appeared that many osteoclasts also enlarge their pit by moving across the bone surface while resorbing. Drilling a pit thus represents only the start of a resorption event of much larger amplitude. This prolonged resorption activity significantly contributes to pathological bone destruction, but the mechanism whereby the osteoclast engages in this process does not have an answer within the standard bone resorption models. Herein, we review observations that lead to envision how prolonged resorption is possible through simultaneous resorption and migration. According to the standard pit model, the “sealing zone” which surrounds the ruffled border (i.e., the actual resorption apparatus), “anchors” the ruffled border against the bone surface to be resorbed. Herein, we highlight that continuation of resorption demands that the sealing zone “glides” inside the cavity. Thereby, the sealing zone emerges as the structure responsible for orienting and displacing the ruffled border, e.g., directing resorption against the cavity wall. Importantly, sealing zone displacement stringently requires thorough collagen removal from the cavity wall - which renders strong cathepsin K collagenolysis indispensable for engagement of osteoclasts in cavity-enlargement. Furthermore, the sealing zone is associated with generation of new ruffled border at the leading edge, thereby allowing the ruffled border to move ahead. The sealing zone and ruffled border displacements are coordinated with the migration of the cell body, shown to be under control of lamellipodia at the leading edge and of the release of resorption products at the rear. We propose that bone resorption demands more attention to osteoclastic models integrating resorption and migration activities into just one cell phenotype.

Screening for systemic amyloidosis is typically carried out with abdominal fat aspirates with varying reported sensitivities. Fat aspirates are preferred for use in primary screening instead of organ biopsies as they are less invasive and thereby minimize the potential risk of complications. At Odense Amyloidosis Center, we performed a prospective study on whether the combined use of fat aspirate and tru-cut skin biopsy could increase the diagnostic sensitivity. Both fat aspirates and skin biopsies were screened with Congo Red staining, and positive biopsies were subsequently subtyped using immunoelectron microscopy and mass spectrometry. Seventy-six patients were included. In total, 24 patients had systemic amyloidosis (11 AL, 12 wtATTR, 1 AA), and 6 patients had localized amyloidosis. Combined fat aspirate and skin biopsy were Congo Red-positive in 15 patients (overall sensitivity (OS) 62.5%). Fat aspirates were positive in 14 patients (OS 58.3%), and the skin biopsy was positive in 5 patients (OS 20.8%). In only one patient did the skin biopsy add extra diagnostic information. The sensitivity differed between AL and ATTR amyloidosis—81.8% and 41.7%, respectively. Using skin biopsy as the only screening method is not recommended.