Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Jul 5;40(1):52.
doi: 10.1007/s10565-024-09877-2.

Delivery of miR-15b-5p via magnetic nanoparticle-enhanced bone marrow mesenchymal stem cell-derived extracellular vesicles mitigates diabetic osteoporosis by targeting GFAP

Chen Xu  1   2 , Zhaodong Wang  1   2 , Yajun Liu  1   2 , Keyou Duan  1   2 , Jianzhong Guan  3   4
Affiliations

Delivery of miR-15b-5p via magnetic nanoparticle-enhanced bone marrow mesenchymal stem cell-derived extracellular vesicles mitigates diabetic osteoporosis by targeting GFAP

Chen Xu et al. Cell Biol Toxicol. .

Abstract

Diabetic osteoporosis (DO) presents significant clinical challenges. This study aimed to investigate the potential of magnetic nanoparticle-enhanced extracellular vesicles (GMNPE-EVs) derived from bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (BMSCs) to deliver miR-15b-5p, thereby targeting and downregulating glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) expression in rat DO models. Data was sourced from DO-related RNA-seq datasets combined with GEO and GeneCards databases. Rat primary BMSCs, bone marrow-derived macrophages (BMMs), and osteoclasts were isolated and cultured. EVs were separated, and GMNPE targeting EVs were synthesized. Bioinformatic analysis revealed a high GFAP expression in DO-related RNA-seq and GSE26168 datasets for disease models. Experimental results confirmed elevated GFAP in rat DO bone tissues, promoting osteoclast differentiation. miR-15b-5p was identified as a GFAP inhibitor, but was significantly downregulated in DO and enriched in BMSC-derived EVs. In vitro experiments showed that GMNPE-EVs could transfer miR-15b-5p to osteoclasts, downregulating GFAP and inhibiting osteoclast differentiation. In vivo tests confirmed the therapeutic potential of this approach in alleviating rat DO. Collectively, GMNPE-EVs can effectively deliver miR-15b-5p to osteoclasts, downregulating GFAP expression, and hence, offering a therapeutic strategy for rat DO.

Keywords: Bone marrow mesenchymal stem cell; Diabetic osteoporosis; Extracellular vesicle; GFAP; Magnetic nanoparticle; Osteoclast differentiation; miR-15b-5p.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Selection of essential genes related to DO in the database. Note: (A) Volcano plot of DEGs analysis based on RNA-seq data set (Control group: n = 3; Case group: n = 3). Red dots represent up-regulated genes, blue dots represent downregulated genes, and gray dots represent genes with no difference; (B) Volcano plot of DEGs analysis based on GSE26168 data set (Control group: n = 4; Case group: n = 4); (C) Venn diagram showing the intersection of DEGs in the GSE56116 and GSE35958 microarray data sets with diabetes-related genes; (D) Heatmap of the 38 intersection genes in the RNA-seq data set (Control group: n = 3; Case group: n = 3); (E) Heatmap of the 38 intersection genes in the GSE26168 data set (Control group: n = 4; Case group: n = 4); (F) Differential expression of 5 intersection genes in RNA-seq data (Control group: n = 3; Case group: n = 3); (G) Bar chart of differential expression of GFAP in the RNA-seq data set; (H) Protein–protein interaction (PPI) network diagram of GFAP interactions; (I) KEGG functional enrichment analysis, including molecular function (MF), biological process (BP), and cell component (CC)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Influence of GFAP on osteoclast differentiation. Note: (A-C) RT-qPCR and Western blot analysis of GFAP expression levels at different time points in BMMs stimulated with RANKL; (D-E) TRAP staining to detect osteoclast differentiation in different groups of BMMs (MNC ≥ 3 nuclei were considered positive), scale bar = 100 μm; (F-G) RT-qPCR and Western blot analysis of TRAP, NFATC1, MMP9, and CTSK expression levels in different groups of BMMs. * indicates P < 0.05 compared to the control group, ** indicates P < 0.01, *** indicates P < 0.001. The cell experiments were repeated three times
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Influence of GFAP on osteoporosis in DO rats. Note: (A-B) RT-qPCR (A) and Western blot (B-C) analysis of GFAP expression levels in bone tissues of different groups of rats; (D) Micro-CT analysis of femurs in different groups of rats; (E–H) Statistical analysis of BV/TV, Tb. N, Tb.Th, and BMD in femurs of different groups as shown in panel D; (I) TRAP staining to detect the number of osteoclasts in femoral tissues of different groups, with arrows pointing to positive cells, scale bar = 200 μm; (J) Statistical analysis of the number of positive osteoclast cells shown in panel I; (K-L) ELISA to measure the levels of bone resorption markers TRAP5b (K) and CTX-I (L) in serum of different groups of rats. Each group consisted of 6 rats. * indicates P < 0.05 compared to the control group, ** indicates P < 0.01, *** indicates P < 0.001
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
EVs-mediated regulation of GFAP expression by miR-15b-5p. Note: (A) Prediction of miRNA associated with GFAP using the Norwalk, minimap, and miRDB databases, with the middle section representing the intersection of the three data sets; (B) RT-qPCR analysis of miR-15b-5p expression levels in bone tissues of different groups of rats; (C-D) Dual-luciferase reporter gene experiment to verify the targeted binding relationship between miR-15b-5p and GFAP; (E) RT-qPCR analysis of miR-15b-5p expression in BMSCs and EVs; (F) Fluorescence microscopy to detect Cy3-labeled fluorescence signals (Scale bar = 20 μm); (G) RT-qPCR analysis of miR-15b-5p and GFAP expression levels in osteoclasts; (H-I) Western blot analysis of GFAP expression levels in different groups of osteoclasts. Each group consisted of 6 rats. The cell experiments were repeated three times. * indicates P < 0.05 compared to the control group, ** indicates P < 0.01, *** indicates P < 0.001
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Characterization of GMNPE-EVs. Note: (A) Schematic diagram of GMNPE-EVs formation; (B) Infrared spectroscopy analysis of the chemical composition at each step of GMNPE formation; (C) Elemental analysis by energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS); (D) SEM observation of MNP, GMNP, and GMNPE (scale bars = 1 μm); (E) Particle size distribution of GMNPE at key steps of formation; (F) Changes in Zeta potential of GMNPE before and after stepwise modification; (G) Magnetic hysteresis loop of GMNPE; (H) Confocal microscopy imaging of anti-CD63 on GMNPE surface (bar = 25 μm); (I) Measurement of human serum albumin (HSA) adsorption on GMNPE and GMNPN nanoparticles after incubation at 37 °C for 3 days, FITC-labeled HSA, fluorescence spectroscopy used to measure the adsorption amount of HSA; (J) TGA analysis of antibody content in GMNPE. All experiments were repeated three times. * indicates difference between two groups with p < 0.05, ** indicates difference with p < 0.01, *** indicates difference with p < 0.001
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Enrichment of GMNPE-EVs in DO rat bone tissue. Note: (A) TEM imaging showing the clear core–shell corona structure of GMNPE nanoparticles and the double-layer membrane structure of EVs, top left bar = 100 nm, top right bar = 20 nm, bottom right bar = 10 nm; (B) Representative confocal microscopy imaging of GMNPE-EVs, co-localization of MNPs (red) and EVs (green), bar = 25 μm; (C) Binding capacity of GMNPE and GMNPN with EVs; (D) Western blot analysis of CD63 expression in GMNPN-EVs, GMNPE-EVs, and EVs lysates; (E) CCK-8 assay to evaluate the effect of nanoparticles on osteoclast proliferation; (F) Confocal microscopy images showing the localization of GMNPE-EVs in cells, bar = 25 μm; (G) Confocal microscopy images showing the localization of GMNPN-EVs and GMNPE-EVs in rat body, bar = 25 μm; (H) Relative fluorescence intensity of EVs in image G; (I) Immunofluorescence detection of EVs (green) and GMNPE (red)-EVs (green) signals in brain, heart, lung, liver, spleen, and kidney tissue cells, bar = 25 μm. Each group consisted of 3 rats, and cell experiments were repeated 3 times. * indicates difference between two groups, ** indicates difference with p < 0.01, *** indicates difference with p < 0.001
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
Effect of miR-15b-5p-GMNPE-EVs targeted inhibition of GFAP on osteoclastogenesis. Note: (A) Gene expression levels of GFAP and miR-15b-5p in transfected cells detected by RT-qPCR; (B) CCK-8 assay to assess the proliferation of osteoclasts co-cultured with GMNPE-EVs; (C-D) TRAP staining to assess osteoclast differentiation of BMMs after transfection (MNC ≥ 3 nuclei were considered positive); (E–G) Gene expression levels of TRAP, NFATC1, MMP9, and CTSK in transfected cells measured by RT-qPCR and Western blot. All cell experiments were repeated three times. * indicates difference between two groups with p < 0.05, ** indicates difference with p < 0.01, *** indicates difference with p < 0.001
Fig. 8
Fig. 8
Influence of miR-15b-5p-GMNPE-EVs targeting GFAP in DO rats. Note: (A-B) RT-qPCR analysis of miR-15b-5p (A) and GFAP (B) expression in DO rat bone tissue; (C) Observation of trabecular bone area in femoral sections of DO rats using H&E staining; (D) Quantification of absorption area in femoral sections of DO rats from graph B; (E–F) Quantitative analysis of TRAP-positive cells in bone sections; (G) Micro-CT evaluation of bone formation in femoral tissue of DO rats; (H) Statistical analysis of BV/TV, Tb. N, Tb.Th, and BMD; (I-J) ELISA detection of serum TRAP 5b (I) and CTX-1 (J) levels in rats. Each group consisted of 6 rats. * indicates difference between two groups with p < 0.05, ** indicates difference with p < 0.01, *** indicates difference with p < 0.001
Fig. 9
Fig. 9
Molecular mechanism diagram of MNPs loaded with BMSCs-derived EVs delivering miR-15b-5p to regulate GFAP expression and promote osteoclastogenesis in DO progression
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Abdelhak A, Foschi M, Abu-Rumeileh S, et al. Blood GFAP as an emerging biomarker in brain and spinal cord disorders. Nat Rev Neurol. 2022;18(3):158–172. doi: 10.1038/s41582-021-00616-3. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Arunachalam D, Ramanathan SM, Menon A, et al. Expression of immune response genes in human corneal epithelial cells interacting with Aspergillus flavus conidia. BMC Genomics. 2022;23(1):5. doi: 10.1186/s12864-021-08218-5. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Brenner M, Messing A. Regulation of GFAP Expression ASN Neuro. 2021;13:1759091420981206. doi: 10.1177/1759091420981206. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Brown JP. Long-Term Treatment of Postmenopausal Osteoporosis. Endocrinol Metab (seoul) 2021;36(3):544–552. doi: 10.3803/EnM.2021.301. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Chatterjee P, Pedrini S, Ashton NJ, et al. Diagnostic and prognostic plasma biomarkers for preclinical Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimers Dement. 2022;18(6):1141–1154. doi: 10.1002/alz.12447. - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms

-