The Critical Role of the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor in Endochondral Ossification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Loss of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) activity in mice alters growth plate development, impairs endochondral ossification, and retards growth. However, the detailed mechanism by which EGFR regulates endochondral bone formation is unknown. Here, we show that administration of an EGFR-specific small-molecule inhibitor, gefitinib, into 1-month-old rats for 7 days produced profound defects in long bone growth plate cartilage characterized by epiphyseal growth plate thickening and massive accumulation of hypertrophic chondrocytes. Immunostaining demonstrated that growth plate chondrocytes express EGFR, but endothelial cells and osteoclasts show little to no expression. Gefitinib did not alter chondrocyte proliferation or differentiation and vascular invasion into the hypertrophic cartilage. However, osteoclast recruitment and differentiation at the chondro-osseous junction were attenuated owing to decreased RANKL expression in the growth plate. Moreover, gefitinib treatment inhibited the expression of matrix metalloproteinases (MMP-9, -13, and -14), increased the amount of collagen fibrils, and decreased degraded extracellular matrix products in the growth plate. In vitro, the EGFR ligand transforming growth factor α (TGF-α) strongly stimulated RANKL and MMPs expression and suppressed osteoprotegerin (OPG) expression in primary chondrocytes. In addition, a mouse model of cartilage-specific EGFR inactivation exhibited a similar phenotype of hypertrophic cartilage enlargement. Together our data demonstrate that EGFR signaling supports osteoclastogenesis at the chondro-osseous junction and promotes chondrogenic expression of MMPs in the growth plate. Therefore, we conclude that EGFR signaling plays an essential role in the remodeling of growth plate cartilage extracellular matrix into bone during endochondral ossification.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".