Bone healing after amputation of mouse digits and newt limbs: Implications for induced regeneration in mammals

Abstract

Postamputational healing was compared in nonregenerating and regenerating animals to determine whether bone healing might interfere with a regenerative response in mice. More than 150 mouse toes and 100 newt limbs were examined at the light microscope level. Stages of normal bone healing with approximate times of occurrence were established. Major differences in healing of these two species were seen. The periosteum produced hyaline cartilage, woven bone, and chondroid bone in mice, but only hyaline cartilage in newts. The endosteum produced woven bone in mice but no new growth in newts. Dead bone persisted in mice but was removed in newts. The marrow cavity became sealed in mice but remained open in newts. Despite these differences both animals produced skeletal tissue distal to the amputation plane. Woven bone formed distal to the amputation plane of mice. Cartilage formed distal to the amputation plane of newts, but cartilage was never seen distal to the plane of mice. Results of previous studies reveal that cartilage can be formed distal to the amputation plane of experimentally treated mice. Thus, although it does not regenerate, mouse bone is capable of producing, distal to the amputation plane, the type of skeletal tissue which appears at that location during an epimorphic regenerative response. This observation, in combination with other experimental results, indicates that both skeletal and soft tissues at the amputation site of treated mammals can resemble comparable tissues of newt limbs at an early stage of regeneration.

A histomorphologic study of the normal healing response following digit amputation in C57bl/6 and MRL/MpJ mice

“…This study complements a series of studies on mouse digit healing (Schotte and Smith, 1959;Neufeld, 1983Neufeld, , 1985Neufeld, , 1989Zhao, 1993, 1995;Zhao and Neufeld, 1995;Mohammad and Neufeld, 2000;Han et al, 2003;Said et al, 2004;Chadwick et al, 2007;Han et al, 2008) which document the temporal aspects of healing in amputated mouse digits, with the addition of data on stem and progenitor cell infiltration, cell proliferation and angiogenesis. The comparative healing response of two strains of mice are described, specifically the C57bl/6 and MRL/MpJ strains.…”

Ihha induces hybrid cartilage-bone cells during zebrafish jawbone regeneration

“…This tissue has a long history in the literature, being described as a rare type of avascular bone thought to arise directly from the mineralization of cartilage (Beresford, 1981;Goret-Nicaise, 1984;Huysseune and Verraes, 1986). During mammalian development, chondroid bone contributes to the baculum and mandibular condyle (Beresford, 1975;Beresford and Burkart, 1977;Mizoguchi et al, 1993;Herdina et al, 2010), and there are numerous histological studies implicating chondroid bone in fracture repair (Pritchard and Ruzicka, 1950;Neufeld, 1985;Yasui et al, 1997), including a study on jawbone fracture repair in goldfish (Moss, 1962). As with the repair chondrocytes we describe for zebrafish jawbone regeneration, immunohistochemistry of chondroid bone has revealed colocalization of type I and II collagen and BGLAP protein, with chondrocyte-like cells embedded in mature bone (Scammell and Roach, 1996).…”

Deer antler regeneration: Cells, concepts, and controversies

“…Thus, no mammal is able to regenerate a complete limb, and limb removal usually results in wound healing with scar formation (Neufeld, 1985(Neufeld, , 1989. A limited capacity for appendage regeneration, however, exists as is shown, e.g., by the fact that digit tips of fetal and juvenile mice and finger tips of children can regenerate (Illingworth, 1974;Han et al, 2003Han et al, , 2005.…”