Osteomodulin positively regulates osteogenesis through interaction with bmp2

ABSTRACT Osteomodulin (OMD), a member of the small leucine-rich proteoglycan family, distributes in mineralized tissues and is positively regulated by bone morphogenetic protein 2 (BMP2).

However, the exact function of OMD during mineralization and its association with BMP2 remain poorly understood. Herein, the expression pattern of OMD during osteogenesis was investigated in

human dental pulp stem cells. Silencing _OMD_ gene significantly suppressed the alkaline phosphatase activity, mineralized nodule formation and osteogenesis-associated gene transcription.

Besides, OMD could enhance BMP2-induced expression of _SP7_ and _RUNX2_ with concentration dependence in vitro. Rat mandibular bone defect model revealed that scaffolds injected with the

combination of OMD and suboptimal BMP2 exhibited more mature and abundant mineralized bone than that treated with OMD or suboptimal BMP2 alone. Mechanistically, OMD could bind to BMP2 via

its terminal leucine-rich repeats and formed complexes with BMP2 and its membrane receptors, thus promoting BMP/SMAD signal transduction. In addition, OMD was a putative target gene of

SMAD4, which plays a pivotal role in this pathway. Collectively, these data elucidate that OMD may act as a positive coordinator in osteogenesis through BMP2/SMADs signaling. SIMILAR CONTENT

BEING VIEWED BY OTHERS MICRORNA-149 SUPPRESSES OSTEOGENIC DIFFERENTIATION OF MESENCHYMAL STEM CELLS VIA INHIBITION OF AKT1-DEPENDENT TWIST1 PHOSPHORYLATION Article Open access 10 January

2022 CIRCULAR RNA AFF4 MODULATES OSTEOGENIC DIFFERENTIATION IN BM-MSCS BY ACTIVATING SMAD1/5 PATHWAY THROUGH MIR-135A-5P/FNDC5/IRISIN AXIS Article Open access 18 June 2021 A NOVEL NEGATIVE

REGULATORY MECHANISM OF SMURF2 IN BMP/SMAD SIGNALING IN BONE Article Open access 23 November 2020 INTRODUCTION Oral and maxillofacial bone defects caused by congenital disease, cancer,

trauma, infection and other reasons seriously affect the quality of life1,2. Tissue engineering has introduced new hopes as combination of stem cells, scaffolds, and growth factors for

functional bone regeneration3, among which growth factors are crucial in promoting bone healing4. However, translation of growth factors into clinical treatments has been hindered by their

rapid release kinetics, poor protein stability or potential adverse effects with respect to high dose required5. For instance, BMP2, a leading bone graft substitute, has been associated with

an increasing side effect profile because of supraphysiologic dosage6. In osseous tissue, the local presentation and spatiotemporal distribution of growth factors are finely orchestrated by

extracellular matrix (ECM), which functions as a ligand “reservoir” by binding numerous growth factors7. ECM components modulate the bioactivities of growth factors and cytokines thereby

regulating the nature, intensity, and duration of signaling cascades within cells8, and are likely to be promising in bone bioengineering field. Small leucine-rich proteoglycans (SLRPs) are

biologically active constituents of the ECM. The core proteins of the SLRPs consist of leucine-rich repeats (LRRs) flanked by two cysteine-rich clusters9. The pericellular localization of

SLRPs, along with their multivalent binding abilities, allow for cell–matrix interactions by directly interfering with cell surface receptors and matrix molecules such as cytokines,

chemokines and growth factors, leading to modulation of cellular functions10. SLRPs take specific roles designated during all phases of bone formation, including cellular growth, organic

matrix assembly, mineral deposition, and remodeling11. Biglycan, for instance, has been confirmed as a modulator of the Wnt signaling, transforming growth factor (TGF)-beta and BMP pathway

by binding multiple molecules12,13. Nevertheless, the biological mechanisms of other members in SLRPs family have not yet been fully deciphered. Osteomodulin (OMD) (also termed osteoadherin,

OSAD) is a class II keratan sulfate SLRP expressed in mineralized tissues, including bones and teeth14,15. Besides the hydroxyapatite binding capacity, a favorable function of OMD in

governing the shape of collagen fibrils has been observed16,17. OMD also takes a part in the biological processes including cell adhesion15 and tooth formation18, and is involved in bone

diseases such as osteoarthritis and heterotopic ossification19,20,21. Additionally, OMD has been reported to be upregulated by BMP2, a potent osteoinductive cytokine, and serve roles in the

apoptosis and growth of osteoblast cells22,23. Our previous work has highlighted the necessity of OMD in osteo/odontoblastic differentiation of human dental pulp stem cells (hDPSCs)24.

However, our understanding of the precise mechanism through which OMD regulates osteogenesis remains limited. Based on the observations that OMD and TGF-beta/BMP signaling are both

associated with skeletal and dental tissues, here we propose that the proteoglycan may play a direct role in modulating TGF-beta/BMP pathway. It is hypothesized that OMD is also capable of

cell–matrix interactions similar to other SLRPs. In the present work, the function and expression pattern of OMD during cytodifferentiation further strengthens its role as a mineralization

specific marker. The exact relationship between OMD and BMP/BMPR/SMADs pathway was further explored. We identified that OMD binds to BMP2 via the tenth and eleventh LRRs and also forms

complexes with BMP receptors thereby activating downstream SMADs to regulate transcriptional response. The formation of new bone was augmented by scaffolds injected with a combination of OMD

and suboptimal BMP2 in a rat mandibular bone defect model. These data demonstrate for the first time that OMD may function as a coordinator of BMP2 in osteogenesis and provide fresh

perspectives in the biologic role and therapeutic potential for SLRPs. MATERIALS AND METHODS CELL CULTURES This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital

affiliated with Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine, China (Document No. 201769). The healthy and intact third molars were obtained from individuals at the age of 18–22 for

prophylactic purpose at the oral surgery clinic of the Ninth People’s Hospital affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine. Written informed consent was obtained from each

volunteer. Cell isolation and culture were performed and the multilineage differentiation ability of hDPSCs was confirmed as described previously24. Briefly, cells were cultured in growth

medium (GM): high-glucose Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s medium (Gibco-BRL, Gaithersburg, MD, USA) supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (Gibco-BRL), 100 U/mL penicillin, and 100 mg/mL

streptomycin. For osteogenesis, hDPSCs were subcultured in human mesenchymal stem cell osteogenic differentiation medium (OM) (Cyagen Biosciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China) for up to 21

days. OMD ELISA ASSAY Cells were seeded in 6-well plates (2 × 105 cells per well) and cultured in GM or OM for 1, 3, 7, 14 or 21 days. Supernatants were harvested 24 h after culture mediums

were refreshed, and stored at −80 °C. OMD concentration was measured by Human Osteomodulin ELISA Kit (OmnimAbs, Alhambra, CA, USA) according to the kit instructions. The optical density at

450 nm was read using a microplate reader (Bio-Tek, Winooski, VT, USA) within 15 min. ALKALINE PHOSPHATASE (ALP) STAINING, ACTIVITY MEASUREMENT, AND ALIZARIN RED S (ARS) STAINING hDPSCs were

seeded in 24-well plates (2 × 104 cells per well) and cultured in OM for 7 days. Then, cells were washed with phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) twice and fixed by 4% paraformaldehyde (PFA)

fix solution (Sangon Biotech, Shanghai, China) for 30 min. The ALP staining was carried out according to the manufacturer’s instructions (Beyotime, Shanghai, China). The ALP activity was

also measured using Alkaline Phosphatase Assay Kit (Beyotime). The ARS staining was performed after cells were cultured in OM for up to 21 days. Then, cells were washed with PBS and fixed by

4% PFA for 30 min. 0.5% ARS solution was added to visualize calcium deposition. Cells were incubated for 15 min at room temperature and washed to stop the reaction. Images were taken under

the microscope (Leica Microsystems, Weztlar, Hessen, Germany). CELL VIABILITY ASSAY The cytotoxic effects of OMD were determined using a Cell Counting Kit-8 (CCK8) (Dojindo Lab, Kumamoto,

Japan) according to the manufacturer’s protocol. hDPSCs were plated in 96-well plates at a density of 4 × 103 cells per well. Cells were then treated with different concentrations of OMD (0,

0.385, 0.75, 1.5, 3, 6, 12 μg/mL) for 24 h or 48 h. Ten microliters CCK8 buffer was added to each well, and cells were incubated at 37 °C for 2 h. The absorbance was then measured at a

wavelength of 450 nm using a microplate reader (Bio-Tek). QUANTITATIVE REAL-TIME POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION (QPCR) Total RNA of hDPSCs was extracted using TRIzol reagent (Invitrogen,

Carlsbad, CA, USA) according to the manufacturer’s instruction. Isolated RNA was quantified on a Nanodrop spectrophotometer (Thermo Scientific, Wilmington, NC, USA). In all, 500 ng RNA with

260/280 ratio of ~2.0 was reverse transcribed into complementary DNA (cDNA) using PrimeScript RT reagent Kit (Takara, Kusatsu, Japan). The gene transcription level was determined using TB

Green Premix Ex Taq (Takara) on a LightCycler 480 II instrument (Roche, Basel, Switzerland). Reaction program was set at 40 cycles of denaturation at 95 °C for 5 s, annealing at 55 °C for 30

 s, and extension at 72 °C for 30 s. Each reaction was performed in triplicate. Melting curve analysis and agarose gel electrophoresis were performed to verify the amplified products. The

expression level of mRNA was quantified and normalized to β-actin using the 2−ΔΔCt method. The sequences and resources of the primers are listed in Supplemental Table 1. PLASMIDS AND

CHEMICAL REAGENTS cDNAs of human OMD, BMPRIA, BMPRIB, BMPRII were generous gifts from Dr. Jiahuai Han (Xiamen University, Xiamen, China). BMP2 cDNA was kindly provided by Dr. Weiguo Zou

(University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai, China). The cDNAs were inserted into pLEX-HA, pLEX-FLAG or pCMV-FLAG vectors. Five OMD deletion constructs (Δ1–5), which deleted

specific LRRs, were generated by a two-step PCR method, inserted into pLEX-FLAG vectors and verified by DNA sequencing. Sequences for constructing small-hairpin RNA (shRNA) targeting human

OMD were obtained from the RNAi Consortium of the Broad Institute (http://www.broadinstitute.org/rnai/trc), and shRNA plasmid was generated with pLKO.1 vector as described previously24. RNA

INTERFERENCE AND LENTIVIRAL PRODUCTION The silence of _OMD_ gene was produced by small-interfering RNAs (siRNAs) and shRNA. hDPSCs were transfected with siRNA using X-tremeGENE siRNA

Transfection Reagent (Roche) at 50 nM final concentration according to the manufacturer’s protocol. The siRNA sequences are shown in Supplemental Table 2 and knockdown efficiency is

indicated in Supplemental Fig. 1. To generate stable cell lines, lentiviruses were produced to overexpress or silence _OMD_ gene using a three-plasmid packing system. The shRNA targeting

_OMD_ gene was constructed and knockdown efficiency was confirmed as previously described24. Lentiviral vector-mediated overexpression of OMD was validated by immunoblotting (Supplemental

Fig. 2). Briefly, full-length OMD cDNA in pLEX plasmid was co-transfected into 293T cells together with psPAX2 packaging and pMD2. G envelope plasmid DNA. Lentivirus was harvested at 48 h

after transfection and were cleansed by 0.45 μm filter. 10 μg/mL polybrene (Sigma, Saint Louis, Missouri, USA) was added into lentivirus solution before infecting cells, and stable cell

lines were selected out in 1 μg/mL puromycin (Selleck chemicals, Houston, TX, USA) for 48 h. IMMUNOBLOTS (IB) AND IMMUNOPRECIPITATION (IP) Cells were harvested with EBC lysis buffer (50 mM

Tris HCl, pH 8.0, 120 mM NaCl, 0.5% Nonidet P-40) supplemented with protease and phosphatase inhibitors (Selleck chemicals). The protein concentration in the supernatant was determined by

Bradford protein assay. 30 μg of whole-cell lysates (WCL) were separated by sodium dodecyl sulfate polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis gel, transferred onto a polyvinylidene fluoride membrane

and blotted with primary antibodies. MG132 (Selleck chemicals) was added 12 h prior to cell harvest for IP analysis. Aliquots containing 500 μg proteins of each sample were incubated with

anti-FLAG M2-agarose beads (Sigma) or anti-HA agarose beads (AOGMA, USA) for 3 h at 4 °C on a rotator. After centrifugation, IP complexes were washed four times with NETN buffer (20 mM Tris,

pH 8.0, 100 mM NaCl, and 0.5% NP-40, 1 mM EDTA) and solubilized in loading buffer. The details about primary antibodies are listed in Supplemental Table 3. CHROMATIN IMMUNOPRECIPITATION

(CHIP) ASSAY ChIP was performed using ChIP-IT high sensitivity kit (Active Motif, Carlsbad, CA, USA). In all, 4 × 106 hDPSCs without stimulation were processed following the manufacturer’s

protocol. Chromatin was sheared to a size of 200–1000 bp using a VCX-130 sonicator (Sonics and Materials, Newtown, CT, USA). Shearing Conditions were set at 25% amplitude and pulse for 2 s

on and 5 s off for a total sonication “on” time of 10 min. ChIP-IT qPCR analysis kit (Active Motif) was used to determine the enrichment ratio of binding. The negative control (NC) primers

in the kit served as an internal control for the ChIP reaction. Regions of the human _OMD_ promoter that contained putative SMAD4 binding site predicted by FIMO program

(http://meme-suite.org/doc/fimo.html) were amplified using specific primers listed in supplemental Table S1. Amplification data was quantified using DNA standard curve method according to

the manufacturer’s instructions. Afterward, the products were verified by 2% agarose gel electrophoresis. ANIMALS Six-week-old Sprague-Dawley (SD) male rats weighing approximately 200 g were

obtained from Shanghai Experimental Animal Center. Each group consisted of five rats. Rats were fed with normal chow and water ad libitum in SPF environment. All animal protocols were

approved by the Animal Experimental Ethics Committee of the Ninth People’s Hospital affiliated with the Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine (Shanghai, China) (Document No.

SH9H-2019-A729-1) and implemented in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its subsequent amendments. ANIMAL SURGERY To fully confirm the

osteogenesis potential of OMD, a full-thickness mandible bone defect model was used in SD rats. Puramatrix hydrogel (BD Biosciences, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA) was used as the scaffold. In

all, 0.1 μg of BMP2, closing to physiologic concentration, is regarded as “suboptimal” dose in rat mandibular bone defect model for limited osteogenesis exhibition25. The SD rats were

randomly divided into five group: Sham operation group; Puramatrix (Control) group; Puramatrix + 0.1 μg BMP2 group; Puramatrix + 5 μg OMD group; Puramatrix + 0.1 μg BMP2 + 5 μg OMD group.

Recombinant proteins are commercially available (Supplemental Table 4). All efforts were made to minimize the animals’ suffering. A full-thickness mandible bone defect of 3 mm in diameter

was created with a dental trephine when animal was anesthetized (Fig. 2B). The defects were then filled with scaffolds containing the proteins as described before26. The SD rats were

sacrificed at 8-week post surgery. The right mandibles were harvested and fixed in 4% PFA for 24–48 h and then stored in 70% ethanol at 4 °C for further analysis. Investigators were blinded

to the groups at time of euthanasia. MICRO-COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY (MICRO-CT) EVALUATION To observe new bone formation, the collected right mandibles were observed by micro-CT (Skyscan1076,

Kontich, Belgium). All of the samples were scanned using 18 μm3 isotropic voxel size, 40 kVp peak X-ray tube potential and 240 ms integration time, and were subjected to Gaussian filtration.

The quantitative measurements such as bone volume per tissue volume (BV/TV), bone mean density (BMD), trabecular thickness (Tb.Th), trabecular number (Tb.N), and trabecular separation

(Tb.Sp) were calculated at the mandible bone in a region of 3 mm in diameter. A threshold of 90 was used to manually delineate bone from surrounding soft tissue. Three-dimensional (3D)

images were reconstructed by NRecon Version: 1.7.1.0. The investigators were blinded to treatment of subjects. HISTOLOGY AND IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY STUDY The rat mandibles were decalcified in

15% EDTA–2Na solution (PH 7.4) on an orbital shaker at 37 °C for 4 weeks. Tissues were embedded in paraffin and sliced into 4 μm thick sections parallel to the buccal surface of the bone.

The tissue sections were deparaffinized and stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and Masson’s trichrome stain kit (Servicebio, Wuhan, Hubei, China) to detect newly formed bone and

osteoids. For immunohistochemistry, tissue sections were stained following the standard protocol using anti-Osteocalcin (OCN) antibody (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Santa Cruz, CA, USA). The

Dako REALTM EnVisionTM Detection System (Dako, Glostrup, Denmark) was used to visualize the secondary antibody. STATISTICS Data were analyzed with the use of GraphPad Prism 8.0.2 software

(GraphPad, La Jolla, CA, USA). Data were presented as mean ± SD. Differences between two groups were compared by Student’s _t_-test. When more than two groups were compared, ordinary one-way

ANOVA Tukey’s multiple comparison test was applied. Data sets from in vivo analysis were based on groups of animals. Micro-CT was analyzed using Brown-Forsythe or Welch’s ANOVA test with

Games-Howell’s test for multiple comparisons after normality and homogeneity of variance test. For all statistical tests, a two-sided _p_-value of < 0.05 was considered to be

statistically significant. RESULTS OMD PROMOTES OSTEOGENIC DIFFERENTIATION AND MINERALIZATION IN HDPSCS The mRNA level of _OMD_ significantly increased in the early period of osteogenesis,

peaked on day 7 showing about 40-fold upregulation compared with that in GM, and maintained this level for about one week, before gradually decreased in the late period of osteogenesis (Fig.

1A). Though continuously increased level of OMD protein in cells cultured in GM was detected on day 1, 3, 7, more evident increase was shown in OM during the same period (Fig. 1C). In the

late period of osteogenesis, though the intracellular level of OMD protein showed no significant differences between GM and OM (Fig. 1C), the supernatant level of OMD protein was still

higher in OM than that in GM. (Fig. 1B). Next, the role of _OMD_ gene on hDPSCs’ osteogenesis was investigated. Lower ALP activity was detected in OMD deficiency group (Fig. 1D, E). The

knockdown efficiency of siRNAs was shown in Supplemental Fig. 1 and shRNA was indicated in a previous published paper24. Decreased mineralization was detected by Alizarin Red S (ARS)

staining in shOMD after osteogenic induction for 21 days (Fig. 1F). The mRNA levels of osteogenic-related genes were also examined. In details, transcription factors such as _SP7_ and _DLX5_

presented different levels of significant down-regulation in shOMD and the late stage of induction witnessed the sharpest decline when compared to the EV group (Fig. 1G). Though the

transcription of _RUNX2_ upregulated transiently on day 1, it decreased visibly on day 14, 21 (Fig. 1G). OMD FACILITATES BMP2-INDUCED OSTEOGENESIS IN VITRO AND IN VIVO The extracellular

effect of OMD was investigated with recombinant OMD protein. The cytotoxicity assay showed that the cell viability was not hampered within the concentration of 0–12 μg/mL of OMD

(Supplemental Fig. 3). After serum starvation for 12 h, co-stimulation of hDPSCs with 0.1 μg/mL BMP2 and 0, 1, 3 μg/mL OMD for 24 h influenced osteogenic differentiation to various degrees.

Specifically, _SP7_, a transcriptional activator essential for osteogenic differentiation, was prominently upregulated in an OMD concentration-dependent manner (Fig. 2A). Other osteogenic

genes such as _RUNX2_, _OMD_, _BMP2_, _SPARC_, and _ALPL_ showed upregulations with the addition of 3 μg/mL OMD when compared to other groups (Fig. 2A). As the addition of OMD enhanced the

BMP2-induced osteogenesis in vitro, we assumed that OMD was able to optimize bone defect regeneration in vivo. To verify this assumption, four groups (Control; BMP2; OMD; BMP2 + OMD) of

Puramatrix hydrogel were applied to the full-thickness mandible bone defect models, and sham operation group was applied as a positive control group. The representative 3D micro-CT

reconstruction images and 2D images revealed the homogeneously dense bone formed in group BMP2 + OMD when compared to the Control, BMP2, or OMD group (Fig. 2C), which could also be revealed

by H&E staining (Fig. 2E). The BMD, BV/TV and Tb.N in the BMP2 group were similar to those in control group or OMD group (Fig. 2D). However, when combined OMD with BMP2, the indexes

including BMD, BV/TV and Tb.N were remarkably increased (Fig. 2D). Though Tb.Th showed no significant differences among the five groups (Supplemental Fig. 4), Tb.Sp of BMP2 + OMD group was

significantly lower than that of Control group or OMD group (Fig. 2D). A characteristic bone feature with a red color inter-blended with blue was shown by Masson Trichrome staining. The BMP2

 + OMD group has more mineralized bone (red) and less collagen-containing osteoid (blue) when compared with Control or BMP2 group (Fig. 2E). The defect area of OMD group appeared reddish in

color, denoting mature bone formation (Fig. 2E). Immunohistochemical analysis confirmed an increased level of Osteocalcin (OCN), a protein secreted solely by osteoblasts, in the BMP2 + OMD

group (Fig. 2E). OMD INTERACTS WITH BMP2 AND BMP CELL SURFACE RECEPTORS The relationship between OMD and BMP2 was in-depth analyzed because of their synergistic effect on osteogenesis. The

strong binding of OMD and BMP2 was detected by Co-IP of ectopically expressing OMD and BMP2 in 293T cells (Fig. 3A). In an effort to identify whether the LRRs were responsible for the

interaction of OMD with BMP2, a series of OMD deletion constructs were made (shown schematically in Fig. 3B). One of the five mutants, Δ5, which was lack of the tenth and eleventh LRRs, had

significantly impaired interaction with BMP2 protein when compared with full-length OMD and other deletion constructs (Fig. 3B). To investigate whether OMD’s binding with BMP2 could disturb

the interaction of BMP2 with its cell surface receptors, we performed the Co-IP assay using type I and type II BMP receptors (Fig. 3C). The results showed that OMD could bind to type II BMP

receptor. Meanwhile, complexes of OMD with type IA or type IB BMP receptor were also immunoprecipitated. As BMP2 exhibits a higher affinity to the type I than the type II receptor27, the

BMPRIA was selected to demonstrate the effect of OMD on BMP2-receptor interaction. It is worth noting that OMD did not interfere or decrease the interaction between BMP2 and BMPRIA (Fig.

3D). In addition, OMD promoted the interaction between BMPRIA and BMP2 in a concentration-dependent manner, indicating that a complex comprising OMD, BMP2 and its receptor could form and the

presence of OMD did not hinder the interaction between BMP2 and BMPRIA. OMD INDUCES OSTEOGENIC DIFFERENTIATION THROUGH BMP/SMAD PATHWAY After demonstrating that OMD could enhance

BMP2-induced osteogenic differentiation in vitro and in vivo, we investigated the effect of OMD on BMP2 downstream signaling. OMD knockdown by siRNA decreased BMP2 expression and

subsequently impaired SMAD1/5 phosphorylation in hDPSCs, while lentivirus-mediated OMD overexpression reversed such effect (Fig. 4A). The overexpression efficiency of OMD was confirmed by

immunoblot (Supplemental Fig. 2). DMH1, which specifically targets the intracellular kinase domain of BMP type I receptors28, was used to block BMP signaling. The results indicated that the

activation of SMAD signaling induced by OMD overexpression could be interrupted by BMP receptor blocker (Fig. 4B). The phosphorylation level of SMAD1/5 was higher in the hDPSCs treated with

the two recombinant biofactors than in the cells treated with BMP2 alone, and was positively relevant to the dose of OMD with the existence of BMP2 (Fig. 4C). Similarly, DMH1 could also

abolish the SMAD1/5 phosphorylation which was triggered by a combination of OMD and BMP2 proteins (Fig. 4D). To explore the genomic binding positions of SMADs in the promoter region of

_OMD_, a motif scanner program FIMO was used to determine the putative binding sites of motif predicted by JASPAR CORE database with default parameters29,30. The results showed that there

was 1 motif occurrence of SMAD4 with a _p_-value less than 0.0001 (_p_-value 1.04e − 5, _q_-value 0.0625), which was also the highest ranking sequence predicted by JASPAR database (Fig. 4E).

It located within 3 kb upstream of the transcription start site (TSS) of _OMD_ gene, and its binding affinity was verified by ChIP-qPCR assay (Fig. 4F, G). DISCUSSION We have previously

shown that OMD-silenced hDPSCs exhibited lower osteoblastic differentiation ability compared with controls24. Here, we demonstrated that the expression pattern of OMD was robustly correlated

with osteogenic phase. The positive function of OMD in osteogenesis was further verified by evaluating molecular markers of osteoblastic lineage. A deeper investigation of the mechanisms

showed that OMD could activate canonical BMP/SMAD pathway, and enhance BMP2-induced SMAD signaling, osteogenic gene expression as well as bone formation. This activation could be completely

inhibited by BMPRI inhibitor, confirming the function of OMD in mediating BMP/SMAD signal transduction. The potential interaction among OMD, BMP2 and its membrane receptors may explain the

aforementioned effects. Majority of ECM components are the proteoglycans, among which the SLRPs are the largest family31. SLRPs are capable of clustering different types of receptors and

affecting downstream intracellular phosphorylation events, including those driven by TGF-beta/BMP superfamily members, epidermal growth factor receptors, insulin like growth factor I

receptors, Met receptor and Toll-like receptors32,33. In addition to cellular proliferation33, inflammation34 and innate immunity35, it has also been well-established that specific SLRPs are

functionally involved in bone osteogenesis and homeostasis11. Unlike the well-studied SLRP members such as decorin and biglycan, the entirety of OMD’s biological functions remains elusive.

In light of structural similarity and multifunction of SLRP members, therefore, it is hypothesized OMD may share some typical features of its group. The principle role of OMD in skeletal

development is corroborated by the observation that abundant expression of OMD has been detected within mature osteoblasts derived from MC3T3E1 cell lines or primary osteoblasts22,36,37. It

has been reported that OMD may be secreted into the pericellular space of odontoblasts and osteoblasts and serve as a “fossilized” protein after biomineralization15,18. In current study, the

expression of OMD in hDPSCs, a type of multipotent cells capable of osteoblastic differentiation38, significantly increased when cultured in osteogenic medium. In the late period of

osteogenesis, OMD protein may be secreted into the extracellular environment, thus taking a part in matrix assembly or cellular modulation. The knockdown of _OMD_ in hDPSCs could attenuate

the ALP activity and calcium deposits, which coincides well with previous studies37. Unsurprisingly, it could also influence the molecular markers of osteoblastic lineage. RUNX2, SP7 and

DLX5 are mandatory transcriptional factors regulating the osteogenic process39,40. The overall transcription levels of _SP7_ and _DLX5_ were significantly declined following knockdown of

_OMD_ during osteogenesis. Intriguingly, _RUNX2_ was transiently upregulated in the early period, indicating that some antagonizing pathway of short duration may be aroused. BMPs are

initiators of a biological cascade that involves osteogenic signaling events and that culminates in the production of functional bone tissue41. BMP2 is a potent stimulator of

osteoblastogenesis. It is known that _RUNX2_ and _SP7_ are well-established BMP2-target genes and _DLX5_ is required for SP7 expression under BMP signaling42,43. Owing to the synergistic

effect between these transcription factors and BMP2, it is, therefore, feasible to assume that OMD may be implicated in the BMP/SMAD signaling. It was found that the forced expression of OMD

could increase the level of BMP2 and elicit activation of the canonical BMP pathway effectors SMAD1 and 5. Conversely, suppression of OMD down-regulated BMP2 and then prevented the

intracellular signal transduction. Previous studies show that BMP2 is capable of inducing the expression of OMD22,23. To further elucidate the underlying molecular mechanism, the ChIP assay

was performed and showed that SMAD4 endogenously associated with region 2.2 kb upstream of TSS in _OMD_ promoter. Thus, these data suggest a possible feed-forward cycle between OMD and BMP2,

which may drive the osteogenic response forward. Recombinant BMPs have been exploited as osteoinductive agents of bone healing in pre-clinical models or clinical settings44. Low dosages of

BMP2 exhibit inferior osteogenic ability or even induce the commitment of stem cells into adipocytes45. In this work, 100 ng/mL BMP2 was able to prominently stimulate _SP7_ expression in

hDPSCs albeit low expression of _RUNX2_. This is in consent with previous reports that BMP2-induced SP7 expression can occur independently of RUNX242,46. With the coexistence of BMP2, OMD

could enhance the expression of osteogenic genes and the phosphorylation of SMAD1/5 in a dose-dependent manner. This effect could be recapitulated in vivo with a rat mandibular bone defect

model, which showed that exogenous addition of OMD could accelerate BMP2-induced bone healing. Mineralized bone forms when collagen-containing osteoid integrates hydroxyapatite crystals47.

The Masson’s trichrome staining potentially indicated that OMD accelerated mineral accrual when bone was remodeled. Of note, the SP7 transcription factor showed significant correlation with

OMD and this implied that OMD could activate signaling targeted at SP7, which may underlie the accelerated bone formation. Another possible mechanism behind this effect was that OMD may

sequester BMP2 in the ECM for sustainable releasing. The relationship between OMD and BMP2 was further investigated because of their synergistic effect. Our study indicated that OMD had a

high affinity to BMP2. The structure of OMD contains 11 LRR motifs, which are the characterized feature of the core protein14. It has been documented that LRRs are considered to be sites of

protein–protein interactions48. In the solenoid structures of LRRs, the concave surface is often used for protein or ligand binding and the mutations frequently affect the protein/ligand

affinity49. In this regard, the significance of different LRR sequences of OMD was verified in the interaction. As noted in previous studies, OMD binding to type I collagen is driven by weak

electrostatic forces involving the residues Glu284 (located in LRR9) and Glu303 (located in LRR10)16. Our results showed that the tenth and eleventh of LRRs were essential parts for the

binding between OMD and BMP2, and were presumed to be the potential effective domain facilitating BMP2-induced signal transduction. Asporin, the third member of the type I SLRPs, possesses

an opposite feature of inactivation of the BMP2 signaling pathway via its LRR5 motif, exemplifying diverse effects of LRRs50. BMP2 transduces signals by complexing with transmembrane

serine-threonine kinase receptors51. The receptors are classified into two subgroups termed type I and type II. Type I receptor can be phosphorylated as a downstream component of type II

receptors, and determine the specificity of the intracellular signals in BMP signaling52. The specific interaction of OMD with the two types of receptors were investigated in this study,

which indicated that OMD had binding affinities for both types of BMP receptors. Furthermore, it seemed that the BMPRIB exhibited higher affinity with OMD than other receptor subsets in the

interaction analysis. It has been identified that BMP2 binds BMPRIA with at least 50- to 60- fold higher affinity than BMPRII53. Consequently, whether the binding effect of OMD with BMPRIA

would interfere the interaction between BMP2 and BMPRIA was explored. It is noteworthy that OMD did not interfere or hide the sites of interaction between BMP2 and BMPRIA. In other words,

the complex formed by OMD, BMP2 and its receptors presumably promote BMP2 to anchor its cell surface receptors. The subsequent signal transduction could be abolished by BMP type I receptor

inhibitor, which further support the osteogenic role of OMD via BMP2/SMAD pathway. However, much remains to be discovered about the exact function of OMD in the detailed structural assembly

and conformational changes of BMP2/BMPRI/BMPRII ternary complex. The possible regulatory mechanisms of OMD are summarized in Fig. 5. In conclusion, the present study provides evidence for

what is, to our knowledge, a novel role of the matrix component OMD as a positive modulator of osteogenesis and a coordinator of BMP2 signaling. The combination of BMP2 and OMD manifest

enhanced biological activity. The C-terminal leucine-rich repeats in OMD are presumed to be the main domain of interaction with BMP2. OMD may facilitate BMP2 to anchor its cell surface

receptors and further ignites intracellular signal transmission. The location and function of OMD outside the cell makes it easier to intervene and exogenous addition of OMD may potentially

be a new approach for bone regeneration strategy but more in-depth insight into OMD’s biology is warranted with regard to risk management and treatment efficacy. REFERENCES * Visscher, D. O.

et al. Advances in bioprinting technologies for craniofacial reconstruction. _Trends Biotechnol._ 34, 700–710 (2016). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Kawecki, F., Clafshenkel, W.

P., Fortin, M., Auger, F. A. & Fradette, J. Biomimetic tissue-engineered bone substitutes for maxillofacial and craniofacial repair: the potential of cell sheet technologies. _Adv.

Healthc. Mater._ 7, e1700919 (2018). Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar  * Grayson, W. L. et al. Stromal cells and stem cells in clinical bone regeneration. _Nat. Rev. Endocrinol._ 11,

140–150 (2015). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Greg, H. et al. Bone regeneration, reconstruction and use of osteogenic cells; from basic knowledge, animal models to

clinical trials. _J. Clin. Med._ 9, 139 (2020). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Pacelli, S. et al. Strategies to develop endogenous stem cell-recruiting bioactive materials for tissue repair

and regeneration. _Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev._ 120, 50–70 (2017). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * James, A. W. et al. A review of the clinical side effects of bone

morphogenetic protein-2. _Tissue Eng. Part B Rev._ 22, 284–297 (2016). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Bonnans, C., Chou, J. & Werb, Z. Remodelling the

extracellular matrix in development and disease. _Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol._ 15, 786–801 (2014). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Zhu, J. & Clark, R. A. F.

Fibronectin at select sites binds multiple growth factors and enhances their activity: expansion of the collaborative ECM-GF paradigm. _J. Invest. Dermatol._ 134, 895–901 (2014). Article 

CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * McEwan, P. A., Scott, P. G., Bishop, P. N. & Bella, J. Structural correlations in the family of small leucine-rich repeat proteins and proteoglycans. _J.

Struct. Biol._ 155, 294–305 (2006). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Merline, R., Schaefer, R. M. & Schaefer, L. The matricellular functions of small leucine-rich proteoglycans

(SLRPs). _J. Cell Commun. Signal._ 3, 323–335 (2009). Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Nikitovic, D. et al. The biology of small leucine-rich proteoglycans in bone

pathophysiology. _J. Biol. Chem._ 287, 33926–33933 (2012). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Bi, Y. et al. Extracellular matrix proteoglycans control the fate of bone

marrow stromal cells. _J. Biol. Chem._ 280, 30481–30489 (2005). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Berendsen, A. D. et al. Modulation of canonical Wnt signaling by the extracellular

matrix component biglycan. _Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA_ 108, 17022–17027 (2011). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Sommarin, Y., Wendel, M., Shen, Z., Hellman, U. &

Heinegard, D. Osteoadherin, a cell-binding keratan sulfate proteoglycan in bone, belongs to the family of leucine-rich repeat proteins of the extracellular matrix. _J. Biol. Chem._ 273,

16723–16729 (1998). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Couble, M. L. et al. Immunodetection of osteoadherin in murine tooth extracellular matrices. _Histochem. Cell Biol._ 121, 47–53

(2004). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Tashima, T. et al. Molecular basis for governing the morphology of type-I collagen fibrils by Osteomodulin. _Commun. Biol._ 1, 33 (2018).

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Ramstad, V. E., Franzen, A., Heinegard, D., Wendel, M. & Reinholt, F. P. Ultrastructural distribution of osteoadherin in rat bone shows

a pattern similar to that of bone sialoprotein. _Calcif. Tissue Int._ 72, 57–64 (2003). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Petersson, U., Hultenby, K. & Wendel, M. Identification,

distribution and expression of osteoadherin during tooth formation. _Eur. J. Oral. Sci._ 111, 128–136 (2003). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Juchtmans, N. et al. Distinct

dysregulation of the small leucine-rich repeat protein family in osteoarthritic acetabular labrum compared to articular cartilage. _Arthritis Rheumatol. (Hoboken, N. J.)_ 67, 435–441 (2015).

Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Edsberg, L. E., Crowgey, E. L., Osborn, P. M. & Wyffels, J. T. A survey of proteomic biomarkers for heterotopic ossification in blood serum. _J. Orthop.

Surg. Res._ 12, 69 (2017). Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Sanchez, C. et al. Comparison of secretome from osteoblasts derived from sclerotic versus non-sclerotic

subchondral bone in OA: a pilot study. _PLoS ONE_ 13, e0194591 (2018). Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar  * Hamaya, E., Fujisawa, T. & Tamura, M. Osteoadherin serves

roles in the regulation of apoptosis and growth in MC3T3E1 osteoblast cells. _Int. J. Mol. Med._ 44, 2336–2344 (2019). CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Rehn, A. P., Chalk, A. M. & Wendel,

M. Differential regulation of osteoadherin (OSAD) by TGF-beta1 and BMP-2. _Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun._ 349, 1057–1064 (2006). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Lin, W. et al. The

role of osteomodulin on osteo/odontogenic differentiation in human dental pulp stem cells. _BMC Oral Health_ 19, 22 (2019). Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Arosarena, O.

& Collins, W. Comparison of BMP-2 and -4 for rat mandibular bone regeneration at various doses. _Orthod. Craniofacial Res._ 8, 267–276 (2005). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  *

Dissanayaka, W. L., Hargreaves, K. M., Jin, L., Samaranayake, L. P. & Zhang, C. The interplay of dental pulp stem cells and endothelial cells in an injectable peptide hydrogel on

angiogenesis and pulp regeneration in vivo. _Tissue Eng. Part A_ 21, 550–563 (2015). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Shi, Y. & Massague, J. Mechanisms of TGF-beta signaling from

cell membrane to the nucleus. _Cell_ 113, 685–700 (2003). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Hao, J. et al. DMH1, a small molecule inhibitor of BMP type i receptors, suppresses growth

and invasion of lung cancer. _PLoS ONE_ 9, e90748 (2014). Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar  * Grant, C. E., Bailey, T. L. & Noble, W. S. FIMO: scanning for

occurrences of a given motif. _Bioinformatics_ 27, 1017–1018 (2011). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Fornes, O. et al. JASPAR 2020: update of the open-access database

of transcription factor binding profiles. _Nucleic Acids Res._ 48, D87–D92 (2020). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Zappia, J. et al. From translation to protein degradation as

mechanisms for regulating biological functions: a review on the SLRP family in skeletal tissues. _Biomolecules_ 10, 80 (2020). Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Schaefer, L.

& Schaefer, R. M. Proteoglycans: from structural compounds to signaling molecules. _Cell Tissue Res_. 339, 237–246 (2010). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Iozzo, R. V. &

Schaefer, L. Proteoglycans in health and disease: novel regulatory signaling mechanisms evoked by the small leucine-rich proteoglycans. _FEBS J._ 277, 3864–3875 (2010). Article  CAS  PubMed

  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Moreth, K., Iozzo, R. V. & Schaefer, L. Small leucine-rich proteoglycans orchestrate receptor crosstalk during inflammation. _Cell Cycle_ 11,

2084–2091 (2012). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Zou, W. et al. Small leucine rich proteoglycans in host immunity and renal diseases. _J. Cell Commun. Signal._ 13,

463–471 (2019). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Ninomiya, K. et al. Osteoclastic activity induces osteomodulin expression in osteoblasts. _Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun._ 362, 460–466

(2007). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Rehn, A. P., Cerny, R., Sugars, R. V., Kaukua, N. & Wendel, M. Osteoadherin is upregulated by mature osteoblasts and enhances their in

vitro differentiation and mineralization. _Calcif. Tissue Int._ 82, 454–464 (2008). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Nuti, N., Corallo, C., Chan, B. M., Ferrari, M. &

Gerami-Naini, B. Multipotent differentiation of human dental pulp stem cells: a literature review. _Stem Cell Rev. Rep._ 12, 511–523 (2016). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Karsenty,

G., Kronenberg, H. M. & Settembre, C. Genetic control of bone formation. _Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol._ 25, 629–648 (2009). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Lee, K. M. et al.

Inhibition of STAT5A promotes osteogenesis by DLX5 regulation. _Cell Death Dis._ 9, 1136 (2018). Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar  * Lowery, J. W. & Rosen, V. The BMP

pathway and its inhibitors in the skeleton. _Physiol. Rev._ 98, 2431–2452 (2018). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Ulsamer, A. et al. BMP-2 induces Osterix expression through

up-regulation of Dlx5 and its phosphorylation by p38. _J. Biol. Chem._ 283, 3816–3826 (2008). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Lee, M. H., Kwon, T. G., Park, H. S., Wozney, J. M.

& Ryoo, H. M. BMP-2-induced Osterix expression is mediated by Dlx5 but is independent of Runx2. _Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun._ 309, 689–694 (2003). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  * Hankenson, K. D., Gagne, K. & Shaughnessy, M. Extracellular signaling molecules to promote fracture healing and bone regeneration. _Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev._ 94, 3–12 (2015). Article 

CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Huang, H. et al. BMP signaling pathway is required for commitment of C3H10T1/2 pluripotent stem cells to the adipocyte lineage. _Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA_

106, 12670–12675 (2009). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Matsubara, T. et al. BMP2 regulates Osterix through Msx2 and Runx2 during osteoblast differentiation. _J.

Biol. Chem._ 283, 29119–29125 (2008). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Vrahnas, C. et al. Increased autophagy in EphrinB2-deficient osteocytes is associated with

elevated secondary mineralization and brittle bone. _Nat. Commun._ 10, 3436 (2019). Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar  * Ng, A. & Xavier, R. J. Leucine-rich repeat

(LRR) proteins: integrators of pattern recognition and signaling in immunity. _Autophagy_ 7, 1082–1084 (2011). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Matsushima, N.,

Takatsuka, S., Miyashita, H. & Kretsinger, R. H. Leucine rich repeat proteins: sequences, mutations, structures and diseases. _Protein Pept. Lett._ 26, 108–131 (2019). Article  CAS 

PubMed  Google Scholar  * Tomoeda, M. et al. PLAP-1/asporin inhibits activation of BMP receptor via its leucine-rich repeat motif. _Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun._ 371, 191–196 (2008).

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Yadin, D., Knaus, P. & Mueller, T. D. Structural insights into BMP receptors: specificity, activation and inhibition. _Cytokine Growth Factor

Rev._ 27, 13–34 (2016). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Miyazono, K., Kamiya, Y. & Morikawa, M. Bone morphogenetic protein receptors and signal transduction. _J. Biochem._ 147,

35–51 (2010). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Nickel, J. & Mueller, T. specification of BMP signaling. _Cells_ 8, 1579 (2019). Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We specially thank Dr. Jiahuai Han from Xiamen University, Xiamen, China, for the kind gifts of OMD, BMPRIA, BMPRIB and BMPRII cDNAs used in this work.

We also thank Dr. Weiguo Zou from University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai, China, for providing the BMP2 cDNA. We would like to show sincere appreciation to the staff members at

the Dr. Daming Gao’s lab, Shanghai Institute of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, Shanghai, China, for technical assistance, as well as for all their support. FUNDING This work was supported by

grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (82071104/81570964/81371143), the Shanghai Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases (19MC1910600), and partly supported by the

Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital affiliated with Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine (JYJC201806/JYLJ201908). AUTHOR INFORMATION Author notes * These authors contributed

equally: Wenzhen Lin, Xiaohan Zhu AUTHORS AND AFFILIATIONS * Department of Endodontics, Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital, College of Stomatology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of

Medicine, Shanghai, China Wenzhen Lin, Xiaohan Zhu, Mengying Mao & Zhengwei Huang * National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Shanghai, China Wenzhen Lin, Xiaohan Zhu, 

Mengying Mao & Zhengwei Huang * Shanghai Key Laboratory of Stomatology & Shanghai Research Institute of Stomatology, Shanghai, China Wenzhen Lin, Xiaohan Zhu, Mengying Mao & 

Zhengwei Huang * Department of Endodontics, Shanghai Stomatological Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China Li Gao * Oral Biomedical Engineering Laboratory, Shanghai Stomatological

Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China Li Gao * State Key Laboratory of Cell Biology, CAS Key Laboratory of Systems Biology, CAS Center for Excellence in Molecular Cell Science,

Shanghai Institute of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai, China Daming Gao * University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China Daming Gao Authors *

Wenzhen Lin View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Xiaohan Zhu View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google

Scholar * Li Gao View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Mengying Mao View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed 

Google Scholar * Daming Gao View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Zhengwei Huang View author publications You can also search for this author

inPubMed Google Scholar CONTRIBUTIONS W.L. data acquisition, data analysis and interpretation, drafting the article, revising and editing, final approval of the manuscript to be published;

X.Z. data acquisition, data analysis and interpretation, drafting the article, revising and editing, final approval of the manuscript to be published; L.G. data acquisition, revising and

editing, final approval of the manuscript to be published; M.M. data analysis and interpretation, revising and editing, final approval of the manuscript to be published; D.G. conception and

design, revising and editing, final approval of the manuscript to be published; Z.H. conception and design, data analysis and interpretation, revising and editing, final approval of the

manuscript to be published. CORRESPONDING AUTHOR Correspondence to Zhengwei Huang. ETHICS DECLARATIONS CONFLICT OF INTEREST The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. ETHICS

STATEMENT This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital affiliated with Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine, China (Document No. 201769).

Animal protocols were approved by the Animal Experimental Ethics Committee of the Ninth People’s Hospital affiliated with the Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine (Shanghai,

China) (Document No. SH9H-2019-A729-1). ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PUBLISHER’S NOTE Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional

affiliations. Edited by A. Stephanou SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION SUPPLEMENTAL FIGURE 1 TO 4 SUPPLEMENTAL TABLE 1. PRIMERS USED FOR QRT-PCR AND CHIP SUPPLEMENTAL TABLE 2. SIRNA SEQUENCES

SUPPLEMENTAL TABLE 3. ANTIBODIES SUPPLEMENTAL TABLE 4. BIOLOGICAL MODULATORS RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS OPEN ACCESS This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0

International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the

source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative

Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by

statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Reprints and permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE Lin, W., Zhu, X., Gao, L. _et al._ Osteomodulin positively regulates osteogenesis

through interaction with BMP2. _Cell Death Dis_ 12, 147 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41419-021-03404-5 Download citation * Received: 23 July 2020 * Revised: 23 December 2020 * Accepted:

04 January 2021 * Published: 01 February 2021 * DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41419-021-03404-5 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative