Re: 암세포 뼈 전이 메카니즘 - Molecular Mechanisms of Bone Metastasis and Associated Muscle Weakness - 논문 읽어야!!

[문형철]

beyond reason

암세포는 단단한 뼈에 어떻게 전이되는 것일까? 

논문을 함께 읽어줄 공부멤버가 필요한데!!!

Abstract

Bone is a preferred site for breast cancer metastasis and leads to pathologic bone loss due to increased osteoclast-induced bone resorption. The homing of tumor cells to the bone depends on the support of the bone microenvironment in which the tumor cells prime the premetastatic niche. The colonization and growth of tumor cells then depend on adaptations in the invading tumor cells to take advantage of normal physiologic responses by mimicking bone marrow cells. This concerted effort by tumor cells leads to uncoupled bone remodeling in which the balance of osteoclast-driven bone resorption and osteoblast-driven bone deposition is lost. Breast cancer bone metastases often lead to osteolytic lesions due to hyperactive bone resorption. Release of growth factors from bone matrix during resorption then feeds a “vicious cycle” of bone destruction leading to many skeletal-related events. In addition to activity in bone, some of the factors released during bone resorption are also known to be involved in skeletal muscle regeneration and contraction. In this review, we discuss the mechanisms that lead to osteolytic breast cancer bone metastases and the potential for cancer-induced bone-muscle cross-talk leading to skeletal muscle weakness. Clin Cancer Res; 20(12); 3071–7. ©2014 AACR.

Introduction

Bone metastases are common in patients with advanced malignancy. Primary tumors exhibit metastatic tropism to particular organs and the skeleton is a preferred site for breast cancer metastasis. Breast cancer that is metastatic to bone causes a significant imbalance in normal bone remodeling through perturbation of osteoclast-mediated bone resorption and osteoblast-mediated bone formation (1). Bone metastases are classified on the basis of radiographic appearance as either osteolytic or osteoblastic (osteosclerotic). Breast cancer is typically associated with osteolytic lesions, but most cases involve uncoupled components of both bone destruction and new bone formation. Bone metastases from breast cancer affect 65% to 80% of patients with advanced malignancy (2). Bone metastases cause severe bone pain and increased risk of pathologic fracture, hypercalcemia, and nerve compression syndromes that significantly reduce the quality of life (1). Perhaps most devastating is the fact that once the primary tumor has spread to the bone, it is incurable. The current standard of care for patients with bone loss due to osteolytic bone metastases includes antiresorptive therapy aimed at reducing skeletal-related events but is not curative with regard to tumor burden (1, 2).

A significant comorbidity of osteolytic bone metastases is muscle weakness and fatigue that is often associated with cancer cachexia. Cachexia is a common paraneoplastic syndrome that is characterized by severe wasting due to loss of both fat and lean body mass (3, 4). Although the age and chemotherapeutic treatment regimens of patients with advanced disease and bone metastases make it difficult to assess the true incidence of malignancy-induced muscle weakness (5), a clinical perspective suggests that many patients do experience severe muscle weakness and fatigue. Improving muscle function and mobility of patients with cancer would have a positive impact on adherence to treatment regimens and overall health (5). Therefore, a better understanding of the mechanism(s) of muscle weakness associated with bone metastases and cancer cachexia will lead to targeted therapeutics. Moreover, refocusing attention to determine muscle quality in addition to improving muscle mass will likely provide the most beneficial treatment options for this devastating complication of malignancy.

Molecular mechanisms of bone metastasis

The initiation and progression of bone metastasis are complex multistep processes. Tumor cells must detach from the primary tumor and enter the systemic circulation (intravasation), evade detection by the immune system, and adhere to capillaries in the bone marrow leading to extravasation into the bone marrow space (6). Tumor cells in the bone first form micrometastases that can either develop into overt metastatic lesions or lay dormant for long periods before reactivating in the bone microenvironment. In either case, it is believed that the invading tumor cells prime the bone microenvironment by enriching the premetastatic niche (local environment) for further colonization and growth of tumor cells (Fig. 1; refs. 2, 7–9).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Figure 1.

Premetastatic niche and bone homing. Modulation of the bone microenvironment by circulating breast cancer cells results in priming of the bone marrow as a premetastatic niche through tumor cell secretion of OPN, HPSE, and PTHrP. Colonization of the bone and recruitment of HSC occur by tumor cell expression‎ of integrins (αvβ3), RANK, CXCR4, MMP-1, IL-11, and CTGF. CXCL12 (SDF-1) expression‎ on osteoblasts facilitates homing of tumor cells to bone.

The hematopoietic system plays an important role in development of the premetastatic niche. The bone marrow may serve as a protective milieu for dormant tumor cells to resist chemotherapeutic attack, and tumor cells may use the same physiologic mechanisms as those used by hematopoietic stem cells (HSC) homing to bone (10, 11). In the premetastatic niche, the invading tumor cells prime the stroma by production of factors that elicit responses in cells of the bone microenvironment and make it conducive to tumor colonization and growth (2). In addition, bone resorption also regulates HSC homing (12). Factors derived from tumor cells include osteopontin (OPN), which promotes bone marrow cell migration and tumor cell proliferation (13, 14); heparanase (HPSE), which acts in the extracellular matrix to reduce heparin sulfate chain length leading to increased bone resorption (15); and parathyroid hormone-related protein (PTHrP), which promotes bone resorption (16) and may also enhance production of bone marrow chemokines such as C-C motif ligand 2 (17). Recently, it has also been shown that the sympathetic nervous system is also capable of stimulating stromal cells, thus promoting breast cancer bone metastasis (18).

Tumor cells invading the bone also express factors that facilitate further recruitment to the bone microenvironment, a process called osteotropism (19). αvβ3 integrin promotes adhesion of breast cancer cells in bone and is associated with bone metastasis (20). αvβ3 integrin also cooperates with bone sialoprotein and matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-2 to promote tumor cell colonization in bone (21, 22). Receptor activator of NF-κB (RANK) mediates osteoclast-induced bone resorption and supports tumor cell colonization (23). The chemokine CXC ligand 12 [CXCL12; also known as stromal cell-derived factor 1 (SDF-1)] is a potent chemoattractant for HSCs and is highly expressed on osteoblasts and bone marrow stromal cells. Expression‎ of its receptor, CXC receptor 4 (CXCR4), on cancer cells plays an important role in bringing tumor cells to bone (24). In addition, interactions between CXCL12 and CXCR4 in the bone microenvironment lead to an upregulation of αvβ3 integrin, facilitating additional cell adhesion. CXCR4 was identified as one of a set of proteins highly overexpressed in breast cancer cells (MDA-MB-231) of high bone metastatic potential by serial selection in vivo (10). Kang and colleagues also found that MMP-1, interleukin (IL)-11, and connective tissue growth factor (CTGF) were highly expressed in in vivo serially selected tumor cells that exhibited increased homing to bone compared with parental cells. IL-11 and MMP-1 stimulate bone resorption by increasing osteoblast production of RANK ligand (RANKL). Increased expression‎ of MMP-1 and a disintegrin and metalloproteinase with thrombospondin motifs (ADAMTS1) suppresses osteoprotegerin (OPG) expression‎ in osteoblasts, which leads to osteoclast differentiation (25). CTGF stimulates osteoblast proliferation, which leads to further osteoclast activation and increased osteolysis (2).

Following osteotropism, the tumor cells adapt to the bone marrow space by expressing factors that allow growth in their new microenvironment. Osteolytic lesions are the most common type observed from breast cancers metastatic to bone. PTHrP secreted by breast cancer cells was the first characterized tumor-derived mediator of bone destruction (16). In mice without detectable circulating PTHrP or hypercalcemia, neutralizing antibodies to PTHrP blocked breast cancer bone metastases-associated bone loss and tumor growth. It was then shown that TGF-β in the bone microenvironment induced the expression‎ of PTHrP by metastatic breast cancer cells that led to increased bone destruction (26). Breast cancer cells in bone also express COX-2, which supports the development and progression of bone metastases controlled by prostaglandin leading to bone resorption (27). The osteolytic factors IL-8 and IL-11 are also expressed by tumor cells in the bone microenvironment and directly support osteoclast maturation (28, 29). In addition to secreted factors, tumor cells express transcription factors that support growth in bone. The transcription factors, GLI2, runt-related transcription factor 2 (RUNX2), and hypoxia-inducible growth factor-1 α (HIF-1α) promote osteolysis. GLI2, part of the Hedgehog signaling network, induces PTHrP expression‎ leading to bone destruction (30). RUNX2 regulates MMP-9 transcription leading to increased tumor cell invasion by breaking down the extracellular matrix (31). HIF-1α expression‎ inhibits osteoblast differentiation and promotes osteoclastogenesis, thus supporting bone resorption and tumor growth (32, 33). Tumor cells also express Jagged1 (Jag1) that activates the Notch pathway, which activates osteoclast differentiation (34).

In the normal adult, setting bone is constantly remodeled to adjust for functional demands or to repair microfractures that occur as a part of normal activity. This process is driven by the coupled activity of osteoclasts that resorb mineralized matrix and osteoblasts that lay down new bone (35, 36). Ultimately, tumor cells in the bone microenvironment disrupt this normal physiologic process and skew balance toward either bone destruction or bone formation. In most breast cancers metastatic to bone, the tumor cells produce factors that directly or indirectly induce the formation of osteoclasts. In turn, bone resorption releases growth factors from bone matrix (e.g., TGF-β) that stimulate tumor growth and further osteolysis. This reciprocal interaction between breast cancer cells and the bone microenvironment results in a “vicious cycle” that increases both bone destruction and the tumor burden (Fig. 2; ref. 2).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Figure 2.

Vicious cycle of osteolytic bone metastasis. Osteolytic bone destruction due to dysregulation of normal bone remodeling is predominant in breast cancer metastasis. Breast cancer cells colonizing the bone secrete osteolytic factors: PTHrP, COX-2, and IL-11. Tumor cells also express transcription factors GLI2, RUNX2, and HIF-1α that promote osteolysis. Jag1 expressed on tumor cells activates osteoclast differentiation by inducing Notch signaling in preosteoclasts. Bone resorption releases TGF-β from the bone matrix, which enhances tumor cell proliferation and survival, thus feeding a vicious cycle leading to further bone destruction.

Preclinical data suggest that reducing bone resorption prevents the development of bone metastases. Osteoclast inhibitors are useful agents to slow or reverse bone loss (2), whereas antiresorptive therapy (bisphosphonates), OPG, and other RANKL antagonists reduce growth of bone metastases (37, 38). TGF-β antagonism is another mechanism for reducing tumor growth in bone. TGF-β is abundant in the mineralized bone matrix and is released from the matrix during osteoclastic bone resorption (39). Blocking the TGF-β pathway reduces bone metastasis and tumor burden (40–43). Blocking bone resorption, especially through modulating TGF-β signaling, offers a promising area for therapeutic intervention in bone metastasis and potentially its comorbidities.

Muscle dysfunction associated with breast cancer bone metastasis

Muscle and bone anabolism are tightly coupled during growth and development. Conversely, muscle and bone catabolism occur during aging. Yet the cellular and molecular mechanisms linking these two tissues are not well understood.

Muscle is known to secrete many factors capable of affecting other tissues. These factors, collectively termed myokines, include the bone active molecules insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I), fibroblast growth factor (FGF)-2, myostatin (also called growth and differentiation factor; GDF-8), and IL-6 (44). Our current understanding of bone and muscle cross-talk seems to show a predominant role of signaling in the direction of muscle to bone. Yet bone-derived factors are also known to modulate muscle. For example, Indian hedgehog promotes myoblast survival and myogenesis in both mouse and chick embryos (45) thus indicating bidirectional bone–muscle cross-talk. It seems likely that in cases of abnormal physiology, such as osteolytic bone metastases, the signals are co-opted and lead to a shift in the homeostatic signaling balance (Fig. 3).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Figure 3.

Bone–muscle cross-talk. Bone and muscle are physically and functionally tightly coupled. IGF-I, FGF-2, myostatin, and IL-6 are factors released from muscle that have functions in muscle as well as bone. These factors have been collectively termed myokines. Likewise, activin A, TGF-β, IGF-I, and BMP-2 released from bone affect bone as well as muscle, and thus we have called these osteokines. During osteolytic bone resorption due to breast cancer, bone metastasis osteokines are released and may be responsible for systemic skeletal muscle weakness. In certain settings, tumor-derived factors could also lead to modulation of muscle activity (dotted line).

Data from our laboratory using a preclinical model of breast cancer bone metastases (MDA-MB-231 cells) show significant reduction in forelimb grip strength and ex vivo maximum specific force generation of the extensor digitorum longus (EDL) muscle that cannot be explained by reduction in muscle mass. Ex vivo specific force calculations compensate for differences in size and weight of individual muscles. Further muscle dysfunction is systemic and dependent on tumor-induced osteolytic bone resorption without tumor cell involvement in the muscle. Primary MDA-MB-231 tumors (mammary fat pad injection site) do not elicit muscle dysfunction (46). Our investigation into muscle function in mice with breast cancer bone metastases was borne out of the observation that these mice develop cachexia with advancing bone destruction. Cancer cachexia is one of the most common paraneoplastic conditions in advanced malignancy, occurring in approximately 80% of patients. There is no effective treatment for cancer cachexia, and it has been estimated to be responsible for 20% of cancer-related deaths (3, 47). However, there is a large heterogeneity in clinical presentation of cachexia that can vary according to tumor type, site, and individual patient factors. In fact, the true incidence of cancer cachexia is likely greatly underestimated (5).

Many well-established models of cancer cachexia have used reduction of muscle size to imply muscle dysfunction. However, this does not take into account the loss of muscle quality. Our laboratory has shown that mice with bone metastases exhibited a primary defect (in addition to loss of muscle weight) that is independent of cachexia, although mechanisms of cancer cachexia may also be at work (48). In a mouse model of multiple myeloma that leads to osteolytic bone lesions but without measurable cachexia, we observed systemic muscle dysfunction (49). In both of these mouse models of osteolytic bone loss, the severity of muscle dysfunction correlated with an increase in bone destruction.

The salient question therefore is what factor(s) derived from bone matrix during resorption is capable of inducing systemic muscle dysfunction? Bone matrix is a rich storehouse of growth factors that have known effects on muscle, such as activin A, TGF-β, IGF-I, and bone morphogenic protein 2 (BMP-2; refs. 50, 51). It is useful to begin by considering these as potentiators of muscle dysfunction due to bone destruction.

The high-affinity activin type 2 receptor, ActRIIB, mediates signaling of a small group of TGF-β family members (activin A, myostatin, GDF-11) and is important in regulating muscle mass (52). Pharmacologic blockade of ActRIIB prevents muscle wasting, induces muscle satellite cell mobilization and differentiation, and significantly prolongs survival in murine models of cachexia (53). In addition, blockade of ActRIIB dramatically improves muscle function in a Duchenne muscular dystrophy model (mdx mice; ref. 54). However, in these studies it is not possible to determine whether the effect is due to blocking activin A, myostatin, or GDF-11 signaling due to receptor usage overlap. Myostatin signaling antagonism has been investigated as a way to improve muscle wasting due to cachexia because myostatin is a potent inhibitor of skeletal muscle differentiation and growth (55). Activin A has also been shown to function with myostatin to reduce muscle size (56). GDF-11 shares 90% sequence homology with myostatin and in skeletal muscle inhibits myoblast differentiation (57), suggesting that GDF-11 may act in a very similar manner as myostatin.

TGF-β is a potent regulator of wound healing in muscle, and persistent exposure leads to altered extracellular matrix architecture and formation of fibrotic tissue in muscle (58). Increased TGF-β signaling in muscle also inhibits satellite cell activation and impairs myocyte differentiation (59, 60). Increased TGF-β signaling is also associated with skeletal muscle dysfunction in many of the muscular dystrophies (61, 62). In a direct assessment of the effect of TGF-β on muscle function, the contractile properties of the EDL muscle were examined from limbs exposed to recombinant TGF-β. Muscle function from limbs receiving TGF-β treatment exhibited a significant reduction in specific force (63). These experiments suggest that TGF-β is a capable factor in reducing muscle function independent of changes in muscle mass.

In contrast with the negative effects possible from activin A, myostatin, and TGF-β signaling in muscle, IGF-I and BMP-2 signaling results in muscle hypertrophy (58, 64, 65). IGF-I is a major regulator of muscle mass due to its effect on myogenic cell proliferation and differentiation (66). Likewise, BMP signaling leads to muscle hypertrophy, but, interestingly, specific force (corrected for muscle mass) is significantly lower when BMP signaling is constitutively activated (64). This result demonstrates the importance of interpreting muscle-specific function, not merely muscle mass, in murine models of skeletal muscle weakness.

In addition to factors released from bone matrix during osteoclast-driven resorption, other factors present in patients with malignancy involving bone may play important roles in muscle weakness. Serum vitamin D levels are low among patients with breast cancer with either osteoporosis or metastatic bone disease who are receiving bisphosphonate therapy (67). Vitamin D deficiency has been studied in rodent models using vitamin D receptor knockout (VDRKO) mice. Functional muscle tests in VDRKO mice exhibited an increase in sinking episodes in a forced swim test, reduced “time on” in a rotarod test (68, 69), and reduced time before falling from a vertical screen test (70). These results indicate an overall defect in motor performance in mice lacking proper vitamin D metabolism. In human studies, rickets and osteomalacia are associated with muscle weakness. In addition to general weakness, more specific muscle deficits are also commonly reported, including reduced timed up and go, 6-minute walk, stair climbing, and object lifting (71, 72). It should be noted that myopathies reported with vitamin D deficiency might also involve calcium and phosphate deficiencies, thus complicating the assessment of individual factors. FGF-23 neutralizing antibody, which increases serum phosphate and vitamin D levels, has been shown to improve murine grip strength in a model of rickets/osteomalacia (X-linked hypophosphatemic rickets/osteomalacia), suggesting that vitamin D levels could influence muscle function (73).

microRNA (miRNA) profiling of tumors has identified signatures associated with diagnosis and progression. Human miRNA Let-7 was recently shown to be elevated in serum of mice harboring breast cancer bone metastases (74). miRNA Let-7 is also elevated in serum of elderly patients with muscle weakness and has been suggested to reduce regenerative capacity in aging (75).

Another intriguing possibility is the role of the sympathetic nervous system in muscle weakness due to bone metastases. The sympathetic nervous system modulates skeletal muscle metabolism, ion transport, and contractility. Recent evidence has shown that the sympathetic nervous system is capable of promoting breast cancer bone metastasis through stimulation of marrow stromal cells (18), yet a connection to muscle weakness has not been investigated.

Summary

Bone and muscle functions are tightly coupled in normal physiology. Recent studies have focused on muscle as an endocrine organ with a predominant role over bone in bone–muscle cross-talk. Osteolytic bone metastases from breast cancer represent a severe divergence from normal bone physiology by tipping the balance of remodeling. Bone is a rich storehouse of growth factors that have activity in bone (as a part of normal remodeling) and in other organs, including muscle. It is therefore possible that during hyperactive bone resorption, bone might have a predominant role over muscle in bone–muscle cross-talk and become a source of “osteokines” that affect muscle function. Likewise, factors released from muscle may play an important role in bone metabolism that could further exacerbate the role of bone in muscle dysfunction. Identification and characterization of such factors would provide new possibilities for therapeutic intervention in muscle weakness associated with malignancy and perhaps cancer cachexia.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

T.A. Guise reports receiving commercial research grants from AstraZeneca and Exelexis, is a consultant/advisory board member for Novartis, and has provided expert testimony on bisphosphonates and osteonecrosis of the jaw for Novartis. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed by the other author.

Grant Support

This work was supported by NIH grants (U01CA143057 from the NCI Tumor Microenvironment Network; R01CA69158), the Susan G. Komen Foundation, the Indiana Economic Development Grant, the Jerry W. and Peggy S. Throgmartin Endowment of the Indiana University (IU) Simon Cancer Center, the IU Simon Cancer Center Breast Cancer Program, and a generous donation from the Withycombe family (to T.A. Guise).

• Received November 19, 2013.
• Revision received January 30, 2014.
• Accepted February 3, 2014.

• ©2014 American Association for Cancer Research.

References

1. 1.↵ 
   1. Roodman  GD

   . Mechanisms of bone metastasis. N Engl J Med 2004;350:1655–64. 

   CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
2. 2.↵ 
   1. Weilbaecher  KN, 
   2. Guise  TA, 
   3. McCauley  LK

   . Cancer to bone: a fatal attraction. Nat Rev Cancer2011;11:411–25. 

   CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
3. 3.↵ 
   1. Fearon  KC, 
   2. Glass  DJ, 
   3. Guttridge  DC

   . Cancer cachexia: mediators, signaling, and metabolic pathways.Cell Metab 2012;16:153–66. 

   CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
4. 4.↵ 
   1. Tisdale  MJ

   . Mechanisms of cancer cachexia. Physiol Rev 2009;89:381–410. 

   Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
5. 5.↵ 
   1. Fox  KM, 
   2. Brooks  JM, 
   3. Gandra  SR, 
   4. Markus  R, 
   5. Chiou  CF

   . Estimation of Cachexia among Cancer Patients Based on Four Definitions. Can J Oncol 2009;2009:693458.

   Google Scholar
6. 6.↵ 
   1. Valastyan  S, 
   2. Weinberg  RA

   . Tumor metastasis: molecular insights and evolving paradigms. Cell2011;147:275–92. 

   CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
7. 7.↵ 
   1. Lu  X, 
   2. Mu  E, 
   3. Wei  Y, 
   4. Riethdorf  S, 
   5. Yang  Q, 
   6. Yuan  M, 
   7. et al.

    VCAM-1 promotes osteolytic expansion of indolent bone micrometastasis of breast cancer by engaging alpha4beta1-positive osteoclast progenitors. Cancer cell 2011;20:701–14. 

   CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
8. 8.↵ 
   1. Luzzi  KJ, 
   2. MacDonald  IC, 
   3. Schmidt  EE, 
   4. Kerkvliet  N, 
   5. Morris  VL, 
   6. Chambers  AF, 
   7. et al.

    Multistep nature of metastatic inefficiency: dormancy of solitary cells after successful extravasation and limited survival of early micrometastases. Am J Pathol 1998;153:865–73. 

   CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
9. 9.↵ 
   1. Watson  MA, 
   2. Ylagan  LR, 
   3. Trinkaus  KM, 
   4. Gillanders  WE, 
   5. Naughton  MJ, 
   6. Weilbaecher  KN, 
   7. et al.

    Isolation and molecular profiling of bone marrow micrometastases identifies TWIST1 as a marker of early tumor relapse in breast cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res 2007;13:5001–9. 

   Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
10. 10.↵ 
    1. Kang  Y, 
    2. Siegel  PM, 
    3. Shu  W, 
    4. Drobnjak  M, 
    5. Kakonen  SM, 
    6. Cordon-Cardo  C, 
    7. et al.

     A multigenic program mediating breast cancer metastasis to bone. Cancer cell 2003;3:537–49. 

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
11. 11.↵ 
    1. Yoneda  T

    . Cellular and molecular basis of preferential metastasis of breast cancer to bone. J Orthop Sci 2000;5:75–81. 

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
12. 12.↵ 
    1. Kollet  O, 
    2. Dar  A, 
    3. Shivtiel  S, 
    4. Kalinkovich  A, 
    5. Lapid  K, 
    6. Sztainberg  Y, 
    7. et al.

     Osteoclasts degrade endosteal components and promote mobilization of hematopoietic progenitor cells. Nat Med 2006;12:657–64. 

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
13. 13.↵ 
    1. Anborgh  PH, 
    2. Mutrie  JC, 
    3. Tuck  AB, 
    4. Chambers  AF

    . Role of the metastasis-promoting protein osteopontin in the tumour microenvironment. J Cell Mol Med 2010;14:2037–44. 

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
14. 14.↵ 
    1. McAllister  SS, 
    2. Gifford  AM, 
    3. Greiner  AL, 
    4. Kelleher  SP, 
    5. Saelzler  MP, 
    6. Ince  TA, 
    7. et al.

     Systemic endocrine instigation of indolent tumor growth requires osteopontin. Cell 2008;133:994–1005. 

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
15. 15.↵ 
    1. Kelly  T, 
    2. Suva  LJ, 
    3. Huang  Y, 
    4. Macleod  V, 
    5. Miao  HQ, 
    6. Walker  RC, 
    7. et al.

     Expression‎ of heparanase by primary breast tumors promotes bone resorption in the absence of detectable bone metastases. Cancer Res2005;65:5778–84. 

    Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
16. 16.↵ 
    1. Guise  TA, 
    2. Yin  JJ, 
    3. Taylor  SD, 
    4. Kumagai  Y, 
    5. Dallas  M, 
    6. Boyce  BF, 
    7. et al.

     Evidence for a causal role of parathyroid hormone-related protein in the pathogenesis of human breast cancer-mediated osteolysis. J Clin Invest 1996;98:1544–9. 

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
17. 17.↵ 
    1. Li  X, 
    2. Loberg  R, 
    3. Liao  J, 
    4. Ying  C, 
    5. Snyder  LA, 
    6. Pienta  KJ, 
    7. et al.

     A destructive cascade mediated by CCL2 facilitates prostate cancer growth in bone. Cancer Res 2009;69:1685–92. 

    Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
18. 18.↵ 
    1. Campbell  JP, 
    2. Karolak  MR, 
    3. Ma  Y, 
    4. Perrien  DS, 
    5. Masood-Campbell  SK, 
    6. Penner  NL, 
    7. et al.

     Stimulation of host bone marrow stromal cells by sympathetic nerves promotes breast cancer bone metastasis in mice. PLoS Biol 2012;10:e1001363.

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
19. 19.↵ 
    1. Clezardin  P, 
    2. Teti  A

    . Bone metastasis: pathogenesis and therapeutic implications. Clin Exp Metastasis2007;24:599–608. 

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
20. 20.↵ 
    1. Zhao  Y, 
    2. Bachelier  R, 
    3. Treilleux  I, 
    4. Pujuguet  P, 
    5. Peyruchaud  O, 
    6. Baron  R, 
    7. et al.

     Tumor alphavbeta3 integrin is a therapeutic target for breast cancer bone metastases. Cancer Res 2007;67:5821–30. 

    Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
21. 21.↵ 
    1. Karadag  A, 
    2. Ogbureke  KU, 
    3. Fedarko  NS, 
    4. Fisher  LW

    . Bone sialoprotein, matrix metalloproteinase 2, and alpha(v)beta3 integrin in osteotropic cancer cell invasion. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96:956–65. 

    Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
22. 22.↵ 
    1. Waltregny  D, 
    2. Bellahcene  A, 
    3. de Leval‎  X, 
    4. Florkin  B, 
    5. Weidle  U, 
    6. Castronovo  V

    . Increased expression‎ of bone sialoprotein in bone metastases compared with visceral metastases in human breast and prostate cancers.J Bone Miner Res 2000;15:834–43. 

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
23. 23.↵ 
    1. Jones  DH, 
    2. Nakashima  T, 
    3. Sanchez  OH, 
    4. Kozieradzki  I, 
    5. Komarova  SV, 
    6. Sarosi  I, 
    7. et al.

     Regulation of cancer cell migration and bone metastasis by RANKL. Nature 2006;440:692–6. 

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
24. 24.↵ 
    1. Liang  Z, 
    2. Wu  T, 
    3. Lou  H, 
    4. Yu  X, 
    5. Taichman  RS, 
    6. Lau  SK, 
    7. et al.

     Inhibition of breast cancer metastasis by selective synthetic polypeptide against CXCR4. Cancer Res 2004;64:4302–8. 

    Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
25. 25.↵ 
    1. Lu  X, 
    2. Wang  Q, 
    3. Hu  G, 
    4. Van Poznak  C, 
    5. Fleisher  M, 
    6. Reiss  M, 
    7. et al.

     ADAMTS1 and MMP1 proteolytically engage EGF-like ligands in an osteolytic signaling cascade for bone metastasis. Genes Dev2009;23:1882–94. 

    Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
26. 26.↵ 
    1. Yin  JJ, 
    2. Selander  K, 
    3. Chirgwin  JM, 
    4. Dallas  M, 
    5. Grubbs  BG, 
    6. Wieser  R, 
    7. et al.

     TGF-beta signaling blockade inhibits PTHrP secretion by breast cancer cells and bone metastases development. J Clin Invest1999;103:197–206. 

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
27. 27.↵ 
    1. Singh  B, 
    2. Berry  JA, 
    3. Shoher  A, 
    4. Ayers  GD, 
    5. Wei  C, 
    6. Lucci  A

    . COX-2 involvement in breast cancer metastasis to bone. Oncogene 2007;26:3789–96. 

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
28. 28.↵ 
    1. Zhang  Y, 
    2. Fujita  N, 
    3. Oh-hara  T, 
    4. Morinaga  Y, 
    5. Nakagawa  T, 
    6. Yamada  M, 
    7. et al.

     Production of interleukin-11 in bone-derived endothelial cells and its role in the formation of osteolytic bone metastasis. Oncogene1998;16:693–703. 

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
29. 29.↵ 
    1. Bendre  MS, 
    2. Montague  DC, 
    3. Peery  T, 
    4. Akel  NS, 
    5. Gaddy  D, 
    6. Suva  LJ

    . Interleukin-8 stimulation of osteoclastogenesis and bone resorption is a mechanism for the increased osteolysis of metastatic bone disease. Bone 2003;33:28–37. 

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
30. 30.↵ 
    1. Sterling  JA, 
    2. Oyajobi  BO, 
    3. Grubbs  B, 
    4. Padalecki  SS, 
    5. Munoz  SA, 
    6. Gupta  A, 
    7. et al.

     The hedgehog signaling molecule Gli2 induces parathyroid hormone-related peptide expression‎ and osteolysis in metastatic human breast cancer cells. Cancer Res 2006;66:7548–53. 

    Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
31. 31.↵ 
    1. Pratap  J, 
    2. Javed  A, 
    3. Languino  LR, 
    4. van Wijnen  AJ, 
    5. Stein  JL, 
    6. Stein  GS, 
    7. et al.

     The Runx2 osteogenic transcription factor regulates matrix metalloproteinase 9 in bone metastatic cancer cells and controls cell invasion. Mol Cell Biol 2005;25:8581–91. 

    Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
32. 32.↵ 
    1. Dunn  LK, 
    2. Mohammad  KS, 
    3. Fournier  PG, 
    4. McKenna  CR, 
    5. Davis  HW, 
    6. Niewolna  M, 
    7. et al.

     Hypoxia and TGF-beta drive breast cancer bone metastases through parallel signaling pathways in tumor cells and the bone microenvironment. PloS one 2009;4:e6896.

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
33. 33.↵ 
    1. Hiraga  T, 
    2. Kizaka-Kondoh  S, 
    3. Hirota  K, 
    4. Hiraoka  M, 
    5. Yoneda  T

    . Hypoxia and hypoxia-inducible factor-1 expression‎ enhance osteolytic bone metastases of breast cancer. Cancer Res 2007;67:4157–63. 

    Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
34. 34.↵ 
    1. Sethi  N, 
    2. Dai  X, 
    3. Winter  CG, 
    4. Kang  Y

    . Tumor-derived JAGGED1 promotes osteolytic bone metastasis of breast cancer by engaging notch signaling in bone cells. Cancer cell 2011;19:192–205. 

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
35. 35.↵ 
    1. Raggatt  LJ, 
    2. Partridge  NC

    . Cellular and molecular mechanisms of bone remodeling. J Biol Chem2010;285:25103–8. 

    Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
36. 36.↵ 
    1. Allen  MR, 
    2. Burr  DB

    . Bisphosphonate effects on bone turnover, microdamage, and mechanical properties: what we think we know and what we know that we don't know. Bone 2011;49:56–65. 

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
37. 37.↵ 
    1. Boissier  S, 
    2. Ferreras  M, 
    3. Peyruchaud  O, 
    4. Magnetto  S, 
    5. Ebetino  FH, 
    6. Colombel  M, 
    7. et al.

     Bisphosphonates inhibit breast and prostate carcinoma cell invasion, an early event in the formation of bone metastases.Cancer Res 2000;60:2949–54. 

    Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
38. 38.↵ 
    1. Croucher  PI, 
    2. Shipman  CM, 
    3. Lippitt  J, 
    4. Perry  M, 
    5. Asosingh  K, 
    6. Hijzen  A, 
    7. et al.

     Osteoprotegerin inhibits the development of osteolytic bone disease in multiple myeloma. Blood 2001;98:3534–40. 

    Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
39. 39.↵ 
    1. Korpal  M, 
    2. Yan  J, 
    3. Lu  X, 
    4. Xu  S, 
    5. Lerit  DA, 
    6. Kang  Y

    . Imaging transforming growth factor-beta signaling dynamics and therapeutic response in breast cancer bone metastasis. Nat Med 2009;15:960–6. 

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
40. 40.↵ 
    1. Biswas  S, 
    2. Nyman  JS, 
    3. Alvarez  J, 
    4. Chakrabarti  A, 
    5. Ayres  A, 
    6. Sterling  J, 
    7. et al.

     Anti-transforming growth factor ss antibody treatment rescues bone loss and prevents breast cancer metastasis to bone. PloS one2011;6:e27090.

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
41. 41.↵ 
    1. Buijs  JT, 
    2. Stayrook  KR, 
    3. Guise  TA

    . The role of TGF-beta in bone metastasis: novel therapeutic perspectives. BoneKEy Rep 2012;1:96.

    PubMedGoogle Scholar
42. 42.↵ 
    1. Mohammad  KS, 
    2. Chen  CG, 
    3. Balooch  G, 
    4. Stebbins  E, 
    5. McKenna  CR, 
    6. Davis  H, 
    7. et al.

     Pharmacologic inhibition of the TGF-beta type I receptor kinase has anabolic and anti-catabolic effects on bone. PloS one2009;4:e5275.

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
43. 43.↵ 
    1. Wright  LE, 
    2. Frye  JB, 
    3. Lukefahr  AL, 
    4. Timmermann  BN, 
    5. Mohammad  KS, 
    6. Guise  TA, 
    7. et al.

     Curcuminoids block TGF-beta signaling in human breast cancer cells and limit osteolysis in a murine model of breast cancer bone metastasis. J Nat Prod 2013;76:316–21. 

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44. 44.↵ 
    1. DiGirolamo  DJ, 
    2. Kiel  DP, 
    3. Esser  KA

    . Bone and skeletal muscle: neighbors with close ties. J Bone Miner Res 2013;28:1509–18. 

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
45. 45.↵ 
    1. Bren-Mattison  Y, 
    2. Hausburg  M, 
    3. Olwin  BB

    . Growth of limb muscle is dependent on skeletal-derived Indian hedgehog. Dev Biol 2011;356:486–95. 

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
46. 46.↵ 
    1. Waning  DL, 
    2. Mohammad  KS, 
    3. Andersson  DC, 
    4. John  SK, 
    5. Rieken  S, 
    6. Xie  W, 
    7. et al.

     Role of the tumor-bone microenvironment in muscle weakness and cachexia. Cancer-Induced Bone Disease. Miami, FL: IBMS; 2013.

    Google Scholar
47. 47.↵ 
    1. Fearon  K, 
    2. Strasser  F, 
    3. Anker  SD, 
    4. Bosaeus  I, 
    5. Bruera  E, 
    6. Fainsinger  RL, 
    7. et al.

     Definition and classification of cancer cachexia: an international consensus. lancet Oncol 2011;12:489–95. 

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
48. 48.↵ 
    1. Fearon  K, 
    2. Arends  J, 
    3. Baracos  V

    . Understanding the mechanisms and treatment options in cancer cachexia. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2013;10:90–9. 

    PubMedGoogle Scholar
49. 49.↵ 
    1. Waning  DL, 
    2. Mohammad  KS, 
    3. Reiken  S, 
    4. Marks  AR, 
    5. Roodman  GD, 
    6. Guise  TA

    . Muscle weakness is associated with osteolysis in multiple myeloma. Cancer-Induced Bone Disease. Miami, FL: IBMS; 2013.

    Google Scholar
50. 50.↵ 
    1. Sakai  R, 
    2. Eto  Y

    . Involvement of activin in the regulation of bone metabolism. Mol Cell Endocrinol2001;180:183–8. 

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
51. 51.↵ 
    1. Wildemann  B, 
    2. Kadow-Romacker  A, 
    3. Haas  NP, 
    4. Schmidmaier  G

    . Quantification of various growth factors in different demineralized bone matrix preparations. J Biomed Mater Res A 2007;81:437–42

    PubMedGoogle Scholar
52. 52.↵ 
    1. Lee  SJ, 
    2. Reed  LA, 
    3. Davies  MV, 
    4. Girgenrath  S, 
    5. Goad  ME, 
    6. Tomkinson  KN, 
    7. et al.

     Regulation of muscle growth by multiple ligands signaling through activin type II receptors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A2005;102:18117–22. 

    Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
53. 53.↵ 
    1. Zhou  X, 
    2. Wang  JL, 
    3. Lu  J, 
    4. Song  Y, 
    5. Kwak  KS, 
    6. Jiao  Q, 
    7. et al.

     Reversal of cancer cachexia and muscle wasting by ActRIIB antagonism leads to prolonged survival. Cell 2010;142:531–43. 

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
54. 54.↵ 
    1. Pistilli  EE, 
    2. Bogdanovich  S, 
    3. Goncalves  MD, 
    4. Ahima  RS, 
    5. Lachey  J, 
    6. Seehra  J, 
    7. et al.

     Targeting the activin type IIB receptor to improve muscle mass and function in the mdx mouse model of Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Am J Pathol 2011;178:1287–97. 

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
55. 55.↵ 
    1. Zimmers  TA, 
    2. Davies  MV, 
    3. Koniaris  LG, 
    4. Haynes  P, 
    5. Esquela  AF, 
    6. Tomkinson  KN, 
    7. et al.

     Induction of cachexia in mice by systemically administered myostatin. Science 2002;296:1486–8. 

    Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
56. 56.↵ 
    1. Lee  SJ, 
    2. Lee  YS, 
    3. Zimmers  TA, 
    4. Soleimani  A, 
    5. Matzuk  MM, 
    6. Tsuchida  K, 
    7. et al.

     Regulation of muscle mass by follistatin and activins. Mol Endocrinol 2010;24:1998–2008. 

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
57. 57.↵ 
    1. Jeanplong  F, 
    2. Falconer  SJ, 
    3. Thomas  M, 
    4. Matthews  KG, 
    5. Oldham  AM, 
    6. Watson  T, 
    7. et al.

     Growth and differentiation factor-11 is developmentally regulated in skeletal muscle and inhibits myoblast differentiation.Open Int J Mol Integr Physiol 2012;2:127–38. 

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar
58. 58.↵ 
    1. Serrano  AL, 
    2. Munoz-Canoves  P

    . Regulation and dysregulation of fibrosis in skeletal muscle. Exp Cell Res 2010;316:3050–8. 

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
59. 59.↵ 
    1. Allen  RE, 
    2. Boxhorn  LK

    . Inhibition of skeletal muscle satellite cell differentiation by transforming growth factor-beta. J Cell Physiol 1987;133:567–72. 

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
60. 60.↵ 
    1. Allen  RE, 
    2. Boxhorn  LK

    . Regulation of skeletal muscle satellite cell proliferation and differentiation by transforming growth factor-beta, insulin-like growth factor I, and fibroblast growth factor. J Cell Physiol1989;138:311–5. 

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
61. 61.↵ 
    1. Chen  YW, 
    2. Nagaraju  K, 
    3. Bakay  M, 
    4. McIntyre  O, 
    5. Rawat  R, 
    6. Shi  R, 
    7. et al.

     Early onset of inflammation and later involvement of TGFbeta in Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Neurology 2005;65:826–34. 

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar
62. 62.↵ 
    1. Kollias  HD, 
    2. McDermott  JC

    . Transforming growth factor-beta and myostatin signaling in skeletal muscle.J Appl Physiol 2008;104:579–87. 

    Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
63. 63.↵ 
    1. Mendias  CL, 
    2. Gumucio  JP, 
    3. Davis  ME, 
    4. Bromley  CW, 
    5. Davis  CS, 
    6. Brooks  SV

    . Transforming growth factor-beta induces skeletal muscle atrophy and fibrosis through the induction of atrogin-1 and scleraxis. Muscle Nerve 2012;45:55–9. 

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
64. 64.↵ 
    1. Sartori  R, 
    2. Schirwis  E, 
    3. Blaauw  B, 
    4. Bortolanza  S, 
    5. Zhao  J, 
    6. Enzo  E, 
    7. et al.

     BMP signaling controls muscle mass. Nat Genet 2013;45:1309–18. 

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
65. 65.↵ 
    1. Schiaffino  S, 
    2. Mammucari  C

    . Regulation of skeletal muscle growth by the IGF1-Akt/PKB pathway: insights from genetic models. Skeletal muscle 2011;1:4.

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
66. 66.↵ 
    1. Florini  JR, 
    2. Ewton  DZ, 
    3. Coolican  SA

    . Growth hormone and the insulin-like growth factor system in myogenesis. Endocr Rev 1996;17:481–517. 

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
67. 67.↵ 
    1. Wang-Gillam  A, 
    2. Miles  DA, 
    3. Hutchins  LF

    . Eval‎uation of vitamin D deficiency in breast cancer patients on bisphosphonates. Oncologist 2008;13:821–7. 

    Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
68. 68.↵ 
    1. Burne  TH, 
    2. Johnston  AN, 
    3. McGrath  JJ, 
    4. Mackay-Sim  A

    . Swimming behaviour and post-swimming activity in Vitamin D receptor knockout mice. Brain Res Bull 2006;69:74–8. 

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
69. 69.↵ 
    1. Minasyan  A, 
    2. Keisala  T, 
    3. Zou  J, 
    4. Zhang  Y, 
    5. Toppila  E, 
    6. Syvala  H, 
    7. et al.

     Vestibular dysfunction in vitamin D receptor mutant mice. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 2009;114:161–6. 

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
70. 70.↵ 
    1. Kalueff  AV, 
    2. Lou  YR, 
    3. Laaksi  I, 
    4. Tuohimaa  P

    . Impaired motor performance in mice lacking neurosteroid vitamin D receptors. Brain Res Bull 2004;64:25–9. 

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
71. 71.↵ 
    1. Russell  JA

    . Osteomalacic myopathy. Muscle Nerve 1994;17:578–80. 

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
72. 72.↵ 
    1. Schott  GD, 
    2. Wills  MR

    . Muscle weakness in osteomalacia. Lancet 1976;1:626–9. 

    PubMedGoogle Scholar
73. 73.↵ 
    1. Aono  Y, 
    2. Hasegawa  H, 
    3. Yamazaki  Y, 
    4. Shimada  T, 
    5. Fujita  T, 
    6. Yamashita  T, 
    7. et al.

     Anti-FGF-23 neutralizing antibodies ameliorate muscle weakness and decreased spontaneous movement of Hyp mice. J Bone Miner Res 2011;26:803–10. 

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
74. 74.↵ 
    1. Ell  B, 
    2. Mercatali  L, 
    3. Ibrahim  T, 
    4. Campbell  N, 
    5. Schwarzenbach  H, 
    6. Pantel  K, 
    7. et al.

     Tumor-induced osteoclast miRNA changes as regulators and biomarkers of osteolytic bone metastasis. Cancer cell 2013;24:542–56.

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
75. 75.↵ 
    1. Drummond  MJ, 
    2. McCarthy  JJ, 
    3. Sinha  M, 
    4. Spratt  HM, 
    5. Volpi  E, 
    6. Esser  KA, 
    7. et al.

     Aging and microRNA expression‎ in human skeletal muscle: a microarray and bioinformatics analysis. Physiol Genomics2011;43:595–603. 

    Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar