Abstract
Background: Despite the promising clinical potential of bone morphogenetic protein (BMP)-related therapies for bone formation, their side effects warrant the need for alternative therapeutic peptides. BMP family members can aid in bone repair; however, peptides derived from BMP2/ 4 have not yet been investigated.
Methods: In this study, three candidates BMP2/4 consensus peptide (BCP) 1, 2, and 3 were identified and their ability to induce osteogenesis in C2C12 cells was analyzed. First, an alkaline phosphatase (ALP) staining assay was performed to evaluate the osteogenic effects of BCPs. Next, the effects of BCPs on RNA expression levels and protein abundances of osteogenic markers were explored. Furthermore, the transcriptional activity of ALP by BCP1 and in silico molecular docking model on BMP type IA receptor (BRIA) were performed.
Results: BCP1-3 induced higher RUNX2 expression than BMP2. Interestingly, among them, BCP1 significantly promoted osteoblast differentiation more than BMP2 in ALP staining with no cytotoxicity. BCP1 significantly induced the osteoblast markers, and the highest RUNX2 expression was observed at 100 ng/mL compared to other concentrations. In transfection experiments, BCP1 stimulated osteoblast differentiation via RUNX2 activation and the Smad signaling pathway. Finally, in silico molecular docking suggested the possible binding sites of BCP1 on BRIA.
Conclusion: These results show that BCP1 promotes osteogenicity in C2C12 cells. This study suggests that BCP1 is the most promising candidate peptide to replace BMP2 for osteoblast differentiation.
Keywords: BMP2, BMP4, BMP-2/4 consensus peptide (BCP)-1–3, osteogenic differentiation, Smad signal pathway, molecular docking model.
[PMID: 33789512]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-10-00196] [PMID: 21574851]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2021.112466] [PMID: 34702541]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.22203/eCM.v042a10] [PMID: 34464450]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001408] [PMID: 26679888]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11999-012-2684-x] [PMID: 23132207]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/JPER.20-0552] [PMID: 33393105]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mod.2008.11.008] [PMID: 19116164]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/ten.tea.2016.0230] [PMID: 27582519]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1083/jcb.127.6.1755] [PMID: 7798324]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rboe.2016.03.005] [PMID: 28409128]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1196/annals.1346.008] [PMID: 16831905]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gendis.2016.09.004] [PMID: 28491933]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M801774200] [PMID: 18703512]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0765.2011.01433.x] [PMID: 22150562]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1210/endo.142.8.8300] [PMID: 11459815]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00220345221093518] [PMID: 35619284]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcb.26238] [PMID: 28657691]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2020.03.145] [PMID: 32446353]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0192415X21500427] [PMID: 33829967]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/gb-2014-15-3-r52] [PMID: 24655370]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M705578200] [PMID: 18204048]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13543776.2016.1217330] [PMID: 27476794]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcell.2022.883228] [PMID: 35669516]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M112.387639] [PMID: 22961979]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2022.121363] [PMID: 35063741]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1116/6.0000926] [PMID: 34241280]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200208151-00010] [PMID: 12205419]