Skip to main content
Bioscience Reports logoLink to Bioscience Reports
. 2020 Jul 2;40(7):BSR20192313. doi: 10.1042/BSR20192313

Genetic variation in NOD1/CARD4 and NOD2/CARD15 immune sensors and risk of osteoporosis

Ahu Soyocak 1,, Merih Özgen 2, Didem Turgut Coşan 3, Hülyam Kurt 3, Fulya Doğaner 4, Onur Armağan 2, İrfan Değirmenci 5, Fezan Şahin Mutlu 6
PMCID: PMC7332673  PMID: 32578848

Abstract

The present study was aimed to investigate the relationship between NOD1/CARD4 and NOD2/CARD15 gene polymorphisms and osteoporosis in the Turkish population. The first time we thought that the functional polymorphisms in NOD1/CARD4 and NOD2/CARD15 genes might have triggered the development of osteoporosis. The objective of our study was to determine the relationship between NOD1/CARD4 and NOD2/CARD15 SNPs and osteoporosis. The NOD1/CARD4 (rs5743336) and NOD2/CARD15 (rs2066847) SNPs were analyzed by PCR restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP) in 94 healthy controls and 164 subjects with osteoporosis. PCR products were digested with restriction enzymes AvaI for NOD1/CARD4 and ApaI for NOD2/CARD15. We found that NOD1/CARD4 genotype distribution of AA, GA and GG were 15, 44 and 41% for patients and 17, 46 and 37% for controls, respectively. NOD2/CARD15 mutation was found only in three patients (1.8%) as heterozygote. The results did not show any statistical difference between NOD1/CARD4 and NOD2/CARD15 genotype distribution of patients and healthy groups (χ2 = 1.740, P=0.187; χ2 = 1.311, P=0.519). However, the most frequent AG genotype (46%) of NOD1/CARD4 was observed in healthy controls, GG genotype (44%) of NOD1/CARD4 was observed as the most frequent in osteoporotic patients. NOD2/CARD15 WT/WT genotype, the most frequent genotype, was observed in both groups. Statistical analysis revealed that NOD1/CARD4 and NOD2/CARD15 polymorphisms are not associated with osteoporosis. However, a definite judgement is difficult to be made due to restricted number of patients and small size of control group. Further research is sorely warranted in this direction.

Keywords: NOD1/CARD4, NOD2/CARD15, Osteoporosis, Polymorphism

Introduction

Osteoporosis is a relevant age-related pathological disorder characterized by low bone mass, deterioration in the structure of the bone and increased bone fragility, that is chronic progressive disease, and negatively affects the quality of life [1]. This disease is mainly common in the elderly population, and an important public health issue that reduces the patient functioning and quality of life. An improved understanding of the risk factors for osteoporosis is important for the diagnosis, maintenance and treatment of this significant disease [2,3]. Several epidemiological and clinical studies have demonstrated the importance of genetics in osteoporosis pathogenesis [4–6]).

Genetic factors affect bone turnover and can result in the reduction in mass to ∼50–80% [4,6,7]. Gene polymorphisms may contribute to osteoporosis and impact bone mineral density (BMD) [7–12]. However, recently clinical and molecular study results emphasize that inflammation process also can effects on bone turnover in the osteoporosis [13–15]. Taken together, these findings suggested that the important link between inflammation and bone loss should be investigated genetically.

Nucleotide binding and oligomerization domain (NOD)-like receptors (NLRs) constitute a family of evolutionarily conserved cytosolic pattern-recognition molecules that bind exogenous and endogenous ligands [16,17]. NLRs are one of the major forms of innate immune sensors. These sensors’ respond against tissue damage, and activated sensors initiate tissue repair processes [18]. NOD1/CARD4 and NOD2/CARD15 are the members of NLR family and are located on chromosome 7p14-15 and 16q12, respectively. NOD1/CARD4 and NOD2/CARD15 play an important role in biological processes such as generating reactive oxygen species, apoptosis, autophagy and immune response [16,17]. NOD1/CARD4 is expressed by epithelial and myeloid-derived cells, while NOD2/CARD15 is primarily expressed in myeloid cells. However, NOD1/CARD4 also plays role in pathogen recognition, NOD2/CARD15 acts in the immune response against pathogenic organisms [16,17,19]. Besides this information, little is known about the role and mechanism of NOD1/CARD4 and NOD2/CARD15-induced innate immunity. However, genetic variants of NOD1/CARD4 and NOD2/CARD15 have been found to be associated with susceptibility to several inflammatory suggesting that these molecules are important in inflammation and immunity [16,18,20–28]. These genetic variants may influence the outcome of inflammation and osteoporosis. Furthermore, these proteins affect transcription factor, nuclear factor-κB (NF-κB) which plays an important role in age-related diseases [29]. NF-κB activation increases production of pro-inflammatory cytokine and its precursors and may affect the risk of developing infection, chronic inflammation, cancer and age-related diseases such as osteoporosis [29]. Recent studies suggest that there is a relationship between osteoporosis and periodontal disease, both diseases are characterized by bone loss [30–32]. Studies investigating the relationship between periodontal diseases and NOD1/NOD2 have shown that these proteins play a role in induction of innate immune responses and bone resorption [33–35].

Based on this relationship, it has been suggested that NOD variants may be associated with the risk of developing osteoporosis. We thought that the functional polymorphisms in NOD1/CARD4 and NOD2/CARD15 genes might have triggered the development of osteoporosis. The objective of our study was to determine the relationship between NOD1/CARD4 and NOD2/CARD15 SNPs and osteoporosis.

Materials and methods

Subjects

The study group included 258 postmenopausal females. The control group was composed of 94 healthy subjects (mean age: 50 ± 13) and the osteoporosis group was composed of 164 patients (mean age: 62 ± 8). Postmenopausal females who were admitted to the Osteoporosis Clinic of the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Department of Eskisehir Osmangazi University (Turkey) were informed of the study, and patients who opted for inclusion in the study were evaluated. The participants underwent dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scanning using a Hologic QDR 4500 W system (Hologic, Inc., Bedford, U.S.A.) to assess BMD. Patients with a mean bone density below 2.5 SD were diagnosed with osteoporosis, as recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO). All participants underwent DEXA evaluations, and 164 postmenopausal females were diagnosed with osteoporosis based on this assessment. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of Eskisehir Osmangazi University (Turkey) (No. 80558721/310) and performed in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consents were obtained from all subjects before the study.

DNA isolation and genotyping

Genomic DNA isolation was performed using the salt-extraction method in 10 ml of peripheral blood that was collected in EDTA tubes for the analysis of NOD1/CARD4 (rs5743336) and NOD2/CARD15 (rs2066847) polymorphism. The association of NOD1/CARD4 and NOD2/CARD15 genes with osteoporosis was studied by PCR restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP). The PCR-RFLP of NOD1/CARD4 and NOD2/CARD15 polymorphisms amplified in a thermal cycler (Sacem Life Technologies, Peltier-based Thermal Cycler SCM 96G, Turkey) using 25 μl OneTaq® 2× Master Mix with Standard Buffer (New England Biolabs, Ipswich, MA, U.S.A.) according to manufacturer’s instructions. The reaction mixture contained 1 μl of genomic DNA, 0.5 μl of each primer (5 μM) (Alpha DNA, Montreal, Canada) (Table 1), 12.5 μl of Master Mix and 10.5 μl of nuclease-free water. The thermal cycle profile consisted of an initial denaturation step at 94°C for 30 s, followed by 35 cycles each consisting of three steps: denaturation for 30 s at 94°C, annealing for 60 s at 56,8°C for NOD1/CARD4 polymorphism and at 55,1°C for NOD2/CARD15, extension for 60 s at 68°C, and one elongation step at 68°C for 5 min. PCR products were digested for 1 h at 37°C by restriction enzymes, AvaI and ApaI (New England Biolabs, Beverly, MA, U.S.A.). Restriction enzyme digestion products were resolved by electrophoresis on 3% agarose gel. Gels were stained with RedSafe™ nucleic acid staining solution (Intron Biotechnology Inc., Seoul, Korea) and visualized using GeneGenius Gel Light Imaging System (Sygene, Cambridge, U.K.).

Table 1. PCR conditions and enzymes.

SNPs Primer sequences PCR conditions PCR products Digestion products Enzymes
NOD1/CARD4 (rs5743336) F: 5′-TGAGACCATCTTCATCCTGG-3′
R: 5′-CTTCCCACTGAGCAGGTTG-3′
94°C, 30 s
94°C, 30 s
56,8°C, 60 s
68°C, 60 s
68°C, 5 min
379 bp AA: 379 bp
AG: 379 bp, 209 bp, 170 bp
GG: 209 bp, 170 bp
Ava I 37°C
1 h
NOD2/CARD15 (rs2066847) F: 5′-GGCAGAAGCCCTCCTGCAGGGCC-3′
R: 5′-CCTCAAAATTCTGCCATTCC-3′
94°C, 30 s
94°C, 30 s
55,1°C, 60 s
68°C, 60 s
68°C, 5 min
151 bp WT/WT: 151 bp
WT/insC: 151 bp, 130 bp, 21 bp
insC/insC: 130 bp, 21 bp
Apa I 37°C
1 h

Statistical analysis

The data were evaluated using SPSS Version 20 software (IBM Corp. Armonk, New York, U.S.A.). The continuous variables were not normally distributed based on the Shapiro–Wilk test for normality. The Mann–Whitney U test was implemented for mparison of the two groups. Medians (quartiles) were provided as descriptive statistics. The Pearson chi-square test was conducted for categorical variables. n and % values were provided. A P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

In the present study, we found that NOD1/CARD4; genotype distribution of AA, AG and GG were 15, 41 and 44% for patients and 17, 46 and 37% for controls, respectively (Table 2). NOD2/CARD15 mutation was found only in three patients (1.8%) as heterozygote (Table 3). The results did not show any statistical difference between NOD1/CARD4 and NOD2/CARD15 genotype distribution of patients and healthy groups (c2 = 1.740, P=0.187; c2 = 1.311, P=0.519). Although the most frequent AG genotype (46%) of NOD1/CARD4 was observed in healthy controls, GG genotype (44%) of NOD1/CARD4 was observed as most frequent in osteoporotic patients. NOD2/CARD15 WT/WT genotype, the most frequent genotype, was observed in both the groups.

Table 2. Distribution of NOD1/CARD4 (rs5743336) genotypes.

Groups n NOD1/CARD4 (rs5743336) genotypes
AA AG GG
n % n % n %
Healthy controls 94 16 17 43 46 35 37
Osteoporotic patients 164 24 15 67 41 73 44
Total 258 40 32 110 87 108 81
Statistics χ2=1.740, P=0.187

Table 3. Distribution of NOD2/CARD15 (rs2066847) genotypes.

Groups n NOD2/CARD15 (rs2066847) genotypes*
WT/WT WT/insC
n % n %
Healthy controls 94 94 36,9 0 0
Osteoporotic patients 164 161 98,2 3 1,8
Total 258 255 98,8 3 1,2
Statistic χ2=1.311, P=0.519
*

The insC/insC genotype was not detected.

Discussion

The NLRs, are intracellular innate immune molecules including NOD1/CARD4 and NOD2/CARD15 proteins that are essential for innate immune responses to bacterial infections and tissue injury. These cytosolic proteins respond to bacterial peptidoglycan intracellular fragments. These proteins also trigger gene transcription of NF-κB-dependent and mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK)-dependent [36]. Osteoporosis is a relevant age-related dysfunction, characterized by low bone density and increased bone fragility [1]. Recent times, the bone remodeling process-related study suggests that inflammation factors have a role in bone physiology and remodeling, according to this evidence inflammation importantly contributes to the pathogenesis of osteoporosis [37]. Different investigations indicate an increase in the risk of developing osteoporosis in various inflammatory conditions [38–41]. However, several diseases are related to osteoporosis [14] such as immunological dysfunctions, autoimmune and chronic inflammatory diseases [42], rheumatoid arthritis (RA) [43], hematological diseases [44], inflammatory bowel diseases [45,46] and periodontal disease [30,32,]. Although osteoporosis is not exactly qualified as an immunological disorder, recent studies have reported related molecular pathways between bone biology and biology of inflammation [14,47–49]. Pro-inflammatory cytokines play potential significant roles both in the normal bone remodeling process and in the pathogenesis of perimenopausal and late-life osteoporosis [14,50].

Osteoporosis, osteoarthritis and RA are most common musculoskeletal disorders. The major cellular integral of bone, osteoblasts, generate a bundle of immune molecules following bacterial challenge that could call leukocytes to infected areas and develop inflammation during bone diseases [51]. Marriott et al.’s study showed that murine osteoblasts expressed the novel intracellular pattern recognition receptors, NOD1/CARD4 and NOD2/CARD15. Levels of mRNA encoding Nod molecules and protein expression are greatly and disparately got higher from low basal levels following exposure to these different kinds of bacterial pathogens. As such, the presence of Nod proteins in osteoblasts could represent an important mechanism by which this cell type responds to intracellular bacterial pathogens of bone [51] However, RA is a specific case of the link between inflammation and osteoporosis. Pro-inflammatory cytokines and proteinases that are molecules involved in cartilage and bone destruction when released in joints and skeleton, there occurs bone loss in RA [52]. As a result, several studies suggest that NOD1/CARD4 and NOD2/CARD15 can have a significant role in the chronic and destructive inflammation of the joints in RA can regulate the innate immune response and may act a role in the continue of the inflammatory response in RA [53,54].

Genetic variations in NOD1/CARD4 and/or NOD2/CARD15 have previously been identified in many diseases such as inflammatory bowel disease [20,46], Crohn’s disease [22,24], sarcoidosis [23], non-Hodgkin lymphoma [21], cancer [16,26,27] and RA [55]. Plantinga et al. investigated the relation of the NOD1/CARD4 +32656 insertion/deletion polymorphism with RA [55]. The study results show that the NOD1/CARD4 +32656 polymorphism was not related with either susceptibility to, or clinical parameters of, inflammation or bone destruction in RA patients [55].

Osteoporosis, as well as other musculoskeletal and age-related disorders, has a strong genetic component and for this reason bone loss during senescence varies widely among different people [14]. The genetic mechanism underlying this disease process is largely unknown. Previous studies have investigated the NOD1/CARD4 and NOD2/CARD15 gene polymorphism in the many populations and several diseases. There are a few studies evaluating the association of these SNPs in Turkish population [25,27,28], while its relationship with osteoporosis has not been investigated in any population yet. In our study examined for the first time, relationship of the NOD1/CARD4 and NOD2/CARD15 polymorphism, which have a role in innate immune response with osteoporosis in Turkish women.

In our study, we also did not find a relationship possible with this polymorphism and osteoporosis. However, it has been observed for NOD1/CARD4 genes that AG genotype (46%) was the most abundant one in healthy controls whereas it was the GG genotype (44%) in osteoporotic patients. NOD2/CARD15 WT/WT genotype, the most frequent genotype, was observed in both groups.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that the polymorphisms observed in the NOD1/CARD4 and NOD2/CARD15 genes are not genetic susceptibility factors for osteoporosis disease in Turkish women. However, this result may not be applicable to all populations when gene pools, lifestyles and gene–environment interactions in various populations are considered. Therefore, multicentered studies on different populations and in different gene regions in larger samples are required to establish the correlation between the NOD1/CARD4 and NOD2/CARD15 polymorphisms and osteoporosis. We believe that our results will contribute to the gene pool related to osteoporosis.

Abbreviations

BMD

bone mineral density

CARD

caspase-recruitment domain

DEXA

dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry

NF-κB

nuclear factor-κB

NLR

nucleotide binding and oligomerization domain-like receptor

NOD

nucleotide binding and oligomerization domain

PCR-RFLP

PCR restriction fragment length polymorphism

RA

rheumatoid arthritis

SD

standard deviation

Competing Interests

The authors declare that there are no competing interests associated with the manuscript.

Funding

The authors declare that there are no sources of funding to be acknowledged.

Author Contribution

Ahu Soyocak was responsible for writing, original draft, analysis, validation. Merih Özgen was responsible for collecting samples and writing. Didem Turgut Coşan was responsible for writing, original draft, analysis, validation. Hülyam Kurt was responsible for writing, original draft, analysis, validation. Fulya Doğaner was responsible for writing, review, editing. Onur Armağan was responsible for collecting samples and writing. İrfan Değirmenci was responsible for review and editing. Fezan Şahin Mutlu was responsible for data analysis.

Ethics Approval

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of Eskisehir Osmangazi University (Turkey) (No. 80558721/310) and performed in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consents were obtained from all subjects before the study.

References

  • 1.Delmas P.D. (2002) Treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Lancet 359, 2018–2026 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08827-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Borer K.T. (2005) Physical activity in the prevention and amelioration of osteoporosis in women. Sports Med. 35, 779–830 10.2165/00007256-200535090-00004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Dontas I.A. and Yiannakopoulos C.K. (2007) Risk factors and prevention of osteoporosis-related fractures. J. Musculoskelet. Neuronal Interact. 7, 268–272 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Ralston S.H. (2002) Genetic control of susceptibility to osteoporosis. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 87, 2460–2466 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Eisman J.A. (1999) Genetics of osteoporosis. Endocr. Rev. 20, 788–804 10.1210/edrv.20.6.0384 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Uitterlinden A.G., van Meurs J.B.J., Rivadeneira F. and Pols H.A.P. (2006) Identifying genetic risk factors for osteoporosis. J. Musculoskelet. Neuronal Interact. 6, 16. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Ferrari S. (2008) Human genetics of osteoporosis. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 22, 723–735 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Feng Y., Zhu L., Gu Y., Wang L.-J., Niu B.-J., Cai F. et al. (2020) Association of Gremlin-2 gene polymorphisms with osteoporosis risk in Chinese postmenopausal women. Biosci. Rep. 40, 1–7 10.1042/BSR20200554 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Chen J., Hong Z., Zhao C., Bi Q. and Qiu B. (2019) Associations between polymorphisms of the PDLIM4 gene and susceptibility to osteoporotic fracture in an elderly population of Han Chinese. Biosci. Rep. 39, 1–12 10.1042/BSR201815055 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Yang Y., Fei M., Zhou X., Li Y. and Jin D. (2019) The association of genetic variants in FGFR2 with osteoporosis susceptibility in Chinese Han population. Biosci. Rep. 39, 1–8 10.1042/BSR20190275 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Zhou X., Li J., Jiang L., Zhou D., Wu L., Huang Y. et al. (2019) SAA1 gene polymorphisms in osteoporosis patients. Biosci. Rep. 39, 1–8 10.1042/BSR20181031 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Mitchell B.D. and Yerges-Armstrong L.M. (2011) The genetics of bone loss: challenges and prospects. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 96, 1258–1268 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Naismith E. and Pangrazzi L. (2019) The impact of oxidative stress, inflammation, and senescence on the maintenance of immunological memory in the bone marrow in old age. Biosci. Rep. 39, 1–12 10.1042/BSR20190371 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Ginaldi L., di Benedetto M.C. and de Martinis M. (2005) Osteoporosis, inflammation and ageing. Immunity Ageing 2, 14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Gallo J., Raska M., Kriegova E. and Goodman S.B. (2017) Inflammation and its resolution and the musculoskeletal system. J. Orthop. Transl. 10, 52–67 10.1016/j.jot.2017.05.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Kutikhin A.G. (2011) Role of NOD1/CARD4 and NOD2/CARD15 gene polymorphisms in cancer etiology. Hum. Immunol. 72, 955–968 10.1016/j.humimm.2011.06.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Kuss-Duerkop S.K. and Keestra-Gounder A.M. (2020) NOD1 and NOD2 activation by diverse stimuli: a possible role for sensing pathogen-induced ER stress. Infect. Immun. 88, 1–26 10.1128/IAI.00898-19 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Fukata M., Vamadevan A.S. and Abreu M.T. (2009) Toll-like receptors (TLRs) and Nod-like receptors (NLRs) in inflammatory disorders. Semin. Immunol. 21, 242–253 10.1016/j.smim.2009.06.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Berrington W.R., Iyer R., Wells R.D., Smith K.D., Skerrett S.J. and Hawn T.R. (2010) NOD1 and NOD2 regulation of pulmonary innate immunity to Legionella pneumophila. Eur. J. Immunol. 40, 3519–3527 10.1002/eji.201040518 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.McGovern D.P.B., Hysi P., Ahmad T., van Heel D.A., Moffatt M.F., Carey A. et al. (2005) Association between a complex insertion/deletion polymorphism in NOD1 (CARD4) and susceptibility to inflammatory bowel disease. Hum. Mol. Genet. 14, 1245–1250 10.1093/hmg/ddi135 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Forrest M.S., Skibola C.F., Lightfoot T.J., Bracci P.M., Willett E.V., Smith M.T. et al. (2006) Polymorphisms in innate immunity genes and risk of non‐Hodgkin lymphoma. Br. J. Haematol. 134, 180–183 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2006.06141.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Tanabe T., Ishige I., Suzuki Y., Aita Y., Furukawa A., Ishige Y. et al. (2006) Sarcoidosis and NOD1 variation with impaired recognition of intracellular Propionibacterium acnes. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Mol. Basis Dis. 1762, 794–801 10.1016/j.bbadis.2006.07.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Hampe J., Franke A., Rosenstiel P., Till A., Teuber M., Huse K. et al. (2007) A genome-wide association scan of nonsynonymous SNPs identifies a susceptibility variant for Crohn disease in ATG16L1. Nat. Genet. 39, 207 10.1038/ng1954 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Molnár T., Hofner P., Nagy F., Lakatos P.L., Fischer S., Lakatos L. et al. (2007) NOD1 gene E266K polymorphism is associated with disease susceptibility but not with disease phenotype or NOD2/CARD15 in Hungarian patients with Crohn’s disease. Dig. Liver Dis. 39, 1064–1070 10.1016/j.dld.2007.09.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Tekin F., Berdeli A., Ozutemiz O. and Coker A. (2009) Evaluation of the association of NOD2/CARD15 gene polymorphisms with clinical course of Turkish Crohn’s disease patients. İnt. J. Med. Medical Sci. 5, 211–214 [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Kupcinskas J., Wex T., Bornschein J., Selgrad M., Leja M., Juozaityte E. et al. (2011) Lack of association between gene polymorphisms of Angiotensin converting enzyme, Nod-like receptor 1, Toll-like receptor 4, FAS/FASL and the presence of Helicobacter pylori-induced premalignant gastric lesions and gastric cancer in Caucasians. BMC Med. Genet. 12, 112 10.1186/1471-2350-12-112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ozbayer C., Kurt H., Bayramoglu A., Gunes H.V., Metintas M., Degirmenci I. et al. (2015) The role of NOD1/CARD4 and NOD2/CARD15 genetic variations in lung cancer risk. Inflamm. Res. 64, 775–779 10.1007/s00011-015-0859-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Özen S.C., Daǧlı Ü., Kiliç M.Y., Törüner M., Çelik Y., Özkan M. et al. (2006) NOD2/CARD15, NOD1/CARD4, and ICAM-1 gene polymorphisms in Turkish patients with inflammatory bowel disease. J. Gastroenterol. 41, 304–310 10.1007/s00535-005-1780-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Tilstra J.S., Clauson C.L., Niedernhofer L.J. and Robbins P.D. (2011) NF-κB in aging and disease. Aging Dis. 2, 449. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Dodd D.Z. and Rowe D.J. (2013) The relationship between postmenopausal osteoporosis and periodontal disease. Am. Dental Hygienists Assoc. 87, 336–344 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Gopinath V., Prabhu M. and Suryawanshi H. (2016) Osteoporosis and periodontal disease-a review. Int. J. Innov. Dental Sci. 1, 27 [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Penoni D.C., Leão A.T.T., Fernandes T.M. and Torres S.R. (2017) Possible links between osteoporosis and periodontal disease. Revista Bras. Reumatol. 57, 270–273 10.1016/j.rbr.2015.12.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Jiao Y., Darzi Y., Tawaratsumida K., Marchesan J.T., Hasegawa M., Moon H. et al. (2013) Induction of bone loss by pathobiont-mediated Nod1 signaling in the oral cavity. Cell Host Microbe 13, 595–601 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Kishimoto T., Kaneko T., Ukai T., Yokoyama M., Ayon Haro R., Yoshinaga Y. et al. (2012) Peptidoglycan and lipopolysaccharide synergistically enhance bone resorption and osteoclastogenesis. J. Periodontal Res. 47, 446–454 10.1111/j.1600-0765.2011.01452.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Yuan H., Zelkha S., Burkatovskaya M., Gupte R., Leeman S.E. and Amar S. (2013) Pivotal role of NOD2 in inflammatory processes affecting atherosclerosis and periodontal bone loss. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110, E5059–E5068 10.1073/pnas.1320862110 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Philpott D.J., Sorbara M.T., Robertson S.J., Croitoru K. and Girardin S.E. (2014) NOD proteins: regulators of inflammation in health and disease. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 14, 9 10.1038/nri3565 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Arron J.R. and Choi Y. (2000) Osteoimmunology: bone versus immune system. Nature 408, 535 10.1038/35046196 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Mitra D., Elvins D.M., Speden D.J. and Collins A.J. (2000) The prevalence of vertebral fractures in mild ankylosing spondylitis and their relationship to bone mineral density. Rheumatology 39, 85–89 10.1093/rheumatology/39.1.85 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Haugeberg G., Lodder M.C., Lems W.F., Uhlig T., Ørstavik R.E., Dijkmans B.A.C. et al. (2004) Hand cortical bone mass and its associations with radiographic joint damage and fractures in 50-70 year old female patients with rheumatoid arthritis: cross sectional Oslo-Truro-Amsterdam (OSTRA) collaborative study. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 63, 1331–1334 10.1136/ard.2003.015065 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Bultink I.E.M., Lems W.F., Kostense P.J., Dijkmans B.A.C. and Voskuyl A.E. (2005) Prevalence of and risk factors for low bone mineral density and vertebral fractures in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum. 52, 2044–2050 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Mikuls T.R., Saag K.G., Curtis J., Bridges S.L. Jr, Alarcon G.S., Westfall A.O. et al. (2005) Prevalence of osteoporosis and osteopenia among African Americans with early rheumatoid arthritis: the impact of ethnic-specific normative data. J. Natl. Med. Assoc. 97, 1155. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Walsh N.C. and Gravallese E.M. (2004) Bone loss in inflammatory arthritis: mechanisms and treatment strategies. Curr. Opin. Rheumatol. 16, 419–427 10.1097/01.bor.0000127824.42507.68 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Jensen T., Klarlund M., Hansen M., Jensen K.E., Skjødt H., Hyldstrup L. et al. (2004) Connective tissue metabolism in patients with unclassified polyarthritis and early rheumatoid arthritis. Relationship to disease activity, bone mineral density, and radiographic outcome. J. Rheumatol. 31, 1698–1708 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Abrahamsen B.O., Madsen J.S., Landbo Tofteng C., Stilgren L., Bladbjerg E.M., Kristensen S.R. et al. (2003) A common methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (C677T) polymorphism is associated with low bone mineral density and increased fracture incidence after menopause: longitudinal data from the Danish osteoporosis prevention study. J. Bone Miner. Res. 18, 723–729 10.1359/jbmr.2003.18.4.723 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Moschen A.R., Kaser A., Enrich B., Ludwiczek O., Gabriel M., Obrist P. et al. (2005) The RANKL/OPG system is activated in inflammatory bowel disease and relates to the state of bone loss. Gut 54, 479–487 10.1136/gut.2004.044370 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Dar R.E., Mazor Y., Karban A., Ish-Shalom S. and Segal E. (2019) Risk factors for low bone density in inflammatory bowel disease: Use of glucocorticoids, low body mass index, and smoking. Dig. Dis. 37, 284–290 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Goldring S.R. (2003) Inflammatory mediators as essential elements in bone remodeling. Calcif. Tissue Int. 73, 97–100 10.1007/s00223-002-1049-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Pfeilschifter J. (2003) Role of cytokines in postmenopausal bone loss. Curr. Osteoporos. Rep. 1, 53–58 10.1007/s11914-003-0009-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Siggelkow H., Eidner T., Lehmann G., Viereck V., Raddatz D., Munzel U. et al. (2003) Cytokines, osteoprotegerin, and RANKL in vitro and histomorphometric indices of bone turnover in patients with different bone diseases. J. Bone Miner. Res. 18, 529–538 10.1359/jbmr.2003.18.3.529 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Manolagas S.C. and Jilka R.L. (1995) Bone marrow, cytokines, and bone remodeling–emerging insights into the pathophysiology of osteoporosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 332, 305–311 10.1056/NEJM199502023320506 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Marriott I., Rati D.M., McCall S.H. and Tranguch S.L. (2005) Induction of Nod1 and Nod2 intracellular pattern recognition receptors in murine osteoblasts following bacterial challenge. Infect. Immun. 73, 2967–2973 10.1128/IAI.73.5.2967-2973.2005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Saidenberg-Kermanac’h N., Cohen-Solal M., Bessis N., de Vernejoul M.-C. and Boissier M.-C. (2004) Role for osteoprotegerin in rheumatoid inflammation. Joint Bone Spine 71, 9–13 10.1016/S1297-319X(03)00131-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Yokota K., Miyazaki T., Hemmatazad H., Gay R.E., Kolling C., Fearon U. et al. (2012) The pattern‐recognition receptor nucleotide‐binding oligomerization domain-containing protein 1 promotes production of inflammatory mediators in rheumatoid arthritis synovial fibroblasts. Arthritis Rheum. 64, 1329–1337 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Franca R.F.O., Vieira S.M., Talbot J., Peres R.S., Pinto L.G., Zamboni D.S. et al. (2016) Expression and activity of NOD1 and NOD2/RIPK2 signalling in mononuclear cells from patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Scand. J. Rheumatol. 45, 8–12 10.3109/03009742.2015.1047403 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Plantinga T.S., Fransen J., Knevel R., Netea M.G., Zwerina J., Helsen M.M.A. et al. (2013) Role of NOD1 polymorphism in susceptibility and clinical progression of rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology 52, 806–814 10.1093/rheumatology/kes404 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Bioscience Reports are provided here courtesy of Portland Press Ltd

RESOURCES