24‐ and 26‐Homo‐1, 25‐dihydroxyvitamin D3 Analogs: Potencies on in vitro bone resorption differ from those reported for cell differentiation

Susan K. Paulson, Kato Perlman, Hector F. Deluca, Paula H. Stern*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

9 Scopus citations

Abstract

It has been proposed that the stimulatory effects of 1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D on bone resorption may be mediated through actions on differentiation of marrow cells into monocytic osteoclast precursors. In human promyelocytic leukemia cells (HL‐60), 24‐ and 26‐homo‐1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D3 and their Δ22 analogs and 24,24‐dihomo‐1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D3 are 10‐fold more potent than 1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D3, and Δ22‐24,24,24‐trihomo‐1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D3 is equipotent with 1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D3 in inducing differentiation into the monocytic phenotype. The effect of these 1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D3 analogs on resorption of fetal rat limb bones in vitro was determined in the present study. 1,25‐Dihydroxyvitamin D3 was equipotent with 24‐homo‐1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D3, Δ22‐24‐homo‐1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D3, 26‐homo‐1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D3, and Δ22‐26‐homo‐1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D3 for in vitro bone resorption, whereas 24,24‐dihomo‐1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D3 and Δ22‐24,24,24‐trihomo‐1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D3 were inactive. The failure of these analogs to show a higher bone‐resorbing activity than 1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D3 provides evidence to suggest that the mechanism of 1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D3‐induced bone resorption may not involve stimulation of monocytic cell differentiation

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)201-206
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Bone and Mineral Research
Volume5
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1990

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of '24‐ and 26‐Homo‐1, 25‐dihydroxyvitamin D<sub>3</sub> Analogs: Potencies on in vitro bone resorption differ from those reported for cell differentiation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this