Evidence Hub

Matrix metalloproteinase-9 deficiency confers resilience in fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva in a man and mice

Lounev V, Groppe JC, Brewer N, Wentworth KL, Smith V, Xu M, Schomburg L, Bhargava P et al.

Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, 2024

12 citations

Abstract

Single case studies of extraordinary disease resilience may provide therapeutic insight into conditions for which no definitive treatments exist. An otherwise healthy 35-year-old man (patient-R) with the canonical pathogenic ACVR1R206H variant and the classic congenital great toe malformation of fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva (FOP) had extreme paucity of post-natal heterotopic ossification (HO) and nearly normal mobility. We hypothesized that patient-R lacked a sufficient post-natal inflammatory trigger for HO. A plasma biomarker survey revealed a reduction in total matrix metalloproteinase-9 (MMP-9) compared to healthy controls and individuals with quiescent FOP. Whole exome sequencing identified compound heterozygous variants in MMP-9 (c.59C > T, p.A20V and c.493G > A, p.D165N). Structural analysis of the D165N variant predicted both decreased MMP-9 secretion and activity that were confirmed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and gelatin zymography. Further, human proinflammatory M1-like macrophages expressing either MMP-9 variant produced significantly less Activin A, an obligate ligand for HO in FOP, compared to wildtype controls. Importantly, MMP-9 inhibition by genetic, biologic, or pharmacologic means in multiple FOP mouse models abrogated trauma-induced HO, sequestered Activin A in the extracellular matrix (ECM), and induced regeneration of injured skeletal muscle. Our data suggest that MMP-9 is a druggable node linking inflammation to HO, orchestrates an…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case report, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free