International Journal of

Molecular Sciences

Review
JAK/STAT Activation: A General Mechanism for
Bone Development, Homeostasis, and Regeneration
Alexandra Damerau 1,2 , Timo Gaber 1,2, * , Sarah Ohrndorf 1 and Paula Hoff 1,2,3
1 Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität
zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology,
10117 Berlin, Germany; alexandra.damerau@charite.de (A.D.); sarah.ohrndorf@charite.de (S.O.);
paula.hoff@charite.de (P.H.)
2 German Rheumatism Research Centre (DRFZ) Berlin, a Leibniz Institute, 10117 Berlin, Germany
3 Endokrinologikum Berlin am Gendarmenmarkt, 10117 Berlin, Germany
* Correspondence: timo.gaber@charite.de




Received: 31 October 2020; Accepted: 24 November 2020; Published: 26 November 2020


Abstract: The Janus kinase (JAK) signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT) signaling
pathway serves as an important downstream mediator for a variety of cytokines, hormones, and growth
factors. Emerging evidence suggests JAK/STAT signaling pathway plays an important role in bone
development, metabolism, and healing. In this light, pro-inflammatory cytokines are now clearly
implicated in these processes as they can perturb normal bone remodeling through their action on
osteoclasts and osteoblasts at both intra- and extra-articular skeletal sites. Here, we summarize the role
of JAK/STAT pathway on development, homeostasis, and regeneration based on skeletal phenotype
of individual JAK and STAT gene knockout models and selective inhibition of components of the
JAK/STAT signaling including influences of JAK inhibition in osteoclasts, osteoblasts, and osteocytes.

Keywords: JAK/STAT; osteoblast; osteoclast; bone development; homeostasis; osteoporosis

1. Introduction
The sense of and reaction to external signals from the environment is essential for the survival
of every living system. At the level of the whole organism, the sensory organs such as eyes, ears,
and skin are specialized in perceiving the signals of the environment, processing the incoming signals,
and passing on the information to finally trigger a reaction of the whole body. At the cellular level,
external signals are primarily sensed and processed by biochemical receptors in the cell membrane
and transmitted via signaling pathways and cascades that form a network with a variety of other
pathways to further process the information. These signals initiate mechanisms that are responsible
for controlling phenotypic and functional outcomes, e.g., proliferation or apoptosis. Among these
signal transduction pathways, the Janus tyrosine kinase (JAK)- and signal transducers and activators
of transcription (STAT)-mediated signaling are responsible for transducing signals of more than fifty
cytokines, growth factors and hormones, regulated on multiple levels [1–3]. Loss- or gain-of-function
mutations of genes encoding JAK/STAT components display dramatic immunological phenotypes in
humans and mice underpinning the importance of the central communication hub for the immune
system [1,3,4]. Regulation of cellular, molecular, and genomic processes via JAK and/or STAT proteins
are inhibited by the suppressor of cytokine signaling (SOCS)—a family of intracellular negative
feedback proteins (Figure 1). Some of these cytokines, growth factors, and hormones have been shown
to regulate bone homeostasis via JAK and/or STAT proteins [5].

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 9004; doi:10.3390/ijms21239004 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijms

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 9004 2 of 19

Figure 1. Janus tyrosine kinase (JAK)/signal transducers and activators of transcription (STAT) signaling
in bone homeostasis [1–4,6–17]. Figure contains graphics from Servier Medical Art, licensed under a
Creative Common Attribution 3.0 Generic License. http://smart.servier.com/.

2. JAK/STAT Pathway at a Glance

In mammals, the JAK family contains four members (JAK1, JAK2, JAK3, and tyrosine kinase 2;
TYK2). Their clinical importance has been highlighted by a human immunodeficiency syndrome
caused by loss-of-function mutations in JAK3 [18,19]. Extracellular interaction of a cytokine
with its transmembrane receptor initiates the canonical JAK/STAT signaling by inducing receptor
oligomerization and trans-activation of JAKs. In turn, JAK trans-activation phosphorylates the
cytoplasmatic domains of the receptor, which assist as docking sites for STATs. Spatial proximity
of JAK and STAT facilitates JAK-mediated tyrosine-phosphorylation of STAT that dimerizes and
translocates to the nucleus. In the nucleus, all phosphorylated STAT dimers bind to interferon-γ
(IFN-γ)-activated sequence (GAS) DNA motifs except STAT2, which forms a trimeric complex with
STAT1 and Interferon Regulatory Factor 9 (IRF9). Finally, the STAT1–STAT2–IRF9 complex also known
as Interferon-stimulated Gene Factor 3 (ISGF3) engages the Interferon-stimulated Response Element
(ISRE) motif (Figure 2). While JAK1, JAK2, and TYK2 are ubiquitously expressed, JAK3 is expressed
more restricted, regulated, and tissue specific and can be found in hematopoietic cells such as NK
cells, thymocytes, T cells, B cells, and myeloid cells but also in vascular smooth muscle cells and
endothelium [2]. The name of the Janus kinases is based on the depiction of the Roman gate and door
god “Janus” with his two faces and is based on their two-sided character featured by the existence of
tandem kinase and pseudokinase domains [2]. Seven JAK homology (JH) regions are described. While
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 9004 3 of 19

the catalytic JH1 domain or kinase domain, which has all the characteristics of a typical tyrosine kinase
domain, is well described, the function of the other JH regions is still poorly understood [2]. The JH2
domain is a so called pseudokinase domain that contains all of the subdomains that correspond to those
in the catalytic JH1 tyrosine kinase but being altered from the typical subdomain motifs. The exact
function remains to be elusive although being important for full functionality of the kinase domain
and providing a docking site that associates with STATs. Both, the JH2-like domain and the FERM
domain facilitate the interaction between JAKs and multiple upstream receptors [20–23].

Figure 2. JAK/STAT pathway at a glance. (A) Cytokines interact with their corresponding receptor,
which, after oligomerization, activates JAK and initiates JAK-mediated phosphorylation of its own
cytoplasmic domain. Receptor phosphorylation causes STAT binding in close proximity to JAK that
in turn mediates tyrosine-phosphorylation (p-Tyr) of the latter. STAT phosphorylation results in
dimerization, nuclear translocation, DNA binding, and modulation of gene transcription. (I) All STAT
can bind to interferon-γ (IFN-γ)-activated sequence (GAS) DNA motifs while (II) only STAT2 after
forming a trimeric complex of STAT1–STAT2–IRF9 engages Interferon-stimulated Response Element
(ISRE) DNA binding. (B) Four domains of JAK facilitate interaction with upstream receptors and
promotion of kinase function (FERM domain), interaction with upstream receptors (SH2-like domain),
control of kinase activity (pseudokinase domain), and trans-activation and tyrosine-phosphorylation
of receptors, JAKs and STATs (kinase domain). The seven domains of STAT facilitate protein-protein
interactions (N-terminal domain), protein–protein interactions and nuclear-localization (coiled-coil
domain), nuclear import, DNA binding, and transcriptional activity (DNA-binding domain), structural
organization and transcriptional activity (linker domain), dimerization and interaction with upstream
receptors (SH2 domain), canonical signaling (transactivation domain), canonical and non-canonical
functions (C-terminal domain).

The STAT family is composed of seven members (STAT1, STAT2, STAT3, STAT4, STAT5a, STAT5b,
and STAT6), which share seven characteristic protein domains [2]. These domains interact with the
upstream receptors, with each other (i.e., dimerization and tetramerization) and with certain DNA
motifs. STATs mainly act as transcription factors that directly bind to DNA regulatory elements
and control the transcription of associated genes. STAT binding can be observed proximal to DNA
responsive elements but also distal and far from protein-encoding genes [2]. These sites can be
distinguished in majority as enhancers, epigenetic hotspots, and non-coding loci. Thus, it is noteworthy,
that STATs bear the capability to bind DNA, to act as transcription factor, and to modify the epigenome;
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 9004 4 of 19

the latter by either controlling the expression of various chromatin modifiers, or by physical interactions
between e.g., STATs and CBP/p300, which mediates histone acetylation [2]. However, all members of
the STAT family are capable to directly bind to GAS elements but do also often bind to STAT-binding
sites which do not contain GAS motifs or STATs physically interact with other transcriptional regulators
without DNA binding. Moreover, different STATs tend to co-localize extensively as exemplified in the
interleukin (IL)-2Rα gene locus [2]. All the different modes of action and the various combinations of
JAK and STAT proteins make an investigation on their targets almost impossible.

3. Guiding Bone Development by Combining JAKs and STATs

The skeletal system, one of the most important systems of the human body, serves as the
structural support center of the body, provides a framework for the attachment of tissues, protects vital
organs, and helps to direct the forces necessary for movement. The physiological bone development
processes that lead to the structure, strength, and size of the bone are controlled by several pathways.
These pathways regulate cellular functions within the skeletal system, which consists of bone-forming
cells (osteoblasts), resident cells that form the regulatory network (osteocytes), and bone-resorbing cells
(osteoclasts). During bone formation and remodeling processes, osteoblasts, osteocytes, osteoclasts,
and chondrocytes are markedly influenced by various cytokines and their receptors such as the IL-6
receptor that is characterized by tyrosine kinases of the JAK family. Of note, many bone-related
cytokines involved in bone development have been described, including those that signal through
JAK and STAT pathways such as the IL-6 family of cytokines [3]. In bone, IL-6 family cytokines
such as IL-6, IL-11, oncostatin M (OSM), cardiotrophin 1 (CT-1), leukemia inhibitory factor (LIF),
ciliary neurotrophic factor (CNTF) act via the gp130 (glycoprotein 130) that activates gp130-associated
JAKs [5,8]. This IL-6 receptor subunit has been demonstrated to be essential for the normal skeletal
development, to stimulate bone formation of osteoblasts and to primarily act through STAT3 signaling.
STAT3-dependent cytokines also suppress gene products that inhibit osteoblast differentiation, such as
sclerostin [5]. Furthermore, the importance of the JAK/STAT signaling pathway for bone development
is also highlighted by their involvement in mechanotransduction. Kido et al. showed that mechanical
unloading suppresses, and reloading enhances the IL11 expression in bone cells [24]. IL-11 has been
shown to induce receptor activator of nuclear factor κB ligand (RANKL) expression and stimulate bone
resorption in vivo [25]. Moreover, the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and its ligands strongly
inhibit osteoblast differentiation and mineralization, as determined by the decreased expression of
the transcription factor Runx2 and Osterix [26]. Based on the knowledge gained from JAK and STAT
knockout animals, the JAK/STAT signaling pathway was identified as important for bone development
and homeostasis, recognizing that JAKs and STATs are not equally important for the biology of
osteoblasts and osteoclasts. Moreover, their overall role in the musculoskeletal system is still not
fully understood. Understanding the underlying mechanisms of how bone remodeling is regulated,
how metabolic processes take place, and how bone responds to mechanical stimulation is central to
maintaining the integrity of the skeletal system, thus ensuring human health care. Table 1 summarizes
the influence of the JAK/STAT pathway in bone development using knockout animals.
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 9004 5 of 19

Table 1. JAK/STAT pathway in bone development.

Model System Genes Modified Species Bone Phenotype References

Janus kinases (JAKs)
Jak1−/− Small bone mass in contrast to wild-type mice;
Perinatal lethal;
Jak1 deletion Mouse [27,28]
MMTV-Cre.Jak1fl/fl Stunted embryos;
Involved in bone formation
Low bone mass levels in trabecular and cortical bone;
Jak1S645P+/− Jak1 activation Mouse [29]
Bone formation and resorption is increased
Tofacitinib treatment Jak1/3 inhibition Mouse, rat Protected against bone resorption by inflammation [30–32]
Ruxolitinib treatment Jak1/2 inhibition Mouse Protected against age-related bone resorption [33]
Jak2-null mice die before bone formation starts;
Jak2−/− Jak2 deletion Mouse Lethality of anemia at E12.5 (erythropoiesis is absent); [34–36]
Involved in bone formation
Born normally;
Jak3−/− Jak3 deletion Mouse [37,38]
No gross abnormality
Viable and fertile mice;
Tyk2−/− Tyk2 deletion Mouse No obvious phenotype; [39,40]
Involved in bone formation
Signal transducers and activators of transcription (STATs)
KO mice are indistinguishable compared to wild-type mice;
Higher bone mass → osteopetrotic bone phenotype;
Stat1−/− Stat1 deletion Mouse Bone exhibits excessive osteoclastogenesis; [41–43]
Normal epiphyseal growth plate and longitudinal bone length;
Characteristics: Pro-inflammatory, antagonize proliferation
Viable and fertile mice;
Stat2−/− Stat2 deletion Mouse [44]
No gross abnormality
Involved in early embryonic development;
Lethality at E6.5–7.5;
Stat3−/− Stat3 deletion in all cells Mouse Selective inactivation causes osteoporosis; [45–48]
Surface mineralization reduced;
Characteristics: Pro-proliferative, anti-inflammatory
Low bone mineral density;
Hyper-IgE syndrome Stat3-DNA binding reduced in all cells Mouse Recurrent fractures; [49–51]
Craniofacial and skeletal abnormalities
Perinatal lethality: 75%;
SA/SA phenotype is normal;
SA/SA and SA/− Reduced Stat3 phosphorylation in all cells Mouse [52]
Stat3 phosphorylation in SA/− is reduced;
Reduced skeletal size
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 9004 6 of 19

Table 1. Cont.

Model System Genes Modified Species Bone Phenotype References

Signal transducers and activators of transcription (STATs)
Low bone mass and reduced bone formation rate;
Dmp1Cre.Stat3fl/fl Stat3 deletion in osteocytes Mouse [53]
Bone formation response to mechanical forced reduced
Low trabecular bone mass and bone formation rate reduced;
Col1α1(2.3 kb) Cre; Stat3flox/flox Stat3 deletion in osteoblasts and osteocytes Mouse Normal bone length; [46,47,54,55]
Bone formation response to mechanical forced reduced
Stat3 deletion in chondrocytes, osteoblasts, Skeletal size is very small with low trabecular bone mass;
Col1α1(3.6 kb) Cre; Stat3flox/flox Mouse [47,55]
and osteocytes Bone formation rate reduced and osteoclast formation increased
Stat3 deletion in chondrocytes, osteoblasts, Skeletal size reduced;
Prrx1Cre; Stat3flox/flox Mouse [56]
and osteocytes Postnatal limb curvature
Shortened limbs at birth;
TCre.Stat3f/f Stat3 deletion in mesoderm-derived cells Mouse [56]
Postnatal limb curvature
Stat3 deletion in hematopoietic and Skeletal size and bone mass are reduced;
Tie2(Tek)Cre.Stat3f/f Mouse [57]
endothelial cells Bone formation rate reduced with increased resorption
Socs3 deletion; elevated Stat3 signaling in
Socs3−/− Mouse Embryonic lethality [58,59]
all cells
Joint inflammation;
Elevated Stat3 signaling in endothelial and
VavCre.Socs3f/f Mouse Low bone mass; [60]
hematopoietic cells
Increased osteoblast and osteoclast formation
Cortical porosity increased
Dmp1Cre.Socs3f/f Elevated Stat3 signaling in osteocytes Mouse →delayed development of cortical bone; [61]
Increased bone formation and resorption
Dmp1Cre.Socs3f/f . Elevated Stat3 signaling in osteocytes; Cortical porosity increased
Mouse [61]
IL6−/− no downstream of IL-6 →delayed development of cortical bone
Elevated Stat3 signaling in chondrocytes, Cortical porosity increased;
Col2Cre.Socs3f/f Mouse [62]
osteoblasts and osteocytes Bone size reduced
Viable and fertile mice;
Stat4−/− Stat4−/− deletion Mouse [63]
No gross abnormality
KO mice show obviously defective bone development;
Stat5a/b−/− Double mutation Mouse Smaller Stat5a/5b (male and female) KO mice and Stat5b (male) [64,65]
KO mice compared to wild-type mice
Increased bone mass;
Stat5a−/− Stat5a deletion Mouse Increased trabecular bone density and cortical bone formation; [66]
Prevented age-related bone loss
Cathepsin K–Cre−/− Stat5fl/fl Osteoclast-specific deletion Mouse Reduced bone mass [67]
Viable and fertile mice;
Stat6−/− Stat6 deletion Mouse [68–70]
No gross abnormality compared to their wild-type controls
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 9004 7 of 19

All members of the JAK family—Jak1, Jak2, Jak3, and Tyk2—play a pleiotropic role in physiological
processes such as bone development. While Jak1, Jak2, and Tyk2 are ubiquitary, and expressed in
bone cells, Jak3 is typically expressed by hematopoietic, lymphoid, and myeloid cells as mentioned
above. Among Jak1 and Jak2, Jak3 and Tyk2 deficient mice show no obvious skeletal phenotype.
These findings demonstrate that both Jak3 and Tyk2 are not clinically relevant for skeletal development.
Most signaling cytokines depend on Jak1, and therefore it is unsurprisingly that Jak1-null mice die
perinatally and weigh 40% less than the wild-type littermates, indicating that bone growth delays
without Jak1 in embryos [28,71]. On the other hand, Jak2−/− embryos are anemic and die at E12.5
before bone formation starts [72]. Unfortunately, the underlying mechanisms of how Jak1 and
Jak2 affect osteoblasts and osteoclasts are of clinical relevance and highlight the importance of a
deep understanding. Similar to Jaks, Stat proteins are located in bone tissue. The STAT family,
first discovered in 1993 by James Darnell [73], consists of seven signal transducer and activator of
transcription proteins. While Stat2, Stat4, and Stat6 do not play a crucial role in skeletal development,
indicated by a normal skeletal phenotype, Stat1 is a critical regulator of both osteoclastogenesis and
osteoblast differentiation. Therefore, Stat1 depletion leads to excessive osteoclastogenesis and inhibition
of the transcription factor Runx2 as well as suppression of Osterix transcription in osteoblasts [43].
Although Stat1−/− mice are indistinguishable from their normal controls, depletion leads to an
osteopetrotic bone phenotype characterized by an increased bone mass [42]. These findings suggest
that Stat1 has negative effects on bone formation in vivo. Based on the normal epiphyseal growth
plate, Kim et al. suggest that physiological chondrocyte proliferation is not significantly increased
due to Stat1 depletion [42]. Among the seven, Stat3, Stat5a, and Stat5b have been shown to be directly
involved in bone development. Stat3 was first described as a DNA-binding protein that is activated
in IL-6-stimulated hepatocytes [74]. In humans, STAT3 is probably the most important transcription
factor. Studies suggest that Stat3 plays a central role in early embryonic bone formation, is involved in
bone metabolism, and reduces mechanical load-driven bone development [46,47]. Since Stat3 mediates
intracellular signal transduction in osteoblasts and osteoclasts, depletion reduces bone mass and
impairs bone development. Thus, the incidence of bone fractures increases [46,47]. Along with other
members of the STAT family, Stat5 was originally identified as a cytosolic signal molecule involved in
the proliferation, differentiation, and progression of solid tumor cells [75]. Recent evidence suggests
that STATs, especially Stat5 play a central role in growth hormone signaling, osteoblast differentiation,
inhibition of osteoclast differentiation, and therefore bone homeostasis [76,77]. The depletion of both
Stat5a and Stat5b in mice therefore lead to apparently defective bone formation in vivo. This delayed
skeletal development is consistent with insulin like growth factor (IGF)-1 function in bone, which
were significantly reduced by Stat5a/b mutation [67]. Moreover, the genetic mapping of the STAT gene
family should be comment. Indeed, studies suggest that Stat1, Stat2, Stat3, Stat4, and Stat6 arose by
chromosome duplications from Stat5 [78]. Therefore, both Stat5a and Stat5b show extensive similarities
regarding their sequence with isoform-specific functions. Deletion of Stat5a leads to increased bone
mineral density, trabecular and cortical bone mass and prevents age-related bone loss in mice [66].
Lee et al. investigated the role of STAT5a in human bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal
cells. Surprisingly, inhibition of STAT5a resulted in a significant increase of osteoblast differentiation,
whereas inhibition of STAT5b showed no effect. This demonstrates the isoform-specific function of the
STAT5s. In addition, STAT5b has been shown to apparently regulate the male pattern of long bone
growth that is characteristic of many species, including humans [65]. Nevertheless, further studies are
needed to gain a better understanding on the detailed mode of action.

4. JAK/STAT Signaling in Bone Turnover: From Homeostasis to Osteoporosis

Under physiological conditions, bone homeostasis is characterized by the maintenance of bone
structure and function. Bone homeostasis is guaranteed by bone cells such as osteocytes, osteoblasts,
and osteoclasts [79]. These cells contribute to the bone turnover machinery, which is closely balanced
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 9004 8 of 19

by two processes. The processes include (i) the osteoclast-mediated bone resorption and (ii) the
osteoblast/osteocyte-mediated bone-formation. Both processes are mechanistically “coupled” [80].
Osteoblasts produce new bone matrix to build up soft not yet mineralized matrix (osteoid) by
secreting collagen type I, calcium phosphates, and calcium carbonates into the interstitial space.
Furthermore, osteoblasts produce proteins substantial for the ossification processes such as osteopontin,
osteocalcin, and alkaline phosphatase [81]. Finally, some osteoblasts differentiate into osteocytes
which own a typical star-like morphology but are unable to proliferate. Moreover, osteocytes form
networks to communicate and interconnect with other osteocytes [82]. Osteocytes are important for
the maintenance of bone matrix and calcium homeostasis. They coordinate the skeletal response to
mechanical loading by sensing mechanical strain, thereby orchestrating the formation and resorption
of bone. They are located walled by the bone matrix and produce sclerostin to inhibit further bone
formation [83,84]. While osteoblasts and osteocytes are derived from the mesenchymal lineage,
osteoclasts are derived from the hematopoietic lineage. Generation of osteoclasts from their precursors,
the macrophage-derived osteoclast-progenitor cells, is mainly triggered by the induction of the
transcription factor PU.1 (SPI1) [85]. Osteoclasts are capable of resorbing bone and thus contribute
to bone turnover while osteoblasts and osteocytes reestablish bone matrix. Furthermore, the latter
also produce RANKL [86]. RANKL initiates osteoclastogenesis by binding to RANK on osteoclast
precursors, and thus contributes to physiological bone resorption that is important for bone remodeling
during bone regeneration [87]. Rankl−/− and Rank−/− mice lack osteoclasts and lymph nodes and exhibit
excessive bone thickening or osteopetrosis [88]. In normal bone physiology, the action of RANKL
is balanced by its physiological inhibitors, mainly osteoprotegerin (OPG). If produced excessively,
e.g., during local and systemic inflammation, RANKL contributes to local and systemic bone loss
known as bone erosion and osteoporosis, respectively. Generalized bone loss ultimately results in an
increased risk of osteoporotic fractures [89].
Bone turnover or bone homeostasis is controlled not only by cytokines but also by sex, both affecting
osteoblast and osteoclast function. Consistently, bone homeostasis can be de-balanced post-menopausal
or as a result of a dysregulation of cytokines which is a hallmark of chronic inflammatory diseases
such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Both processes are well-known to promote bone resorption while
reducing bone formation, leading to substantial bone loss [89]. Using ovariectomized (OVX) mice as an
estrogen-deficient model for post-menopausal reduction of hormone levels, recent reports demonstrate
that inhibiting JAK/STAT re-established normal bone density in these osteoporotic mice [5,90].
The JAK/STAT pathway plays a crucial role in almost all cell types by orchestrating growth,
differentiation, and maintenance [91]. Recent findings raised evidence suggesting that this pathway
may be also involved in regulation of bone homeostasis and bone strengthening as a response to
mechanical loading [5,90,92]. Indeed, cytokines of gp130 family such as IL-6, IL-11, and oncostatin
M that are well-known to signal via JAK/STAT are expressed in osteoblasts and osteocytes, increase
with mechanical stimulation, and contribute to osteoblast differentiation and bone formation [24,93].
Results from JAK and STAT knockout animals further indicate the importance of the JAK/STAT signaling
pathway for skeletal development as described above (see Table 1). Germline deletion of JAK1 was
embryonic lethal and demonstrated stunted embryos [27,28]. However, a mutagenesis-derived mouse
model with a dominant Jak1 mutation showed low trabecular and cortical bone mass in adults
indicating a role for Jak1 in bone homeostasis [29].
In patients with autosomal dominant hyperimmunoglobulinemia E (hyper-IgE) syndrome
(HIES)/Job Syndrome mutations of STAT3 limit its DNA binding capability [50,51]. Although the
manifestations of the disease include craniofacial and skeletal abnormalities, low bone mineral density,
and recurrent fractures, associated cellular defects in osteoblasts and osteoclasts remain elusive.
However, an increased osteoclast activity which may be the cause of the osteopenia in these patients has
been reported [94]. During the course of chronic inflammatory autoimmune diseases (e.g., RA, psoriatic
arthritis (PsA)), excessive local and systemic inflammation leads to enhanced bone resorption locally
in the joint and systemically, as observed as generalized osteoporosis [95–97]. In fact, the expression of
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 9004 9 of 19

RANKL was proven in RA synovium at the beginning of the millennium [98,99]. Apart from osteoblasts
and osteocytes, activated T cells express RANKL contributing to the induction of osteoclastogenesis via
binding to RANK on osteoclast precursors and enhancing osteoclast function. Several inflammatory
cytokines, which are highly secreted at the site of inflammation e.g., in the synovium, lead to the
expression of RANKL on synovial fibroblasts [97,100]. Tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α and interleukins
such as IL-1, IL-6, IL-17 induce RANKL expression leading to activation of osteoclasts. The activated
osteoclasts and matrix damaging enzymes secreted in an inflammatory situation within the joint lead
to cartilage destruction, and bone erosions in late stages [95–97].
Today, a wide range of JAK inhibitors have been developed (Table 2) and some of them such as
tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, and filgotinib already belong to the standard therapies to treat
RA and in case of tofacitinib PsA [101–104]. Since receiving regulatory approvals for RA and other
immune-mediated inflammatory diseases either by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
and/or European Medicines Agency (EMA), no significant differences have been reported for the
JAK inhibitors, including tofacitinib, baricitinib, peficitinib, upadacitinib, and filgotinib for either
efficacy or safety in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, regardless of the preclinical differences between
the targeted JAK molecules [105]. Results of an integrated safety analysis of patients treated with
baricitinib over more than 3 years with more than 10,000 patients mirror the safety profile of the other
approved JAK inhibitors with no difference seen versus placebo in serious infections, major adverse
cardiovascular events, malignancy, and deaths [106–108].
Although JAK inhibition has been considered to be safe for the treatment of a variety of autoimmune
diseases including RA, risk for herpes zoster increased with and the incidence of overall infections
and treatment-emergent adverse events increased with increasing doses of baricitinib similar to that
reported for tofacitinib and upadacitinib [105]. Very recently, the FDA and EMA reported that the
incidence of venous thromboembolism and pulmonary embolism increased in patients with risk
factors for both given 10 mg dose twice daily than in patients given TNF inhibitors However, today,
JAK inhibitors belong to the state-of-the-art oral small-molecule inhibitors that effectively suppress
inflammation while safety concerns have been well delineated [105].

Table 2. JAK inhibitors for the management of immune-mediated diseases.

FDA and/or EMA

JAK Inhibitor Specificity Indication (Trial) Refs.
Approved
JAK1/JAK3 > JAK2, SpA, Ps, AA, AD, SLE, DLE,
Tofacitinib RA, PsA, JIA, UC [109–112]
TYK2 CS, CD, DM, dSc
RA, Ps, AA, BLL, TLL, CD,
Ruxolitinib JAK1/JAK2 > TYK2 PCV, MF, GVHD [109,113–115]
AD, Vit, HPS
Baricitinib JAK1/JAK2 RA JIA, SLE, AA, GCA, AD, Ps, [109,111,116]
Peficitinib Pan-JAK RA Ps, UC [109,116]
CD, Small bowel CD,
Filgotinib JAK1 RA Fistulizing CD, UC, CLE, [109,111,117]
NIU, PsA, AS, SS, Uveitis
Itacitinib JAK1 - RA, GVHD, UC, Ps, ALL [109]
RA, AS, GVHD, AD, UC,
SHR0302 JAK1 > JAK2, JAK3 - [109]
CD, AA
PF-04965842 JAK1 AD Ps [109]
PsA, AS, UC, AD, CD, GCA,
Upadacitinib JAK1 RA [109,111,118]
JIA, SpA, SLE

In addition to reducing the inflammatory machinery, JAK inhibitors also efficiently limit the
radiographic progression in RA [105,119–122]. Tofacitinib has been shown to directly affect osteoclasts,
which may explain the reduced development of erosions [92]. In addition, osteoclast differentiation
and activity were shown to be directly inhibited by tofacitinib, and osteoclastogenesis was reported
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 9004 10 of 19

to be suppressed via reduced RANKL expression on osteoblasts by baricitinib [15]. Osteoclast

maturation and bone resorption are well-known aspects in the pathogenesis of RA [31,123]. Therefore,
the effect on the osteoclasts and additionally the suppressed expression of inflammatory cytokines
such as IL-6 are suggested to be the underlying mechanism leading to less bone erosions. The same
mechanisms which locally induce the development of erosions systemically lead to loss of bone
density [96,124]. Inflammatory diseases such as RA often require the therapy with glucocorticoids.
Glucocorticoids as long-term therapy promote the development of osteoporosis and diabetes mellitus.
Furthermore, the systemic inflammatory activity of the underlying disease itself contributes to
osteoporosis. Thus, the rheumatic disease (e.g., RA) itself, glucocorticoids as a therapy of the
underlying disease, and potential co-morbidities, e.g., diabetes mellitus collectively lead to impaired
bone quality [125–130]. These circumstances may explain the high association of chronic inflammatory
diseases with osteoporosis [131,132]. Moreover, these circumstances are assumed to promote the higher
probability of fractures and delayed fracture healing in patients suffering from inflammatory disorders
such as RA in comparison with healthy people [133–141], or even develop pseudarthrosis [139–141].

5. Inhibiting the Two-Faced JAK/STAT Pathway Regenerates Bones

In healthy vertebrates, bone possesses the intrinsic capacity to regenerate as part of the repair
process in response to injury and during skeletal development or continuous remodeling by bone-forming
osteoblast and bone-resorbing osteoclasts throughout adult life [81,142]. Bone regeneration is comprised
of a well-orchestrated series of biological events of bone induction and conduction, involving a number
of cell types and intra- and extracellular molecular-signaling pathways with a definable temporal and
spatial sequence, in an effort to optimize skeletal repair and restore skeletal function [81,143]. In the
clinical setting, the most common form of bone regeneration is fracture healing, which recapitulates the
pathway of normal fetal skeletogenesis, including angiogenesis, chondrogenesis, intramembranous,
and endochondral ossification [144]. Fracture repair is initiated by an injury leading to the formation of
a fracture hematoma, here the early inflammatory phase starts initiating the healing cascade [145]. It has
been observed that fracture healing is impaired after ablation of fracture hematomas in animal models.
This suggests that cellular communication is necessary for the fracture healing process, pointing towards
the importance of the inflammatory phase as a further connection between bone and the immune
system for overall fracture healing [146]. After the inflammatory phase, primary bone formation
follows and then secondary bone remodeling [145,147,148]. We demonstrated that immunologically
restricted patients like patients suffering from autoimmune disease exhibit a pronounced inflammatory
activity on cellular and humoral levels within the initial fracture hematoma which significantly exceeds
the normal inflammatory level of controls [149].
Controlling IL-6 for example, which belongs to cytokines that strongly induce RANKL expression
in T cells, inhibition of JAK/STAT signaling by JAK inhibitors (e.g., tofacitinib, baricitinib) has
been demonstrated to weaken the signal transduction via the IL-6 receptor finally preventing
osteoclastogenesis [15,92]. However, the bone cells themselves are capable of expressing JAK, so that
JAK inhibition can act by specifically influencing immune cells or directly affecting bone cells. [90,92].
Very recently, we demonstrated that JAK inhibition by tofacitinib mediates the recruitment of human
bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stroma cells (hMSCs) under hypoxic conditions as present in
the fracture hematoma within the fracture gap [92]. Furthermore, hypoxia is known to support
osteogenesis of hMSCs [150]. Thus, the metabolically restricted conditions of the initial fracture
hematoma contribute to the initiation of bone regeneration. Inhibition of JAK/STAT signaling was
shown to enhance osteogenic differentiation of hMSCs under hypoxia [92]. These observations are
in the line with the study by Adam at al. in which the JAK inhibitors tofacitinib and baricitinib
were shown to significantly increase osteoblast function [90]. Matching these finding, inhibition of
STAT3 signaling accelerated and augmented BMP2- and BMP4-induced osteogenic differentiation
of hMSCs as shown by Levy et al. [151]. These very recent findings indicate that JAK inhibition
induces osteoanabolic effects and thereby probably supports bone formation and regeneration besides
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 9004 11 of 19

the well-known immune limiting properties of JAK inhibitors. Thus, targeting JAK/STAT signaling
may reestablish a well-orchestrated initial phase of fracture healing which is finally meaningful for a
successful fracture healing outcome.

6. Concluding Remarks and Future Prospects

Cytokine-mediated activation of JAK/STAT signaling tightly regulates bone development,
bone homeostasis, and bone regeneration ultimately leading to normal bone structure and strength.
Disturbing the tight regulation during local or systemic inflammation as observed in the pathogenesis
of inflammatory diseases finally leads to bone erosions, osteoporosis, and bone healing disorders.
Under these circumstances activated JAK/STAT signaling via JAK1/STAT3 by IL-6-family members
contributes to the differentiation and stimulation of osteoclast via e.g., RANKL, which results in
an enhanced bone resorption. Thus, systemic inflammatory diseases such as RA, diabetes mellitus,
and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) but also their treatment using e.g., glucocorticoids are closely
associated with bone loss and secondary osteoporosis and an increased fracture risk [152]. Moreover,
fracture healing in patients suffering from systemic inflammation is often disturbed leading to fracture
healing disorders (e.g., delayed- or non-unions) [152]. Therefore, JAK inhibitors are potent drugs
to treat immune mediated inflammatory diseases, have proven clinically effective for the patients
with inadequate response to conventional synthetic DMARDs, are able to taper glucocorticoids and
additionally exhibit direct positive effects on the prevention of bone erosion and most likely on bone
density, too, while safety concerns have been shown to be well delineated during the last decade [105].
Finally, inhibition of the JAK/STAT pathway using JAK inhibitors in these patients not only
prevents the increased fracture risk but may also prevent the increased risk to develop fracture healing
disorders in immune mediated inflammatory diseases. Of note, the short half-life of JAK inhibitors
(allows rapid reversal of immunosuppressive effects [153]) provides the opportunity to tightly adapt
medication to the course of fracture healing either by continuing or by halting medication in order to
either reestablish or to not disturb the well-orchestrated initial phase of fracture healing, respectively.
Conclusively, we suggest that inhibition of the JAK/STAT pathway to reduce systemic inflammation
an elegant way to manage fracture healing while preventing fracture healing disorders in patients
suffering from immune mediated inflammatory diseases.

Funding: The work of A.D. was supported by the Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes. The work of T.G.
was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (353142848). We acknowledge support from the German
Research Foundation (DFG) and the Open Access Publication Fund of Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin.
Acknowledgments: We thank the 1. FC Union Berlin for motivation—Und Niemals Vergessen Eisern Union!
Conflicts of Interest: T.G. and P.H. received research funding by Pfizer, P.H. received speakers’ honoraria or
travel expense reimbursements by AbbVie and Pfizer. S.O. received speakers’ honoraria or travel expense
reimbursements by Abbvie and Pfizer. A.D. indicates no conflict of interest.

References
1. Villarino, A.V.; Kanno, Y.; O’Shea, J.J. Mechanisms and Consequences of Jak-Stat Signaling in the Immune
System. Nat. Immunol. 2017, 18, 374–384. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Leonard, W.J.; O’Shea, J.J. Jaks and Stats: Biological Implications. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 1998, 16, 293–322.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Morris, R.; Kershaw, N.J.; Babon, J.J. The Molecular Details of Cytokine Signaling Via the Jak/Stat Pathway.
Protein Sci. 2018, 27, 1984–2009. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Casanova, J.L.; Holland, S.M.; Notarangelo, L.D. Inborn Errors of Human Jaks and Stats. Immunity 2012, 36,
515–528. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Sims, N.A. The Jak1/Stat3/Socs3 Axis in Bone Development, Physiology, and Pathology. Exp. Mol. Med. 2020,
52, 1185–1197. [CrossRef]
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 9004 12 of 19

6. Onan, D.; Allan, E.H.; Quinn, J.M.; Gooi, J.H.; Pompolo, S.; Sims, N.A.; Gillespie, M.T.; Martin, T.J.
The Chemokine Cxcl1 Is a Novel Target Gene of Parathyroid Hormone (Pth)/Pth-Related Protein in
Committed Osteoblasts. Endocrinology 2009, 150, 2244–2253. [CrossRef]
7. O’Brien, C.A.; Gubrij, I.; Lin, S.C.; Saylors, R.L.; Manolagas, S.C. Stat3 Activation in Stromal/Osteoblastic
Cells Is Required for Induction of the Receptor Activator of Nf-Kappab Ligand and Stimulation of
Osteoclastogenesis by Gp130-Utilizing Cytokines or Interleukin-1 but Not 1,25-Dihydroxyvitamin D3
or Parathyroid Hormone. J. Biol. Chem. 1999, 274, 19301–19308.
8. Sims, N.A. Cell-Specific Paracrine Actions of Il-6 Family Cytokines from Bone, Marrow and Muscle That
Control Bone Formation and Resorption. Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol. 2016, 79, 14–23. [CrossRef]
9. Walker, E.C.; McGregor, N.E.; Poulton, I.J.; Solano, M.; Pompolo, S.; Fernandes, T.J.; Constable, M.J.;
Nicholson, G.C.; Zhang, J.G.; Nicola, N.A.; et al. Oncostatin M Promotes Bone Formation Independently of
Resorption When Signaling through Leukemia Inhibitory Factor Receptor in Mice. J. Clin. Investig. 2010, 120,
582–592. [CrossRef]
10. Ni, L.; Yu, J.; Gui, X.; Lu, Z.; Wang, X.; Guo, H.; Zhou, Y. Overexpression of Rpn2 Promotes Osteogenic
Differentiation of Hbmscs through the Jak/Stat3 Pathway. FEBS Open Bio 2020, 10, 158–167. [CrossRef]
11. McGregor, N.E.; Murat, M.; Elango, J.; Poulton, I.J.; Walker, E.C.; Crimeen-Irwin, B.; Ho, P.W.M.; Gooi, J.H.;
Martin, T.J.; Sims, N.A. Il-6 Exhibits Both Cis- and Trans-Signaling in Osteocytes and Osteoblasts, but Only
Trans-Signaling Promotes Bone Formation and Osteoclastogenesis. J. Biol. Chem. 2019, 294, 7850–7863.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. Johnson, R.W.; Brennan, H.J.; Vrahnas, C.; Poulton, I.J.; McGregor, N.E.; Standal, T.; Walker, E.C.; Koh, T.T.;
Nguyen, H.; Walsh, N.C.; et al. The Primary Function of Gp130 Signaling in Osteoblasts Is to Maintain Bone
Formation and Strength, Rather Than Promote Osteoclast Formation. J. Bone Miner. Res. 2014, 29, 1492–1505.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Poulton, I.J.; McGregor, N.E.; Pompolo, S.; Walker, E.C.; Sims, N.A. Contrasting Roles of Leukemia Inhibitory
Factor in Murine Bone Development and Remodeling Involve Region-Specific Changes in Vascularization.
J. Bone Miner. Res. 2012, 27, 586–595. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Walker, E.C.; McGregor, N.E.; Poulton, I.J.; Pompolo, S.; Allan, E.H.; Quinn, J.M.; Gillespie, M.T.; Martin, T.J.;
Sims, N.A. Cardiotrophin-1 Is an Osteoclast-Derived Stimulus of Bone Formation Required for Normal Bone
Remodeling. J. Bone Miner. Res. 2008, 23, 2025–2032. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Murakami, K.; Kobayashi, Y.; Uehara, S.; Suzuki, T.; Koide, M.; Yamashita, T.; Nakamura, M.; Takahashi, N.;
Kato, H.; Udagawa, N.; et al. A Jak1/2 Inhibitor, Baricitinib, Inhibits Osteoclastogenesis by Suppressing
Rankl Expression in Osteoblasts in Vitro. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0181126. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Fujio, Y.; Maeda, M.; Mohri, T.; Obana, M.; Iwakura, T.; Hayama, A.; Yamashita, T.; Nakayama, H.; Azuma, J.
Glycoprotein 130 Cytokine Signal as a Therapeutic Target against Cardiovascular Diseases. J. Pharmacol. Sci.
2011, 117, 213–222. [CrossRef]
17. Nur, H.; Rao, L.; Frassanito, M.A.; De Raeve, H.; Ribatti, D.; Mfopou, J.K.; Van Valckenborgh, E.; De Bruyne, E.;
Vacca, A.; Vanderkerken, K.; et al. Stimulation of Invariant Natural Killer T Cells by Alpha-Galactosylceramide
Activates the Jak-Stat Pathway in Endothelial Cells and Reduces Angiogenesis in the 5t33 Multiple Myeloma
Model. Br. J. Haematol. 2014, 167, 651–663. [CrossRef]
18. Russell, S.M.; Tayebi, N.; Nakajima, H.; Riedy, M.C.; Roberts, J.L.; Aman, M.J.; Migone, T.S.; Noguchi, M.;
Markert, M.L.; Buckley, R.H.; et al. Mutation of Jak3 in a Patient with Scid: Essential Role of Jak3 in Lymphoid
Development. Science 1995, 270, 797–800. [CrossRef]
19. Macchi, P.; Villa, A.; Giliani, S.; Sacco, M.G.; Frattini, A.; Porta, F.; Ugazio, A.G.; Johnston, J.A.; Candotti, F.;
O’Shea, J.J.; et al. Mutations of Jak-3 Gene in Patients with Autosomal Severe Combined Immune Deficiency
(Scid). Nature 1995, 377, 65–68. [CrossRef]
20. Zhang, D.; Wlodawer, A.; Lubkowski, J. Crystal Structure of a Complex of the Intracellular Domain of
Interferon Lambda Receptor 1 (Ifnlr1) and the Ferm/Sh2 Domains of Human Jak1. J. Mol. Biol. 2016, 428,
4651–4668. [CrossRef]
21. Floss, D.M.; Klocker, T.; Schroder, J.; Lamertz, L.; Mrotzek, S.; Strobl, B.; Hermanns, H.; Scheller, J. Defining
the Functional Binding Sites of Interleukin 12 Receptor Beta1 and Interleukin 23 Receptor to Janus Kinases.
Mol. Biol. Cell 2016, 27, 2301–2316. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 9004 13 of 19

22. Wallweber, H.J.; Tam, C.; Franke, Y.; Starovasnik, M.A.; Lupardus, P.J. Structural Basis of Recognition of
Interferon-Alpha Receptor by Tyrosine Kinase 2. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2014, 21, 443–448. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
23. Lupardus, P.J.; Skiniotis, G.; Rice, A.J.; Thomas, C.; Fischer, S.; Walz, T.; Garcia, K.C. Structural Snapshots of
Full-Length Jak1, a Transmembrane Gp130/Il-6/Il-6ralpha Cytokine Receptor Complex, and the Receptor-Jak1
Holocomplex. Structure 2011, 19, 45–55. [CrossRef]
24. Kido, S.; Kuriwaka-Kido, R.; Imamura, T.; Ito, Y.; Inoue, D.; Matsumoto, T. Mechanical Stress Induces
Interleukin-11 Expression to Stimulate Osteoblast Differentiation. Bone 2009, 45, 1125–1132. [CrossRef]
25. Ahlen, J.; Andersson, S.; Mukohyama, H.; Roth, C.; Backman, A.; Conaway, H.H.; Lerner, U.H.
Characterization of the Bone-Resorptive Effect of Interleukin-11 in Cultured Mouse Calvarial Bones. Bone
2002, 31, 242–251. [CrossRef]
26. Zhu, J.; Shimizu, E.; Zhang, X.; Partridge, N.C.; Qin, L. Egfr Signaling Suppresses Osteoblast Differentiation
and Inhibits Expression of Master Osteoblastic Transcription Factors Runx2 and Osterix. J. Cell Biochem. 2011,
112, 1749–1760. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Rodig, S.J.; Meraz, M.A.; White, J.M.; Lampe, P.A.; Riley, J.K.; Arthur, C.D.; King, K.L.; Sheehan, K.C.; Yin, L.;
Pennica, D.; et al. Disruption of the Jak1 Gene Demonstrates Obligatory and Nonredundant Roles of the Jaks
in Cytokine-Induced Biologic Responses. Cell 1998, 93, 373–383. [CrossRef]
28. Sakamoto, K.; Wehde, B.L.; Radler, P.D.; Triplett, A.A.; Wagner, K.U. Generation of Janus Kinase 1 (Jak1)
Conditional Knockout Mice. Genesis 2016, 54, 582–588. [CrossRef]
29. Sabrautzki, S.; Janas, E.; Lorenz-Depiereux, B.; Calzada-Wack, J.; Aguilar-Pimentel, J.A.; Rathkolb, B.;
Adler, T.; Cohrs, C.; Hans, W.; Diener, S.; et al. An Enu Mutagenesis-Derived Mouse Model with a Dominant
Jak1 Mutation Resembling Phenotypes of Systemic Autoimmune Disease. Am. J. Pathol. 2013, 183, 352–368.
[CrossRef]
30. Mori, T.; Miyamoto, T.; Yoshida, H.; Asakawa, M.; Kawasumi, M.; Kobayashi, T.; Morioka, H.; Chiba, K.;
Toyama, Y.; Yoshimura, A. Il-1beta and Tnfalpha-Initiated Il-6-Stat3 Pathway Is Critical in Mediating
Inflammatory Cytokines and Rankl Expression in Inflammatory Arthritis. Int. Immunol. 2011, 23, 701–712.
[CrossRef]
31. LaBranche, T.P.; Jesson, M.I.; Radi, Z.A.; Storer, C.E.; Guzova, J.A.; Bonar, S.L.; Thompson, J.M.; Happa, F.A.;
Stewart, Z.S.; Zhan, Y.; et al. Jak Inhibition with Tofacitinib Suppresses Arthritic Joint Structural Damage
through Decreased Rankl Production. Arthritis Rheum. 2012, 64, 3531–3542. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
32. Vidal, B.; Cascao, R.; Finnila, M.A.J.; Lopes, I.P.; da Gloria, V.G.; Saarakkala, S.; Zioupos, P.; Canhao, H.;
Fonseca, J.E. Effects of Tofacitinib in Early Arthritis-Induced Bone Loss in an Adjuvant-Induced Arthritis Rat
Model. Rheumatology 2019, 58, 371. [CrossRef]
33. Farr, J.N.; Xu, M.; Weivoda, M.M.; Monroe, D.G.; Fraser, D.G.; Onken, J.L.; Negley, B.A.; Sfeir, J.G.;
Ogrodnik, M.B.; Hachfeld, C.M.; et al. Targeting Cellular Senescence Prevents Age-Related Bone Loss in
Mice. Nat. Med. 2017, 23, 1072–1079. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
34. Parganas, E.; Wang, D.; Stravopodis, D.; Topham, D.J.; Marine, J.C.; Teglund, S.; Vanin, E.F.; Bodner, S.;
Colamonici, O.R.; van Deursen, J.M.; et al. Jak2 Is Essential for Signaling through a Variety of Cytokine
Receptors. Cell 1998, 93, 385–395. [CrossRef]
35. Gotthardt, D.; Trifinopoulos, J.; Sexl, V.; Putz, E.M. Jak/Stat Cytokine Signaling at the Crossroad of Nk Cell
Development and Maturation. Front. Immunol. 2019, 10, 2590. [CrossRef]
36. Krempler, A.; Qi, Y.; Triplett, A.A.; Zhu, J.; Rui, H.; Wagner, K.U. Generation of a Conditional Knockout
Allele for the Janus Kinase 2 (Jak2) Gene in Mice. Genesis 2004, 40, 52–57. [CrossRef]
37. Park, S.Y.; Saijo, K.; Takahashi, T.; Osawa, M.; Arase, H.; Hirayama, N.; Miyake, K.; Nakauchi, H.; Shirasawa, T.;
Saito, T. Developmental Defects of Lymphoid Cells in Jak3 Kinase-Deficient Mice. Immunity 1995, 3, 771–782.
[CrossRef]
38. Nosaka, T.; van Deursen, J.M.; Tripp, R.A.; Thierfelder, W.E.; Witthuhn, B.A.; McMickle, A.P.; Doherty, P.C.;
Grosveld, G.C.; Ihle, J.N. Defective Lymphoid Development in Mice Lacking Jak3. Science 1995, 270, 800–802.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
39. Howell, M.D.; Kuo, F.I.; Smith, P.A. Targeting the Janus Kinase Family in Autoimmune Skin Diseases.
Front. Immunol. 2019, 10, 2342. [CrossRef]
40. Lokau, J.; Schoeder, V.; Haybaeck, J.; Garbers, C. Jak-Stat Signaling Induced by Interleukin-6 Family Cytokines
in Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Cancers 2019, 11, 1704. [CrossRef]
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 9004 14 of 19

41. Meraz, M.A.; White, J.M.; Sheehan, K.C.; Bach, E.A.; Rodig, S.J.; Dighe, A.S.; Kaplan, D.H.; Riley, J.K.;
Greenlund, A.C.; Campbell, D.; et al. Targeted Disruption of the Stat1 Gene in Mice Reveals Unexpected
Physiologic Specificity in the Jak-Stat Signaling Pathway. Cell 1996, 84, 431–442. [CrossRef]
42. Kim, S.; Koga, T.; Isobe, M.; Kern, B.E.; Yokochi, T.; Chin, Y.E.; Karsenty, G.; Taniguchi, T.; Takayanagi, H. Stat1
Functions as a Cytoplasmic Attenuator of Runx2 in the Transcriptional Program of Osteoblast Differentiation.
Genes Dev. 2003, 17, 1979–1991. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
43. Tajima, K.; Takaishi, H.; Takito, J.; Tohmonda, T.; Yoda, M.; Ota, N.; Kosaki, N.; Matsumoto, M.; Ikegami, H.;
Nakamura, T.; et al. Inhibition of Stat1 Accelerates Bone Fracture Healing. J. Orthop. Res. 2010, 28, 937–941.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
44. Park, C.; Li, S.; Cha, E.; Schindler, C. Immune Response in Stat2 Knockout Mice. Immunity 2000, 13, 795–804.
[CrossRef]
45. Takeda, K.; Noguchi, K.; Shi, W.; Tanaka, T.; Matsumoto, M.; Yoshida, N.; Kishimoto, T.; Akira, S. Targeted
Disruption of the Mouse Stat3 Gene Leads to Early Embryonic Lethality. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1997, 94,
3801–3804. [CrossRef]
46. Itoh, S.; Udagawa, N.; Takahashi, N.; Yoshitake, F.; Narita, H.; Ebisu, S.; Ishihara, K. A Critical Role for
Interleukin-6 Family-Mediated Stat3 Activation in Osteoblast Differentiation and Bone Formation. Bone 2006,
39, 505–512. [CrossRef]
47. Zhou, H.; Newnum, A.B.; Martin, J.R.; Li, P.; Nelson, M.T.; Moh, A.; Fu, X.Y.; Yokota, H.; Li, J.
Osteoblast/Osteocyte-Specific Inactivation of Stat3 Decreases Load-Driven Bone Formation and Accumulates
Reactive Oxygen Species. Bone 2011, 49, 404–411. [CrossRef]
48. Atsumi, T.; Ishihara, K.; Kamimura, D.; Ikushima, H.; Ohtani, T.; Hirota, S.; Kobayashi, H.; Park, S.J.; Saeki, Y.;
Kitamura, Y.; et al. A Point Mutation of Tyr-759 in Interleukin 6 Family Cytokine Receptor Subunit Gp130
Causes Autoimmune Arthritis. J. Exp. Med. 2002, 196, 979–990. [CrossRef]
49. Yong, P.F.; Freeman, A.F.; Engelhardt, K.R.; Holland, S.; Puck, J.M.; Grimbacher, B. An Update on the
Hyper-Ige Syndromes. Arthritis Res. Ther. 2012, 14, 228. [CrossRef]
50. Holland, S.M.; DeLeo, F.R.; Elloumi, H.Z.; Hsu, A.P.; Uzel, G.; Brodsky, N.; Freeman, A.F.; Demidowich, A.;
Davis, J.; Turner, M.L.; et al. Stat3 Mutations in the Hyper-Ige Syndrome. N. Engl. J. Med. 2007, 357,
1608–1619. [CrossRef]
51. Minegishi, Y.; Saito, M.; Tsuchiya, S.; Tsuge, I.; Takada, H.; Hara, T.; Kawamura, N.; Ariga, T.; Pasic, S.;
Stojkovic, O.; et al. Dominant-Negative Mutations in the DNA-Binding Domain of Stat3 Cause Hyper-Ige
Syndrome. Nature 2007, 448, 1058–1062. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
52. Shen, Y.; Schlessinger, K.; Zhu, X.; Meffre, E.; Quimby, F.; Levy, D.E.; Darnell, J.E., Jr. Essential Role of Stat3 in
Postnatal Survival and Growth Revealed by Mice Lacking Stat3 Serine 727 Phosphorylation. Mol. Cell Biol.
2004, 24, 407–419. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
53. Corry, K.A.; Zhou, H.; Brustovetsky, T.; Himes, E.R.; Bivi, N.; Horn, M.R.; Kitase, Y.; Wallace, J.M.; Bellido, T.;
Brustovetsky, N.; et al. Stat3 in Osteocytes Mediates Osteogenic Response to Loading. Bone Rep. 2019,
11, 100218. [CrossRef]
54. Kaplan, M.H.; Sun, Y.L.; Hoey, T.; Grusby, M.J. Impaired Il-12 Responses and Enhanced Development of Th2
Cells in Stat4-Deficient Mice. Nature 1996, 382, 174–177. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
55. Liu, F.; Woitge, H.W.; Braut, A.; Kronenberg, M.S.; Lichtler, A.C.; Mina, M.; Kream, B.E. Expression and
Activity of Osteoblast-Targeted Cre Recombinase Transgenes in Murine Skeletal Tissues. Int. J. Dev. Biol.
2004, 48, 645–653. [CrossRef]
56. Hall, M.D.; Murray, C.A.; Valdez, M.J.; Perantoni, A.O. Mesoderm-Specific Stat3 Deletion Affects Expression
of Sox9 Yielding Sox9-Dependent Phenotypes. PLoS Genet. 2017, 13, e1006610. [CrossRef]
57. Zhang, Z.; Welte, T.; Troiano, N.; Maher, S.E.; Fu, X.Y.; Bothwell, A.L. Osteoporosis with Increased
Osteoclastogenesis in Hematopoietic Cell-Specific Stat3-Deficient Mice. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun.
2005, 328, 800–807. [CrossRef]
58. Marine, J.C.; McKay, C.; Wang, D.; Topham, D.J.; Parganas, E.; Nakajima, H.; Pendeville, H.; Yasukawa, H.;
Sasaki, A.; Yoshimura, A.; et al. Socs3 Is Essential in the Regulation of Fetal Liver Erythropoiesis. Cell 1999,
98, 617–627. [CrossRef]
59. Roberts, A.W.; Robb, L.; Rakar, S.; Hartley, L.; Cluse, L.; Nicola, N.A.; Metcalf, D.; Hilton, D.J.; Alexander, W.S.
Placental Defects and Embryonic Lethality in Mice Lacking Suppressor of Cytokine Signaling 3. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA 2001, 98, 9324–9329. [CrossRef]
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 9004 15 of 19

60. Wong, P.K.; Egan, P.J.; Croker, B.A.; O’Donnell, K.; Sims, N.A.; Drake, S.; Kiu, H.; McManus, E.J.;
Alexander, W.S.; Roberts, A.W.; et al. Socs-3 Negatively Regulates Innate and Adaptive Immune Mechanisms
in Acute Il-1-Dependent Inflammatory Arthritis. J. Clin. Investig. 2006, 116, 1571–1581. [CrossRef]
61. Cho, D.C.; Brennan, H.J.; Johnson, R.W.; Poulton, I.J.; Gooi, J.H.; Tonkin, B.A.; McGregor, N.E.; Walker, E.C.;
Handelsman, D.J.; Martin, T.J.; et al. Bone Corticalization Requires Local Socs3 Activity and Is Promoted by
Androgen Action Via Interleukin-6. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 806. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
62. Liu, X.; D’Cruz, A.A.; Hansen, J.; Croker, B.A.; Lawlor, K.E.; Sims, N.A.; Wicks, I.P. Deleting Suppressor
of Cytokine Signaling-3 in Chondrocytes Reduces Bone Growth by Disrupting Mitogen-Activated Protein
Kinase Signaling. Osteoarthr. Cartil. 2019, 27, 1557–1563. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
63. Thierfelder, W.E.; van Deursen, J.M.; Yamamoto, K.; Tripp, R.A.; Sarawar, S.R.; Carson, R.T.; Sangster, M.Y.;
Vignali, D.A.; Doherty, P.C.; Grosveld, G.C.; et al. Requirement for Stat4 in Interleukin-12-Mediated Responses
of Natural Killer and T Cells. Nature 1996, 382, 171–174. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
64. Liu, X.; Robinson, G.W.; Wagner, K.U.; Garrett, L.; Wynshaw-Boris, A.; Hennighausen, L. Stat5a Is Mandatory
for Adult Mammary Gland Development and Lactogenesis. Genes Dev. 1997, 11, 179–186. [CrossRef]
65. Udy, G.B.; Towers, R.P.; Snell, R.G.; Wilkins, R.J.; Park, S.H.; Ram, P.A.; Waxman, D.J.; Davey, H.W.
Requirement of Stat5b for Sexual Dimorphism of Body Growth Rates and Liver Gene Expression. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA 1997, 94, 7239–7244. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
66. Lee, K.M.; Park, K.H.; Hwang, J.S.; Lee, M.; Yoon, D.S.; Ryu, H.A.; Jung, H.S.; Park, K.W.; Kim, J.;
Park, S.W.; et al. Inhibition of Stat5a Promotes Osteogenesis by Dlx5 Regulation. Cell Death Dis 2018, 9, 1136.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
67. Hirose, J.; Masuda, H.; Tokuyama, N.; Omata, Y.; Matsumoto, T.; Yasui, T.; Kadono, Y.; Hennighausen, L.;
Tanaka, S. Bone Resorption Is Regulated by Cell-Autonomous Negative Feedback Loop of Stat5-Dusp Axis
in the Osteoclast. J. Exp. Med. 2014, 211, 153–163. [CrossRef]
68. Kaplan, M.H.; Schindler, U.; Smiley, S.T.; Grusby, M.J. Stat6 Is Required for Mediating Responses to Il-4 and
for Development of Th2 Cells. Immunity 1996, 4, 313–319. [CrossRef]
69. Takeda, K.; Tanaka, T.; Shi, W.; Matsumoto, M.; Minami, M.; Kashiwamura, S.; Nakanishi, K.; Yoshida, N.;
Kishimoto, T.; Akira, S. Essential Role of Stat6 in Il-4 Signalling. Nature 1996, 380, 627–630. [CrossRef]
70. Shimoda, K.; van Deursen, J.; Sangster, M.Y.; Sarawar, S.R.; Carson, R.T.; Tripp, R.A.; Chu, C.; Quelle, F.W.;
Nosaka, T.; Vignali, D.A.; et al. Lack of Il-4-Induced Th2 Response and Ige Class Switching in Mice with
Disrupted Stat6 Gene. Nature 1996, 380, 630–633. [CrossRef]
71. Risner, K.; Ahmed, A.; Bakovic, A.; Kortchak, S.; Bhalla, N.; Narayanan, A. Efficacy of Fda-Approved
Anti-Inflammatory Drugs against Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis Virus Infection. Viruses 2019, 11, 1151.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
72. Neubauer, H.; Cumano, A.; Muller, M.; Wu, H.; Huffstadt, U.; Pfeffer, K. Jak2 Deficiency Defines an Essential
Developmental Checkpoint in Definitive Hematopoiesis. Cell 1998, 93, 397–409. [CrossRef]
73. Shuai, K.; Stark, G.R.; Kerr, I.M.; Darnell, J.E., Jr. A Single Phosphotyrosine Residue of Stat91 Required for
Gene Activation by Interferon-Gamma. Science 1993, 261, 1744–1746. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
74. Raz, R.; Durbin, J.E.; Levy, D.E. Acute Phase Response Factor and Additional Members of the
Interferon-Stimulated Gene Factor 3 Family Integrate Diverse Signals from Cytokines, Interferons, and Growth
Factors. J. Biol. Chem. 1994, 269, 24391–24395.
75. Liao, Z.; Gu, L.; Vergalli, J.; Mariani, S.A.; De Dominici, M.; Lokareddy, R.K.; Dagvadorj, A.;
Purushottamachar, P.; McCue, P.A.; Trabulsi, E.; et al. Structure-Based Screen Identifies a Potent Small
Molecule Inhibitor of Stat5a/B with Therapeutic Potential for Prostate Cancer and Chronic Myeloid Leukemia.
Mol. Cancer Ther. 2015, 14, 1777–1793. [CrossRef]
76. Lee, J.; Seong, S.; Kim, J.H.; Kim, K.; Kim, I.; Jeong, B.C.; Nam, K.I.; Kim, K.K.; Hennighausen, L.; Kim, N.
Stat5 Is a Key Transcription Factor for Il-3-Mediated Inhibition of Rankl-Induced Osteoclastogenesis. Sci. Rep.
2016, 6, 30977. [CrossRef]
77. Darvin, P.; Joung, Y.H.; Yang, Y.M. Jak2-Stat5b Pathway and Osteoblast Differentiation. JAKSTAT 2013,
2, e24931. [CrossRef]
78. Wang, Y.; Levy, D.E. Comparative Evolutionary Genomics of the Stat Family of Transcription Factors.
JAKSTAT 2012, 1, 23–33. [CrossRef]
79. Grabowski, P. Physiology of Bone. Endocr. Dev. 2009, 16, 32–48.
80. Rucci, N. Molecular Biology of Bone Remodelling. Clin. Cases Miner. Bone Metab. 2008, 5, 49–56. [PubMed]
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 9004 16 of 19

81. Einhorn, T.A. The Cell and Molecular Biology of Fracture Healing. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 1998, 355, S7–S21.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
82. Cullinane, D.M. The Role of Osteocytes in Bone Regulation: Mineral Homeostasis Versus Mechanoreception.
J. Musculoskelet. Neuronal. Interact. 2002, 2, 242–244.
83. Chang, B.; Quan, Q.; Li, Y.; Qiu, H.; Peng, J.; Gu, Y. Treatment of Osteoporosis, with a Focus on 2 Monoclonal
Antibodies. Med. Sci. Monit. 2018, 24, 8758–8766. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
84. Weivoda, M.M.; Youssef, S.J.; Oursler, M.J. Sclerostin Expression and Functions Beyond the Osteocyte. Bone
2017, 96, 45–50. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
85. Crotti, T.N.; Sharma, S.M.; Fleming, J.D.; Flannery, M.R.; Ostrowski, M.C.; Goldring, S.R.; McHugh, K.P. Pu.1
and Nfatc1 Mediate Osteoclastic Induction of the Mouse Beta3 Integrin Promoter. J. Cell Physiol. 2008, 215,
636–644. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
86. Ono, T.; Hayashi, M.; Sasaki, F.; Nakashima, T. Rankl Biology: Bone Metabolism, the Immune System,
and Beyond. Inflamm. Regen. 2020, 40, 2. [CrossRef]
87. Okamoto, K.; Takayanagi, H. Osteoimmunology. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Med. 2019, 9. [CrossRef]
88. Dougall, W.C.; Glaccum, M.; Charrier, K.; Rohrbach, K.; Brasel, K.; De Smedt, T.; Daro, E.; Smith, J.;
Tometsko, M.E.; Maliszewski, C.R.; et al. Rank Is Essential for Osteoclast and Lymph Node Development.
Genes Dev. 1999, 13, 2412–2424. [CrossRef]
89. Black, D.M.; Rosen, C.J. Clinical Practice. Postmenopausal Osteoporosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 2016, 374, 254–262.
[CrossRef]
90. Adam, S.; Simon, N.; Steffen, U.; Andes, F.T.; Scholtysek, C.; Muller, D.I.H.; Weidner, D.; Andreev, D.;
Kleyer, A.; Culemann, S.; et al. Jak Inhibition Increases Bone Mass in Steady-State Conditions and Ameliorates
Pathological Bone Loss by Stimulating Osteoblast Function. Sci. Transl. Med. 2020, 12, eaay4447. [CrossRef]
91. Li, J. Jak-Stat and Bone Metabolism. JAKSTAT 2013, 2, e23930. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
92. Gaber, T.; Brinkman, A.C.K.; Pienczikowski, J.; Diesing, K.; Damerau, A.; Pfeiffenberger, M.; Lang, A.;
Ohrndorf, S.; Burmester, G.R.; Buttgereit, F.; et al. Impact of Janus Kinase Inhibition with Tofacitinib on
Fundamental Processes of Bone Healing. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 865. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
93. Bellido, T.; Borba, V.Z.; Roberson, P.; Manolagas, S.C. Activation of the Janus Kinase/Stat (Signal Transducer
and Activator of Transcription) Signal Transduction Pathway by Interleukin-6-Type Cytokines Promotes
Osteoblast Differentiation. Endocrinology 1997, 138, 3666–3676. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
94. Sowerwine, K.J.; Shaw, P.A.; Gu, W.; Ling, J.C.; Collins, M.T.; Darnell, D.N.; Anderson, V.L.; Davis, J.; Hsu, A.;
Welch, P.; et al. Bone Density and Fractures in Autosomal Dominant Hyper Ige Syndrome. J. Clin. Immunol.
2014, 34, 260–264. [CrossRef]
95. Schett, G. Review: Immune Cells and Mediators of Inflammatory Arthritis. Autoimmunity 2008, 41, 224–229.
[CrossRef]
96. Schett, G. Autoimmunity as a Trigger for Structural Bone Damage in Rheumatoid Arthritis. Mod. Rheumatol.
2017, 27, 193–197. [CrossRef]
97. Terashima, A.; Takayanagi, H. Overview of Osteoimmunology. Calcif. Tissue Int. 2018, 102, 503–511.
[CrossRef]
98. Gravallese, E.M.; Manning, C.; Tsay, A.; Naito, A.; Pan, C.; Amento, E.; Goldring, S.R. Synovial Tissue in
Rheumatoid Arthritis Is a Source of Osteoclast Differentiation Factor. Arthritis Rheum. 2000, 43, 250–258.
[CrossRef]
99. Takayanagi, H.; Iizuka, H.; Juji, T.; Nakagawa, T.; Yamamoto, A.; Miyazaki, T.; Koshihara, Y.; Oda, H.;
Nakamura, K.; Tanaka, S. Involvement of Receptor Activator of Nuclear Factor Kappab Ligand/Osteoclast
Differentiation Factor in Osteoclastogenesis from Synoviocytes in Rheumatoid Arthritis. Arthritis Rheum.
2000, 43, 259–269. [CrossRef]
100. Danks, L.; Komatsu, N.; Guerrini, M.M.; Sawa, S.; Armaka, M.; Kollias, G.; Nakashima, T.; Takayanagi, H.
Rankl Expressed on Synovial Fibroblasts Is Primarily Responsible for Bone Erosions During Joint
Inflammation. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2016, 75, 1187–1195. [CrossRef]
101. Fiehn, C.; Kruger, K. Treatment Algorithm for Rheumatoid Arthritis: According to the S2e Guidelines 2018.
Z. Rheumatol. 2019, 78, 529–539. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 9004 17 of 19

102. Smolen, J.S.; Landewe, R.; Bijlsma, J.; Burmester, G.; Chatzidionysiou, K.; Dougados, M.; Nam, J.; Ramiro, S.;
Voshaar, M.; van Vollenhoven, R.; et al. Eular Recommendations for the Management of Rheumatoid
Arthritis with Synthetic and Biological Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs: 2016 Update. Ann. Rheum.
Dis. 2017, 76, 960–977. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
103. Mease, P.; Hall, S.; FitzGerald, O.; van der Heijde, D.; Merola, J.F.; Avila-Zapata, F.; Cieslak, D.; Graham, D.;
Wang, C.; Menon, S.; et al. Tofacitinib or Adalimumab Versus Placebo for Psoriatic Arthritis. N. Engl. J. Med.
2017, 377, 1537–1550. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
104. Taylor, P.C.; Keystone, E.C.; van der Heijde, D.; Weinblatt, M.E.; Del Carmen Morales, L.; Reyes Gonzaga, J.;
Yakushin, S.; Ishii, T.; Emoto, K.; Beattie, S.; et al. Baricitinib Versus Placebo or Adalimumab in Rheumatoid
Arthritis. N. Engl. J. Med. 2017, 376, 652–662. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
105. Cohen, S.B. Safety Profile of Jak Inhibitors: A Focus on Baricitinib. Lancet Rheumatol. 2020, 2, e313–e314.
[CrossRef]
106. Genovese, M.C.; Smolen, J.S.; Takeuchi, T.; Burmester, G.; Brinker, D.; Rooney, T.P.; Zhong, J.; Daojun, M.;
Saifan, C.; Cardoso, A.; et al. Safety Profile of Baricitinib for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis over a
Median of 3 Years of Treatment: An Updated Integrated Safety Analysis. Lancet Rheumatol. 2020, 2, e347–e357.
[CrossRef]
107. Wollenhaupt, J.; Lee, E.B.; Curtis, J.R.; Silverfield, J.; Terry, K.; Soma, K.; Mojcik, C.; DeMasi, R.; Strengholt, S.;
Kwok, K.; et al. Safety and Efficacy of Tofacitinib for up to 9.5 Years in the Treatment of Rheumatoid
Arthritis: Final Results of a Global, Open-Label, Long-Term Extension Study. Arthritis Res. Ther. 2019, 21, 89.
[CrossRef]
108. Cohen, S.B.; van Vollenhoven, R.F.; Winthrop, K.L.; Zerbini, C.A.F.; Tanaka, Y.; Bessette, L.; Zhang, Y.;
Khan, N.; Hendrickson, B.; Enejosa, J.V.; et al. Safety Profile of Upadacitinib in Rheumatoid Arthritis:
Integrated Analysis from the Select Phase Iii Clinical Programme. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2020. [CrossRef]
109. Fragoulis, G.E.; McInnes, I.B.; Siebert, S. Jak-Inhibitors. New Players in the Field of Immune-Mediated
Diseases, Beyond Rheumatoid Arthritis. Rheumatology 2019, 58, i43–i54. [CrossRef]
110. Ly, K.; Beck, K.M.; Smith, M.P.; Orbai, A.M.; Liao, W. Tofacitinib in the Management of Active Psoriatic
Arthritis: Patient Selection and Perspectives. Psoriasis 2019, 9, 97–107. [CrossRef]
111. Biggioggero, M.; Becciolini, A.; Crotti, C.; Agape, E.; Favalli, E.G. Upadacitinib and Filgotinib: The Role of
Jak1 Selective Inhibition in the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis. Drugs Context. 2019, 8, 212595. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
112. Kucharz, E.J.; Stajszczyk, M.; Kotulska-Kucharz, A.; Batko, B.; Brzosko, M.; Jeka, S.; Leszczynski, P.;
Majdan, M.; Olesinska, M.; Samborski, W.; et al. Tofacitinib in the Treatment of Patients with Rheumatoid
Arthritis: Position Statement of Experts of the Polish Society for Rheumatology. Reumatologia 2018, 56,
203–211. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
113. Raedler, L.A. Jakafi (Ruxolitinib): First Fda-Approved Medication for the Treatment of Patients with
Polycythemia Vera. Am. Health Drug Benefits 2015, 8, 75–79. [PubMed]
114. Plosker, G.L. Ruxolitinib: A Review of Its Use in Patients with Myelofibrosis. Drugs 2015, 75, 297–308.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
115. Becker, H.; Engelhardt, M.; von Bubnoff, N.; Wasch, R. Ruxolitinib. Recent Results Cancer Res. 2014, 201,
249–257.
116. Markham, A.; Keam, S.J. Peficitinib: First Global Approval. Drugs 2019, 79, 887–891. [CrossRef]
117. Tarrant, J.M.; Galien, R.; Li, W.; Goyal, L.; Pan, Y.; Hawtin, R.; Zhang, W.; Van der Aa, A.; Taylor, P.C.
Filgotinib, a Jak1 Inhibitor, Modulates Disease-Related Biomarkers in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results from
Two Randomized, Controlled Phase 2b Trials. Rheumatol. Ther. 2020, 7, 173–190. [CrossRef]
118. Duggan, S.; Keam, S.J. Upadacitinib: First Approval. Drugs 2019, 79, 1819–1828. [CrossRef]
119. Fleischmann, R.; Pangan, A.L.; Song, I.H.; Mysler, E.; Bessette, L.; Peterfy, C.; Durez, P.; Ostor, A.J.; Li, Y.;
Zhou, Y.; et al. Upadacitinib Versus Placebo or Adalimumab in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis and an
Inadequate Response to Methotrexate: Results of a Phase Iii, Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial.
Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019, 71, 1788–1800. [CrossRef]
120. Fleischmann, R.M.; Genovese, M.C.; Enejosa, J.V.; Mysler, E.; Bessette, L.; Peterfy, C.; Durez, P.; Ostor, A.;
Li, Y.; Song, I.H. Safety and Effectiveness of Upadacitinib or Adalimumab Plus Methotrexate in Patients
with Rheumatoid Arthritis over 48 Weeks with Switch to Alternate Therapy in Patients with Insufficient
Response. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2019, 78, 1454–1462. [CrossRef]
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 9004 18 of 19

121. Van der Heijde, D.; Dougados, M.; Chen, Y.C.; Greenwald, M.; Drescher, E.; Klar, R.; Xie, L.; de la Torre, I.;
Rooney, T.P.; Witt, S.L.; et al. Effects of Baricitinib on Radiographic Progression of Structural Joint Damage
at 1 Year in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis and an Inadequate Response to Conventional Synthetic
Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs. RMD Open 2018, 4, e000662. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
122. Van der Heijde, D.; Strand, V.; Tanaka, Y.; Keystone, E.; Kremer, J.; Zerbini, C.A.F.; Cardiel, M.H.; Cohen, S.;
Nash, P.; Song, Y.W.; et al. Tofacitinib in Combination with Methotrexate in Patients with Rheumatoid
Arthritis: Clinical Efficacy, Radiographic, and Safety Outcomes from a Twenty-Four-Month, Phase III Study.
Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019, 71, 878–891. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
123. Yokota, K.; Sato, K.; Miyazaki, T.; Kitaura, H.; Kayama, H.; Miyoshi, F.; Araki, Y.; Akiyama, Y.; Takeda, K.;
Mimura, T. Combination of Tumor Necrosis Factor Alpha and Interleukin-6 Induces Mouse Osteoclast-Like
Cells with Bone Resorption Activity Both In Vitro and In Vivo. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2014, 66, 121–129.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
124. Tanaka, Y.; Ohira, T. Mechanisms and Therapeutic Targets for Bone Damage in Rheumatoid Arthritis,
in Particular the Rank-Rankl System. Curr. Opin. Pharmacol. 2018, 40, 110–119. [CrossRef]
125. Poiana, C.; Capatina, C. Osteoporosis and Fracture Risk in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.
Acta Endocrinol. 2019, 15, 231–236. [CrossRef]
126. Lin, Y.C.; Wu, J.; Kuo, S.F.; Cheung, Y.C.; Sung, C.M.; Fan, C.M.; Chen, F.P.; Mhuircheartaigh, J.N. Vertebral
Fractures in Type 2 Diabetes Patients: Utility of Trabecular Bone Score and Relationship with Serum Bone
Turnover Biomarkers. J. Clin. Densitom. 2019, 23, 37–43. [CrossRef]
127. Van Onna, M.; Ozturk, B.; Starmans, M.; Peeters, R.; Boonen, A. Disease and Management Beliefs of Elderly
Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis and Comorbidity: A Qualitative Study. Clin. Rheumatol. 2018, 37,
2367–2372. [CrossRef]
128. Nicolau, J.; Lequerre, T.; Bacquet, H.; Vittecoq, O. Rheumatoid Arthritis, Insulin Resistance, and Diabetes.
Joint Bone Spine 2017, 84, 411–416. [CrossRef]
129. Dougados, M. Comorbidities in Rheumatoid Arthritis. Curr. Opin. Rheumatol. 2016, 28, 282–288. [CrossRef]
130. Jiang, P.; Li, H.; Li, X. Diabetes Mellitus Risk Factors in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review and
Meta-Analysis. Clin. Exp. Rheumatol. 2015, 33, 115–121.
131. Adami, G.; Fassio, A.; Rossini, M.; Caimmi, C.; Giollo, A.; Orsolini, G.; Viapiana, O.; Gatti, D. Osteoporosis in
Rheumatic Diseases. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 5867. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
132. Rosen, C.J. The Epidemiology and Pathogenesis of Osteoporosis. In Endotext; Feingold, K.R., Anawalt, B.,
Boyce, A., Chrousos, G., de Herder, W.W., Dungan, K., Grossman, A., Hershman, J.M., Hofland, H.J.,
Kaltsas, G., et al., Eds.; Wilson: South Dartmouth, MA, USA, 2000.
133. Chidrawar, S.M.; Khan, N.; Chan, Y.L.; Nayak, L.; Moss, P.A. Ageing Is Associated with a Decline in
Peripheral Blood Cd56bright Nk Cells. Immun. Ageing 2006, 3, 10. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
134. Ishikawa, M.; Nishioka, M.; Hanaki, N.; Miyauchi, T.; Kashiwagi, Y.; Kawasaki, Y.; Miki, H.; Kagawa, H.;
Ioki, H.; Nakamura, Y. Postoperative Host Responses in Elderly Patients after Gastrointestinal Surgery.
Hepatogastroenterology 2006, 53, 730–735. [PubMed]
135. Kang, S.C.; Matsutani, T.; Choudhry, M.A.; Schwacha, M.G.; Rue, L.W.; Bland, K.I.; Chaudry, I.H. Are the
Immune Responses Different in Middle-Aged and Young Mice Following Bone Fracture, Tissue Trauma and
Hemorrhage? Cytokine 2004, 26, 223–230. [CrossRef]
136. Smith, R.M. Immunity, Trauma and the Elderly. Injury 2007, 38, 1401–1404. [CrossRef]
137. Woodland, D.L.; Blackman, M.A. Immunity and Age: Living in the Past? Trends Immunol. 2006, 27, 303–307.
[CrossRef]
138. Hadjiargyrou, M.; O’Keefe, R.J. The Convergence of Fracture Repair and Stem Cells: Interplay of Genes,
Aging, Environmental Factors and Disease. J. Bone Miner. Res. 2014, 29, 2307–2322. [CrossRef]
139. Bogoch, E.R.; Moran, E.L. Bone Abnormalities in the Surgical Treatment of Patients with Rheumatoid
Arthritis. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 1999, 366, 8–21. [CrossRef]
140. Busti, A.J.; Hooper, J.S.; Amaya, C.J.; Kazi, S. Effects of Perioperative Antiinflammatory and
Immunomodulating Therapy on Surgical Wound Healing. Pharmacotherapy 2005, 25, 1566–1591. [CrossRef]
141. Dominiak, B.; Oxberry, W.; Chen, P. Study on a Nonhealing Fracture from a Patient with Systemic Lupus
Erythematosus and Its Pathogenetic Mechanisms. Ultrastruct. Pathol. 2005, 29, 107–120. [CrossRef]
142. Ramachandran, M. Basic Orthopaedic Sciences: The Stanmore Guide, 2nd ed.; Chapman and Hall/CRC:
Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2018.
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 9004 19 of 19

143. Cho, T.J.; Gerstenfeld, L.C.; Einhorn, T.A. Differential Temporal Expression of Members of the Transforming
Growth Factor Beta Superfamily during Murine Fracture Healing. J. Bone Miner. Res. 2002, 17, 513–520.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
144. Ferguson, C.; Alpern, E.; Miclau, T.; Helms, J.A. Does Adult Fracture Repair Recapitulate Embryonic Skeletal
Formation? Mech. Dev. 1999, 87, 57–66. [CrossRef]
145. Kolar, P.; Schmidt-Bleek, K.; Schell, H.; Gaber, T.; Toben, D.; Schmidmaier, G.; Perka, C.; Buttgereit, F.;
Duda, G.N. The Early Fracture Hematoma and Its Potential Role in Fracture Healing. Tissue Eng. Part B Rev.
2010, 16, 427–434. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
146. Park, S.H.; Silva, M.; Bahk, W.J.; McKellop, H.; Lieberman, J.R. Effect of Repeated Irrigation and Debridement
on Fracture Healing in an Animal Model. J. Orthop. Res. 2002, 20, 1197–1204. [CrossRef]
147. Hoff, P.; Gaber, T.; Strehl, C.; Schmidt-Bleek, K.; Lang, A.; Huscher, D.; Burmester, G.R.; Schmidmaier, G.;
Perka, C.; Duda, G.N.; et al. Immunological Characterization of the Early Human Fracture Hematoma.
Immunol. Res. 2016, 64, 1195–1206. [CrossRef]
148. Kolar, P.; Gaber, T.; Perka, C.; Duda, G.N.; Buttgereit, F. Human Early Fracture Hematoma Is Characterized
by Inflammation and Hypoxia. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2011, 469, 3118–3126. [CrossRef]
149. Hoff, P.; Gaber, T.; Strehl, C.; Jakstadt, M.; Hoff, H.; Schmidt-Bleek, K.; Lang, A.; Rohner, E.; Huscher, D.;
Matziolis, G.; et al. A Pronounced Inflammatory Activity Characterizes the Early Fracture Healing Phase in
Immunologically Restricted Patients. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18, 583. [CrossRef]
150. Wagegg, M.; Gaber, T.; Lohanatha, F.L.; Hahne, M.; Strehl, C.; Fangradt, M.; Tran, C.L.; Schonbeck, K.; Hoff, P.;
Ode, A.; et al. Hypoxia Promotes Osteogenesis but Suppresses Adipogenesis of Human Mesenchymal
Stromal Cells in a Hypoxia-Inducible Factor-1 Dependent Manner. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e46483. [CrossRef]
151. Levy, O.; Ruvinov, E.; Reem, T.; Granot, Y.; Cohen, S. Highly Efficient Osteogenic Differentiation of Human
Mesenchymal Stem Cells by Eradication of Stat3 Signaling. Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol. 2010, 42, 1823–1830.
[CrossRef]
152. Claes, L.; Recknagel, S.; Ignatius, A. Fracture Healing under Healthy and Inflammatory Conditions. Nat. Rev.
Rheumatol. 2012, 8, 133–143. [CrossRef]
153. Bechman, K.; Yates, M.; Galloway, J.B. The New Entries in the Therapeutic Armamentarium: The Small
Molecule Jak Inhibitors. Pharmacol. Res. 2019, 147, 104392. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).