UNLABELLED: COX-2 is a key enzyme involved in the response of bone to loading. However, using mice with a null mutation of the COX-2 gene, we found that a functional COX-2 gene is not required for mechanotransduction. This paradoxical finding may have resulted, in part, from mechanically induced COX-1 activity. INTRODUCTION: Cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) is an important mediator in the response of bone to mechanical loading, with pharmacological inhibition of COX-2 effectively eliminating or reducing mechanically induced bone formation. In this study, we further investigated the role of COX-2 in skeletal mechanotransduction using a genetic approach. The aim was to compare the skeletal responsiveness of COX-2 homozygous mutant (COX-2(-/-)) and wildtype control (COX-2(+/+)) mice to investigate whether a functional COX-2 gene is necessary for mechanotransduction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult female COX-2(+/+) and COX-2(-/-) mice on a C57BL/6x129/ola background were studied using the ulna axial loading model. The response to 2 days of loading for 120 cycles/day at 2 Hz was measured histomorphometrically. Phenotypic characterization of the femurs in these mice was also performed. In a separate group of animals, the expression of the remaining COX isozyme, COX-1, was assessed using real-time RT-PCR 4 h after one bout of 120 loading cycles. RESULTS: Null mutation of the COX-2 gene resulted in a consistent femoral phenotype of reduced bone mass, altered architecture, and inferior mechanical properties. Many of these differences were nullified after adjustment for body weight. Nevertheless, body weight-corrected values showed a consistent trend of reduced mechanical properties in COX-2(-/-) mice. Genotype did not influence the response to mechanical loading, with no histomorphometric differences being found between COX-2(+/+) and COX-2(-/-) mice. Real-time RT-PCR showed COX-2(-/-) mice to express significantly greater COX-1 expression in loaded ulnas than in loaded ulnas in COX-2(+/+) mice. There were no differences in COX-1 expression in nonloaded ulnas. CONCLUSIONS: A functional COX-2 gene was not found to be required for skeletal mechanotransduction. This is in contrast to previous pharmacological studies showing that COX-2 is critical to the response of bone to loading. Investigating a potential reason for the absence of a genotype difference in this study, we found that mice with a null mutation in the COX-2 gene possess inductive skeletal COX-1 expression.
UNLABELLED: COX-2 is a key enzyme involved in the response of bone to loading. However, using mice with a null mutation of the COX-2 gene, we found that a functional COX-2 gene is not required for mechanotransduction. This paradoxical finding may have resulted, in part, from mechanically induced COX-1 activity. INTRODUCTION:Cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) is an important mediator in the response of bone to mechanical loading, with pharmacological inhibition of COX-2 effectively eliminating or reducing mechanically induced bone formation. In this study, we further investigated the role of COX-2 in skeletal mechanotransduction using a genetic approach. The aim was to compare the skeletal responsiveness of COX-2 homozygous mutant (COX-2(-/-)) and wildtype control (COX-2(+/+)) mice to investigate whether a functional COX-2 gene is necessary for mechanotransduction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult female COX-2(+/+) and COX-2(-/-) mice on a C57BL/6x129/ola background were studied using the ulna axial loading model. The response to 2 days of loading for 120 cycles/day at 2 Hz was measured histomorphometrically. Phenotypic characterization of the femurs in these mice was also performed. In a separate group of animals, the expression of the remaining COX isozyme, COX-1, was assessed using real-time RT-PCR 4 h after one bout of 120 loading cycles. RESULTS: Null mutation of the COX-2 gene resulted in a consistent femoral phenotype of reduced bone mass, altered architecture, and inferior mechanical properties. Many of these differences were nullified after adjustment for body weight. Nevertheless, body weight-corrected values showed a consistent trend of reduced mechanical properties in COX-2(-/-) mice. Genotype did not influence the response to mechanical loading, with no histomorphometric differences being found between COX-2(+/+) and COX-2(-/-) mice. Real-time RT-PCR showed COX-2(-/-) mice to express significantly greater COX-1 expression in loaded ulnas than in loaded ulnas in COX-2(+/+) mice. There were no differences in COX-1 expression in nonloaded ulnas. CONCLUSIONS: A functional COX-2 gene was not found to be required for skeletal mechanotransduction. This is in contrast to previous pharmacological studies showing that COX-2 is critical to the response of bone to loading. Investigating a potential reason for the absence of a genotype difference in this study, we found that mice with a null mutation in the COX-2 gene possess inductive skeletal COX-1 expression.
Authors: Galen Robertson; Chao Xie; Di Chen; Hani Awad; Edward M Schwarz; Regis J O'Keefe; Robert E Guldberg; Xinping Zhang Journal: Bone Date: 2006-05-30 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: Joseph M Wallace; Rupak M Rajachar; Matthew R Allen; Susan A Bloomfield; Pamela G Robey; Marian F Young; David H Kohn Journal: Bone Date: 2007-01-19 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: Manshan Xu; Shilpa Choudhary; Olga Voznesensky; Qi Gao; Douglas Adams; Vilmaris Diaz-Doran; Qian Wu; David Goltzman; Lawrence G Raisz; Carol C Pilbeam Journal: Bone Date: 2010-05-13 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: Alesha B Castillo; Jason W Triplett; Fredrick M Pavalko; Charles H Turner Journal: Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab Date: 2014-03-11 Impact factor: 4.310
Authors: Christopher J Chermside-Scabbo; Taylor L Harris; Michael D Brodt; Ingrid Braenne; Bo Zhang; Charles R Farber; Matthew J Silva Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Nicoletta Bivi; Rafael Pacheco-Costa; Lucas R Brun; Thomas R Murphy; Nathan R Farlow; Alexander G Robling; Teresita Bellido; Lilian I Plotkin Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2013-03-11 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: Derrick M Knapik; Priyangi Perera; Jin Nam; Alisa D Blazek; Björn Rath; Binnaz Leblebicioglu; Hiranmoy Das; Lai Chu Wu; Timothy E Hewett; Suresh K Agarwal; Alexander G Robling; David C Flanigan; Beth S Lee; Sudha Agarwal Journal: Antioxid Redox Signal Date: 2013-08-12 Impact factor: 8.401