| Literature DB >> 18566694 |
Hansjoerg Heep1, Christian Wedemeyer, Alexander Wegner, Sebastian Hofmeister, Marius von Knoch.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: It is known that bone mineral density (BMD) and the strength of bone is predicted by body mass. Fat mass is a significant predictor of bone mineral density which correlates with body weight. This suggests that body fat regulates bone metabolism first by means of hormonal factors and second that the effects of muscle and loading are signaling factors in mechanotransduction. Leptin, a peptide hormone produced predominantly by white fat cells, is one of these hormonal factors. The aim of this study was to investigate and measure by micro-CT the different effects of weight-bearing on trabecular bone formation in mice without the stimulation of leptin.Entities:
Keywords: Bone mineral density; biomechanical loading; leptin; mice; micro-CT
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2008 PMID: 18566694 PMCID: PMC2430986 DOI: 10.7150/ijbs.4.169
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Biol Sci ISSN: 1449-2288 Impact factor: 6.580
Fig 1The curves show the change in body-weight in the two groups. In Group A the animals had an ad-libitum-diet with a body weight over 50 grams after 20 weeks, the animals in Group B a controlled diet with a body weight over 35 grams after 20 weeks. Inter-group difference was already significant at the age of six weeks (p<0.05).
Fig 2Three-dimensional images of all the ROIs of the mice in Groups A and B at the age of 20 weeks. The upper frame is the ROI of the proximal femur and the below frame the ROI of the proximal tibia.
Statistically significant differences between the ad-libitum-diet Group A and controlled-diet Group B for bone mineral density (BMD) and body weight (p < 0.05) at age of 20 weeks.
| Group | BMD mean | SD | Weight (grams) mean | SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group A (n=20) (diet ad libitum ) | 2.57 | 0.147 | 52.53 | 6.36 |
| Group B (n=20) (control diet) | 2.68 | 0.138 | 35.65 | 3.50 |
| P value | 0.022 | < 0.001 | ||
Cross-section structural geometric properties of the femur and tibia were evaluated using micro-CT. Note: Summary of morphometric characteristics in the two groups which were different in body weight-bearing. *A statistically significant difference was detected between the two groups only in trabecular number (Tb.N.) of the femur (p < 0.05) at age of 20 weeks.
| Position | Group | BV/TV (%) | SD | Tb.Th (mm) | SD | Tb.N (1/mm) | SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Femur | Group A (n=20) (ad-libitum diet) | 60.66 | 6.13 | 0.094 | 0.0069 | 6.42 | 0.45 |
| Group B (n=20) (controlled diet) | 62.76 | 6.5 | 0.093 | 0.0075 | 6.76 | 0.55 | |
| P value | 0.347 | 0.412 | 0.038* | ||||
| Tibia | Group A (n=20) (ad-libitum diet) | 52.75 | 3.94 | 0.094 | 0.0063 | 5.63 | 0.34 |
| Group B (n=20) (controlled diet) | 54.64 | 7.48 | 0.093 | 0.0084 | 5.90 | 0.52 | |
| P value | 0.325 | 0.561 | 0.058 | ||||
Figure 3The correlation between trabecular number (Tb.N.) and body weight shows an significant decrease in trabecular number as body weight increases (p < 0.01) in both groups (n =40).
Figure 4The correlation between bone mineral density (BMD) and body weight shows an significant decrease in BMD as body weight increases (p < 0.01) in both groups (n=40).