| Literature DB >> 20941479 |
S S Ionova-Martin1, J M Wade, S Tang, M Shahnazari, J W Ager, N E Lane, W Yao, T Alliston, C Vaisse, R O Ritchie.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Diabetic obesity is associated with increased fracture risk in adults and adolescents. We find in both adolescent and adult mice dramatically inferior mechanical properties and structural quality of cortical bone, in agreement with the human fracture data, although some aspects of the response to obesity appear to differ by age.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20941479 PMCID: PMC3132390 DOI: 10.1007/s00198-010-1432-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Osteoporos Int ISSN: 0937-941X Impact factor: 4.507
Fig. 1Body composition, serum leptin concentration, and IGF-I concentration. a Average weekly weights of LFD and HFD groups. Horizontal axis is progression of study in weeks; b young and f adult lean body mass; c young and g adult fat body mass for LFD and HFD groups at conclusion of study; d young and h adult serum leptin concentration (mean ± SE) at conclusion of study; e young and i adult serum IGF-I concentrations at the conclusion of study. Both lean body mass and fat body mass increased, but signficant increase in IGF-I concentration are only observed for the yHFD group. yLFD n = 15, yHFD n = 15, aLFD n = 13, aHFD n = 14 (** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001)
Fig. 2Bone mineral. a Young and e adult whole-body bone mineral density (aBMD) is unchanged in HFD; b young and f adult whole-body areal bone mineral content (BMC) is lower for the yHFD vs. yLFD, which is likely due to reduced spinal aBMD. c Young and g adult areal bone mineral density of the femora are unchanged; d young and h adult areal bone mineral density of the spine are reduced for HFD despite increasing weight, leptin, and IGF-I. yLFD n = 15, yHFD n = 15, aLFD n = 13, aHFD n = 14 (*** p < 0.001)
Fig. 3Cortical bone size. a Young and d adult cortical thickness is reduced in adults only; b young and e adult femoral diameters are increased in yHFD vs. yLFD; c young and f adult femoral lengths are unchanged. g Histomorphometry results: Ma.Ar. marrow area (mm2), T.Ar. total cros-sectional area (mm2), Mean Ct.Wi. mean cortical width (μm), Ps.BFR and Ec.BFR periosteal and endocortical bone formation rate (μm3/μm2/γ). The general trend in the bone size data points to decreasing bone size in adults and increasing bone size in young obese mice compared to LFD, as well as a shift from periosteal activity to endosteal activity with age. yLFD n = 15, yHFD n = 15, aLFD n = 13, aHFD n = 14 (* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001)
Fig. 4Cortical bone quality: whole-bone and tissue-level mechanical property measurements. a Young and f adult bending modulus; b young and g adult maximum load; c young and h adult yield stress; d young and i adult max stress; e young and j adult fracture toughness. Measured size-independent mechanical properties were significantly decreased for HFD group vs. LFD groups (modulus, yield and maximum stress, and fracture toughness); these parameters are an indication of bone tissue quality. Size-dependent measures which address whole-bone behavior (specifically, load) also declined for HFD at both ages, likely due in part to modest bone size changes, as bone size was not able to compensate for poor mechanical quality. yLFD n = 15, yHFD n = 15, aLFD n = 13, aHFD n = 14 (* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01)
Fig. 5SEM images of the fracture region showing cortical bone tissue structure changes at the posterior region. a yLFD group; b yHFD; c aLFD; d aHFD. The scale bar indicates 20 μm. The posterior cortex in HFD bone in (b) and (d) shows reduced alignment of osteocyte lacunae and reduction in lamellar alignment at the tissue level. These images are representative of three samples each of aHFD, yHFD, aLFD, and yLFD. Medial, lateral, and anterior portions of the bone sections appeared similar for HFD and LFD in both age groups
Correlation coefficients between standardized properties in bone from (a)–(d) young and (e)–(h) adult groups
| Predictors | a. Young LFD ( | b. Young HFD ( | ||||
| Size-independent measures | Size-dependent measures | Size-independent measures | Size-dependent measures | |||
| ( |
|
| ( |
|
| |
| aBMD | −0.3357 | 0.2225 | 0.3055 | 0.0317 | 0.5767* | 0.5089 |
| BMC | −0.2654 | 0.3362 | 0.4731 | 0.1793 | 0.4383 | 0.2907 |
| (D, t, M.A.) | −0.7497** | 0.4931 | 0.1384 | −0.4951 | 0.0037 | 0.214 |
| LBM | −0.4108 | 0.319 | 0.3969 | −0.2584 | 0.0167 | 0.1194 |
| FBM | 0.1384 | −0.2299 | −0.1014 | 0.1582 | −0.4439 | −0.2404 |
| c. Bone size in LFD—(D, t, M.A.) | d. Bone size in HFD—(D, t, M.A.) | |||||
| LBM | 0.8133*** | 0.4982 | ||||
| FBM | −0.1433 | −0.4298 | ||||
| Predictors | e. Adult LFD ( | f. Adult HFD ( | ||||
| Size-independent measures | Size-dependent measures | Size-independent measures | Size-dependent measures | |||
| ( |
|
| ( |
|
| |
| aBMD | 0.0808 | 0.2741 | 0.0574 | −0.4976 | 0.2376 | −0.2333 |
| BMC | −0.1709 | 0.1131 | 0.3577 | −0.4312 | −0.0746 | −0.0991 |
| (D, t, M.A.) | −0.5559* | 0.3858 | 0.7536* | −0.5046 | −0.3889 | 0.4426 |
| LBM | 0.1485 | 0.3775 | 0.5138 | −0.2061 | −0.1537 | 0.6519* |
| FBM | −0.1075 | 0.0715 | −0.4535 | −0.1394 | −0.3774 | −0.0796 |
| g. Bone size in LFD—(D, t, M.A.) | h. Bone size in HFD—(D, t, M.A.) | |||||
| LBM | 0.4587 | 0.6377* | ||||
| FBM | −0.1284 | −0.0023 | ||||
Coefficients from correlation analysis applied between standardized mechanical properties and standardized bone and physiological properties of (a), (c) young LFD group; (b), (d) young HFD group; (e), (g) adult LFD group; (f), (h) adult HFD group. In cases where measurements were related and highly positively correlated, a composite score was used in the analysis. Bone size is the largest predictor of mechanical properties, more so than bone mineral measures or body composition. Interestingly, size-independent measures of bone quality are most affected by the size of the bone, which implies a reduced quality with increasing quantity. Correlation coefficients between body mass measures and bone size measures show that LBM is positively correlated with bone size in both groups (c), (d), (g), (h) and that FBM is very weakly negatively correlated with bone size. Correlation coefficients are conducted separately for young and adult groups
vBMD volumetric bone mineral density, M.A. second moment of area, A Ct. cross-sectional area, R outer Ct. Rd, LBM lean body mass, FBM fat body mass, σ yield strength, σ maximum strength, E bending modulus, K fracture toughness, P yield load, P maximum load, (D, t, M.A.) composite bone size score, (σ , σ , E) composite strength and modulus score
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001
aOne mouse died in week 4 of the study from fighting