Literature DB >> 22532507

The amount of periosteal apposition required to maintain bone strength during aging depends on adult bone morphology and tissue-modulus degradation rate.

Karl J Jepsen1, Nelly Andarawis-Puri.   

Abstract

Although the continued periosteal apposition that accompanies age-related bone loss is a biomechanically critical target for prophylactic treatment of bone fragility, the magnitude of periosteal expansion required to maintain strength during aging has not been established. A new model for predicting periosteal apposition rate for men and women was developed to better understand the complex, nonlinear interactions that exist among bone morphology, tissue-modulus, and aging. Periosteal apposition rate varied up to eightfold across bone sizes, and this depended on the relationship between cortical area and total area, which varies with external size and among anatomical sites. Increasing tissue-modulus degradation rate from 0% to -4%/decade resulted in 65% to 145% increases in periosteal apposition rate beyond that expected for bone loss alone. Periosteal apposition rate had to increase as much as 350% over time to maintain stiffness for slender diaphyses, whereas robust bones required less than a 32% increase over time. Small changes in the amount of bone accrued during growth (ie, adult cortical area) affected periosteal apposition rate of slender bones to a much greater extent compared to robust bones. This outcome suggested that impaired bone growth places a heavy burden on the biological activity required to maintain stiffness with aging. Finally, sex-specific differences in periosteal apposition were attributable in part to differences in bone size between the two populations. The results indicated that a substantial proportion of the variation in periosteal expansion required to maintain bone strength during aging can be attributed to the natural variation in adult bone width. Efforts to identify factors contributing to variation in periosteal expansion will benefit from developing a better understanding of how to adjust clinical data to differentiate the biological responses attributable to size-effects from other genetic and environmental factors.
Copyright © 2012 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22532507      PMCID: PMC3947640          DOI: 10.1002/jbmr.1643

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Miner Res        ISSN: 0884-0431            Impact factor:   6.741


  52 in total

1.  Age-related changes in cortical bone in men: metacarpal bone mass measurement study.

Authors:  J Iwamoto; T Takeda; S Ichimura; Y Tsukimura; Y Toyama
Journal:  J Orthop Sci       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 1.601

2.  Age-related patterns of trabecular and cortical bone loss differ between sexes and skeletal sites: a population-based HR-pQCT study.

Authors:  Heather M Macdonald; Kyle K Nishiyama; Jian Kang; David A Hanley; Steven K Boyd
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 6.741

Review 3.  Postmenopausal osteoporosis as a failure of bone's adaptation to functional loading: a hypothesis.

Authors:  L Lanyon; T Skerry
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 6.741

4.  The contribution of reduced peak accrual of bone and age-related bone loss to osteoporosis at the spine and hip: insights from the daughters of women with vertebral or hip fractures.

Authors:  A Tabensky; Y Duan; J Edmonds; E Seeman
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 6.741

5.  Structural adaptation to changing skeletal load in the progression toward hip fragility: the study of osteoporotic fractures.

Authors:  T J Beck; T L Oreskovic; K L Stone; C B Ruff; K Ensrud; M C Nevitt; H K Genant; S R Cummings
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 6.741

6.  Stress fracture in military recruits: gender differences in muscle and bone susceptibility factors.

Authors:  T J Beck; C B Ruff; R A Shaffer; K Betsinger; D W Trone; S K Brodine
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 4.398

7.  Structural trends in the aging femoral neck and proximal shaft: analysis of the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry data.

Authors:  T J Beck; A C Looker; C B Ruff; H Sievanen; H W Wahner
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 6.741

8.  Biological constraints that limit compensation of a common skeletal trait variant lead to inequivalence of tibial function among healthy young adults.

Authors:  Karl J Jepsen; Amanda Centi; G Felipe Duarte; Kathleen Galloway; Haviva Goldman; Naomi Hampson; Joan M Lappe; Diane M Cullen; Julie Greeves; Rachel Izard; Bradley C Nindl; William J Kraemer; Charles H Negus; Rachel K Evans
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 6.741

9.  Longitudinal changes in BMD and bone geometry in a population-based study.

Authors:  Fulvio Lauretani; Stefania Bandinelli; Michael E Griswold; Marcello Maggio; Richard Semba; Jack M Guralnik; Luigi Ferrucci
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 6.741

10.  Tibial geometry is associated with failure load ex vivo: a MRI, pQCT and DXA study.

Authors:  D Liu; S L Manske; S A Kontulainen; C Tang; P Guy; T R Oxland; H A McKay
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2007-02-01       Impact factor: 5.071

View more
  16 in total

1.  Femoral Neck External Size but not aBMD Predicts Structural and Mass Changes for Women Transitioning Through Menopause.

Authors:  Karl J Jepsen; Andrew Kozminski; Erin Mr Bigelow; Stephen H Schlecht; Robert W Goulet; Sioban D Harlow; Jane A Cauley; Carrie Karvonen-Gutierrez
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2017-01-30       Impact factor: 6.741

Review 2.  Aging and the muscle-bone relationship.

Authors:  Susan A Novotny; Gordon L Warren; Mark W Hamrick
Journal:  Physiology (Bethesda)       Date:  2015-01

3.  Alterations to the Gut Microbiome Impair Bone Strength and Tissue Material Properties.

Authors:  Jason D Guss; Michael W Horsfield; Fernanda F Fontenele; Taylor N Sandoval; Marysol Luna; Fnu Apoorva; Svetlana F Lima; Rodrigo C Bicalho; Ankur Singh; Ruth E Ley; Marjolein Ch van der Meulen; Steven R Goldring; Christopher J Hernandez
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2017-03-27       Impact factor: 6.741

Review 4.  Sex-Differences in Skeletal Growth and Aging.

Authors:  Jeri W Nieves
Journal:  Curr Osteoporos Rep       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 5.096

5.  External Bone Size Is a Key Determinant of Strength-Decline Trajectories of Aging Male Radii.

Authors:  Erin Mr Bigelow; Daniella M Patton; Ferrous S Ward; Antonio Ciarelli; Michael Casden; Andrea Clark; Robert W Goulet; Michael D Morris; Stephen H Schlecht; Gurjit S Mandair; Todd L Bredbenner; David H Kohn; Karl J Jepsen
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2019-02-04       Impact factor: 6.741

6.  Age-related periosteal expansion at femoral neck among elderly women may maintain bending stiffness, but not femoral strength.

Authors:  Y Luo
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2019-11-06       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  Spontaneous mutation of Dock7 results in lower trabecular bone mass and impaired periosteal expansion in aged female Misty mice.

Authors:  Phuong T Le; Kathleen A Bishop; David E Maridas; Katherine J Motyl; Daniel J Brooks; Kenichi Nagano; Roland Baron; Mary L Bouxsein; Clifford J Rosen
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2017-08-15       Impact factor: 4.398

8.  Age-related changes in the fracture resistance of male Fischer F344 rat bone.

Authors:  Sasidhar Uppuganti; Mathilde Granke; Alexander J Makowski; Mark D Does; Jeffry S Nyman
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2015-11-22       Impact factor: 4.398

9.  Mapping the natural variation in whole bone stiffness and strength across skeletal sites.

Authors:  Stephen H Schlecht; Erin M R Bigelow; Karl J Jepsen
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2014-07-02       Impact factor: 4.398

Review 10.  Are we taking full advantage of the growing number of pharmacological treatment options for osteoporosis?

Authors:  Karl J Jepsen; Stephen H Schlecht; Kenneth M Kozloff
Journal:  Curr Opin Pharmacol       Date:  2014-04-16       Impact factor: 5.547

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.