Joshua M Swift1, Florence Lima, Brandon R Macias, Matthew R Allen, Elizabeth S Greene, Yasaman Shirazi-Fard, Joshua S Kupke, Harry A Hogan, Susan A Bloomfield. 1. 1Department of Health and Kinesiology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX; 2Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN; 3Department of Biomedical Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX; 4Department of Mechanical Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX; and 5Department of Nutrition and Food Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate whether partial weight-bearing activity, at either one-sixth or one-third of body mass, blunts the deleterious effects of simulated microgravity (0G) after 21 d on muscle mass and quantitative/qualitative measures of bone. METHODS: Using a novel, previously validated partial weight-bearing suspension device, mice were subjected to 16% (G/3, i.e., simulated lunar gravity) or 33% (G/6, i.e., simulated Martian gravity) weight bearing for 21 d. One gravity control (1G, i.e., Earth gravity) and tail-suspended mice (0G, i.e., simulated microgravity) served as controls to compare the effects of simulated lunar and Martian gravity to both Earth and microgravity. RESULTS: Simulated microgravity (0G) resulted in an 8% reduction in body mass and a 28% lower total plantarflexor muscle mass (for both, P < 0.01) as compared with 1G controls, but one-sixth and one-third partial weight-bearing activity attenuated losses. Relative to 1G controls, trabecular bone volume fraction (-9% to -13%) and trabecular thickness (-10% to -14%) were significantly lower in all groups (P < 0.01). In addition, cancellous and cortical bone formation rates (BFR) were lower in all reduced weight-bearing groups compared with 1G controls (-46% to -57%, trabecular BFR; -73% to -85%, cortical BFR; P < 0.001). Animals experiencing one-third but not one-sixth weight bearing exhibited attenuated deficits in femoral neck mechanical strength associated with 0G. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that partial weight bearing (up to 33% of body mass) is not sufficient to protect against bone loss observed with simulated 0 g but does mitigate reductions in soleus mass in skeletally mature female mice.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate whether partial weight-bearing activity, at either one-sixth or one-third of body mass, blunts the deleterious effects of simulated microgravity (0G) after 21 d on muscle mass and quantitative/qualitative measures of bone. METHODS: Using a novel, previously validated partial weight-bearing suspension device, mice were subjected to 16% (G/3, i.e., simulated lunar gravity) or 33% (G/6, i.e., simulated Martian gravity) weight bearing for 21 d. One gravity control (1G, i.e., Earth gravity) and tail-suspended mice (0G, i.e., simulated microgravity) served as controls to compare the effects of simulated lunar and Martian gravity to both Earth and microgravity. RESULTS: Simulated microgravity (0G) resulted in an 8% reduction in body mass and a 28% lower total plantarflexor muscle mass (for both, P < 0.01) as compared with 1G controls, but one-sixth and one-third partial weight-bearing activity attenuated losses. Relative to 1G controls, trabecular bone volume fraction (-9% to -13%) and trabecular thickness (-10% to -14%) were significantly lower in all groups (P < 0.01). In addition, cancellous and cortical bone formation rates (BFR) were lower in all reduced weight-bearing groups compared with 1G controls (-46% to -57%, trabecular BFR; -73% to -85%, cortical BFR; P < 0.001). Animals experiencing one-third but not one-sixth weight bearing exhibited attenuated deficits in femoral neck mechanical strength associated with 0G. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that partial weight bearing (up to 33% of body mass) is not sufficient to protect against bone loss observed with simulated 0 g but does mitigate reductions in soleus mass in skeletally mature female mice.
Authors: Evan G Buettmann; Galen M Goldscheitter; Gabriel A Hoppock; Michael A Friedman; Larry J Suva; Henry J Donahue Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2022-07-28 Impact factor: 6.390
Authors: Jeffrey S Willey; Richard A Britten; Elizabeth Blaber; Candice G T Tahimic; Jeffrey Chancellor; Marie Mortreux; Larry D Sanford; Angela J Kubik; Michael D Delp; Xiao Wen Mao Journal: J Environ Sci Health C Toxicol Carcinog Date: 2021
Authors: Steven D Bain; Philippe Huber; Brandon J Ausk; Ronald Y Kwon; Edith M Gardiner; Sundar Srinivasan; Ted S Gross Journal: J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact Date: 2019-03-01 Impact factor: 2.041
Authors: Jessica Pingel; Hans Martin Kjer; Fin Biering-Sørensen; Robert Feidenhans'l; Tim B Dyrby Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-10-14 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Srinivasan Shanmugarajan; Ye Zhang; Maria Moreno-Villanueva; Ryan Clanton; Larry H Rohde; Govindarajan T Ramesh; Jean D Sibonga; Honglu Wu Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2017-11-18 Impact factor: 5.923