| Literature DB >> 27225624 |
Lori K Bogren1, Erin L Johnston2, Zeinab Barati2, Paula A Martin2, Samantha J Wojda3, Ian G Van Tets4, Adrian D LeBlanc5, Seth W Donahue3, Kelly L Drew2.
Abstract
Bone loss is a well-known medical consequence of disuse such as in long-term space flight. Immobilization in many animals mimics the effects of space flight on bone mineral density. Decreases in metabolism are also thought to contribute to a loss of skeletal mass. Hibernating mammals provide a natural model of disuse and metabolic suppression. Hibernating ground squirrels have been shown to maintain bone strength despite long periods of disuse and decreased metabolism during torpor. This study examined if the lack of bone loss during torpor was a result of the decrease in metabolic rate during torpor or an evolutionary change in these animals affording protection against disuse. We delineated changes in bone density during natural disuse (torpor) and forced disuse (sciatic neurectomy) in the hind limbs of the arctic ground squirrel (AGS) over an entire year. We hypothesized that the animals would be resistant to bone loss due to immobilization and disuse during the winter hibernation season when metabolism is depressed but not the summer active season. This hypothesis was not supported. The animals maintained bone density (dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry) and most bone structural and mechanical properties in both seasons. This was observed in both natural and forced disuse, regardless of the known metabolic rate increase during the summer. However, trabecular bone volume fraction (microcomputed tomography) in the distal femur was lower in neurectomized AGS at the study endpoint. These results demonstrate a need to better understand the relationship between skeletal load (use) and bone density that may lead to therapeutics or strategies to maintain bone density in disuse conditions.Entities:
Keywords: Bone density; disuse; hibernation; muscle atrophy; torpor
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27225624 PMCID: PMC4886160 DOI: 10.14814/phy2.12771
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Physiol Rep ISSN: 2051-817X
Figure 1Dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry (DXA) bone density and mineral content are maintained during the hibernation and increase during active seasons. (A) Femur region of interest (ROI). (B) Hind limb ROI. (C) Timeline of capture, surgery, DXA measurements, μ CT, and mechanical testing. Animals were captured from the wild in July, surgeries and baseline DXA measurement were obtained in early November. DXA scans though September were conducted the first week of each month. In October, the final DXA measurements were obtained and animals were euthanized. Bones were removed, cleaned of nonosseous tissue between October and December. μ CT and mechanical testing were conducted in December. Femurs from all test limbs showed similar trends of maintaining bone density (D) and mineral content (E) during the hibernation season and increasing at the start of the active season. Total hind limb bone density (F) also was maintained during hibernation and increased in the spring. Control indicates left hind limb that did not undergo any procedure. Test is the right hind limb that had sciatic neurectomy (NEUR, n = 5) or sham surgery (SHAM, n = 4). All data are mean ± SEM. Gray area denotes hibernation season during winter 2013. Statistical analysis via ANOVA followed by Tukey's post hoc test. Significance was determined at P ≤ 0.05.
Summary statistics table
| Variable | ANOVA test |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Total body mass | Time × treatment |
| 0.648 |
| Time |
| 0.056 | |
| BMD‐whole limb | Time × limb × treatment |
| 0.245 |
| Time |
| <0.001 | |
| Limb × time |
| 0.005 | |
| BMD‐whole limb – body mass norm | Time × limb × treatment |
| 0.301 |
| Time |
| 0.001 | |
| Limb × time |
| 0.006 | |
| BMD‐femur | Time × limb × treatment |
| 0.986 |
| Time |
| <0.001 | |
| BMD‐femur – body mass norm | Time × limb × treatment |
| 0.994 |
| Time |
| <0.001 | |
| BMC femur | Time × limb × treatment |
| 0.764 |
| Time |
| <0.001 | |
| Limb × time |
| 0.045 | |
| BMC femur – body mass norm | Time × limb × treatment |
| 0.732 |
| Time |
| <0.001 | |
| Limb × time |
| 0.036 | |
| Total lean tissue | Time × limb × treatment |
| 0.075 |
| Time |
| <0.001 | |
| Total lean tissue – body mass norm | Time × limb × treatment |
|
|
| Time |
| <0.001 | |
| Total fat tissue | Time × limb × treatment |
| 0.899 |
| Time |
| <0.001 | |
| Total fat tissue – body mass norm | Time × limb × treatment |
| 0.916 |
| Time |
| <0.001 | |
| Fat percent | Time × limb × treatment |
| 0.752 |
| Time |
| <0.001 | |
| Limb × time |
| 0.004 | |
| Fat percent – body mass norm | Time × limb × treatment |
| 0.798 |
| Time |
| <0.001 | |
| Limb × time |
| 0.004 | |
| Total lean tissue: November–October | Limb × treatment |
| 0.057 |
| Limb | 0.175 | ||
| Total lean tissue: March–May | Limb × treatment |
| 0.817 |
| Limb | 0.704 | ||
| Total lean tissue: November–March | Limb × treatment |
|
|
| Limb | 0.979 | ||
| Total lean tissue: May–September | Limb × treatment |
| 0.630 |
| Limb | 0.924 | ||
| Fat percent: November–October | Limb × treatment |
| 0.577 |
| Limb | 0.333 | ||
| Fat percent: March–May | Limb × treatment |
| 0.225 |
| Limb | 0.497 | ||
| Fat percent: November–March | Limb × treatment |
| 0.364 |
| Limb | 0.626 | ||
| Fat percent: May–September | Limb × treatment |
| 0.514 |
| Limb |
| 0.037 | |
| Femur BMD: November–October | Limb × treatment |
| 0.623 |
| Limb |
| 0.035 | |
| Femur BMD: March–May | Limb × treatment |
| 0.200 |
| Limb |
| 0.026 | |
| Femur BMD: November–March | Limb × treatment |
| 0.938 |
| Limb |
| 0.021 | |
| Femur BMC: November–October | Limb × treatment |
| 0.323 |
| Limb |
| 0.080 | |
| Femur BMC: March–May | Limb × treatment |
| 0.881 |
| Limb | 0.251 | ||
| Femur BMC: November–March | Limb × treatment |
| 0.802 |
| Limb |
| 0.014 | |
| UI stress | Limb × treatment |
| 0.203 |
| Mod T | Limb × treatment |
| 0.173 |
|
| Limb × treatment |
| 0.318 |
| C area | Limb × treatment |
| 0.412 |
| Bone volume/total volume | Limb × treatment |
|
|
| Limb |
| <0.001 | |
| Trabecular number | Limb × treatment |
| 0.983 |
| Limb |
| 0.038 | |
| Trabecular thickness | Limb × treatment |
|
|
| Limb |
| 0.011 | |
| Trabecular separation | Limb × treatment |
| 0.360 |
| Limb |
| 0.048 | |
| Material mineral density | Limb × treatment |
| 0.183 |
| Limb |
| 0.059 | |
| Ultimate force | Limb × treatment |
| 0.223 |
| Limb |
| 0.949 | |
| Failure energy | Limb × treatment |
| 0.181 |
| Limb |
| 0.367 |
Bold indicates significant value (P ≤ 0.05).
Hibernation characteristics of arctic ground squirrel. No differences between treatment groups were found by t‐test for mass at start of hibernation, number of spontaneous torpor bouts, nor average length of torpor bouts
| Animal number | 12‐99 | 12‐102 | 12‐104 | 12‐105 | 12‐100 | 12‐101 | 12‐108 | 12‐109 | 12‐110 |
| Treatment | SHAM | SHAM | SHAM | SHAM | NEUR | NEUR | NEUR | NEUR | NEUR |
| Age | Adult | Adult | Adult | Adult | Adult | Adult | Adult | Adult | Adult |
| Sex | Male | Female | Female | Female | Male | Female | Female | Female | Male |
| Mass (g) at start of hibernation | 688 | 474 | 540 | 786 | 715 | 821 | 636 | 611 | 821 |
| First day of spontaneous torpor | 10/12/12 | 10/01/12 | 11/21/12 | 10/26/12 | 10/30/12 | 09/13/12 | 10/17/12 | 10/20/12 | 12/21/12 |
| Last day of spontaneous torpor | 03/10/13 | 03/24/13 | 03/13/13 | 03/12/13 | 03/11/13 | 03/10/13 | 02/18/13 | 03/29/13 | 01/31/13 |
| No. of spontaneous torpor bouts | 11 | 13 | 10 | 7 | 7 | 9 | 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Average length of torpor bouts (days) | 10.7 | 9.14 | 11.6 | 10.1 | 9.86 | 10.4 | 5.40 | 14.0 | 7.20 |
Figure 2Body mass remained unchanged with or without treatment over the course of the experiments while dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry hind limb fat and lean tissue fluctuate between the hibernation and active seasons. Body mass did not differ between test groups (A). Both hind limbs from each test group showed similar trends in dynamics over the hibernation timeline in fat tissue percent (B) and lean tissue mass (C). All data are mean ± SEM. Shaded area indicates the hibernation season during winter 2013. Statistical analysis via ANOVA followed by Tukey's post hoc test. Significance was determined at P ≤ 0.05. NEUR n = 5 and SHAM n = 4.
μCT and mechanical testing parameters
| Parameter | SHAM‐Control (L) | SHAM‐Test (R) | NEUR‐Control (L) | NEUR‐Test (R) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trabecular bone volume/total volume | 0.087 ± 0.006 | 0.083 ± 0.007 | 0.075 ± 0.011a | 0.059 ± 0.010b | 0.006 |
| Trabecular number (1/mm) | 2.26 ± 0.05 | 2.22 ± 0.04 | 1.83 ± 0.16 | 1.79 ± 0.17 | 0.983 |
| Trabecular thickness (mm) | 0.052 ± 0.004 | 0.052 ± 0.004 | 0.064 ± 0.008 | 0.060 ± 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Trabecular separation (mm) | 0.423 ± 0.009 | 0.433 ± 0.010 | 0.548 ± 0.063 | 0.571 ± 0.074 | 0.360 |
| Material mineral density (mgHA/ccm) | 809 ± 6.34 | 807 ± 4.67 | 844 ± 15.3 | 834 ± 15.3 | 0.183 |
| Ultimate force (N) | 114 ± 11.6 | 125 ± 20.1 | 141 ± 13.0 | 132 ± 9.84 | 0.223 |
| Failure energy (J) | 60.6 ± 16.0 | 72.6 ± 13.4 | 122 ± 35.1 | 65.7 ± 17.9 | 0.181 |
| Ultimate stress (MPa) | 137 ± 12.5 | 152 ± 10.7 | 171 ± 20.6 | 156 ± 14.5 | 0.203 |
| Modulus of toughness (mJ/mm3) | 2.93 ± 0.771 | 3.35 ± 0.730 | 4.00 ± 1.54 | 2.62 ± 0.446 | 0.173 |
|
| 3.19E‐6 ± 3.04E‐7 | 2.88E‐6 ± 2.90E‐7 | 2.68E‐6 ± 2.68E‐7 | 2.80E‐6 ± 3.62E‐7 | 0.318 |
| Cortical area | 3.17E‐3 ± 1.84E‐4 | 3.03E‐3 ± 2.30E‐4 | 3.02E‐3 ± 1.88E‐4 | 3.14E‐3 ± 2.34E‐4 | 0.412 |
Mean values ± SEM, P‐value given is for limb × treatment interaction. For significant interactions, different superscript letters indicate difference within treatment group by paired t‐test with Bonferroni correction (P < 0.05). Cortical area and moment of inertia measures are size‐normalized values where each measure was divided by the appropriate functions of femur length. Size normalization takes into account the differences in bone size between groups (thus the values of these measures in the table are unitless). n = 4 for SHAM and n = 5 for NEUR.