| Literature DB >> 27921145 |
I Bergström1, J G Kerns2,3, A E Törnqvist4, C Perdikouri5, N Mathavan5, A Koskela6, H B Henriksson7,8, J Tuukkanen6, G Andersson9, H Isaksson5, A E Goodship2,10, S H Windahl11.
Abstract
Loading increases bone mass and strength in a site-specific manner; however, possible effects of loading on bone matrix composition have not been evaluated. Site-specific structural and material properties of mouse bone were analyzed on the macro- and micro/molecular scale in the presence and absence of axial loading. The response of bone to load is heterogeneous, adapting at molecular, micro-, and macro-levels.Entities:
Keywords: Loading; RPI; Raman spectroscopy; SAXS
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27921145 PMCID: PMC5306148 DOI: 10.1007/s00198-016-3846-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Osteoporos Int ISSN: 0937-941X Impact factor: 4.507
Fig. 1Site-specific differences in bone chemistry. a The average Raman spectrum for each region and each cohort (loaded or non-loaded). The cranial region is black and the caudal region is gray. A broken line is used for non-loaded, and a continuous line for loaded. The inset is a close-up of the amide I peak, where a lower peak indicates a lower mineralization ratio. b The spread of spectral data, analyzed by PCA-LDA, across the two regions for the non-loaded bones. c The spread of spectral data, analyzed by PCA-LDA, across the two regions for the loaded bones. d The average mineralization ratios +/− 95% confidence interval for each cohort of bones and at each region. e The level of crystal maturity/size as determined by the inverse of the full width at half height of the phosphate peak. *p < 0.05 and **p < 0.01. f The collagen content variation along the length of the bones, calculated from the Raman spectra; a third-order polynomial has been fitted to each set of data. Data presented along the length are spectra acquired along the caudal side from four bones (please see further details in the “Methods” section); all other spectra displayed were acquired from a position 37% from the proximal end of the bones and from the caudal and cranial sides, labeled accordingly
Mineralization, and crystal maturity changes in response to loading
| Tension | Compression | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non-loaded | Loaded | Non-loaded | Loaded | |
| Mineralization | 31.28 ± 2.33 | 26.77 ± 3.30* | 22.5 ± 4.28 | 21.75 ± 3.74 |
| Crystal maturity | 0.052 ± 0.000 | 0.052 ± 0.001* | 0.053 ± 0.001 | 0.053 ± 0.001* |
Mineralization and crystal maturity/size in response to loading measured by Raman spectroscopy. Mean ± SEM are shown. Significance between non-loaded and loaded indicated at the latter with *, p<0.05
Fig. 2Loading decreases crystal plate thickness caudally SAXS analysis. a crystal plate thickness, b degree of mineral crystal orientation are shown as mean +/− 95% confidence interval. Statistics: mixed procedure in SPSS with post hoc Bonferroni correction, *p < 0.05 for non-loaded vs. loaded
RPI measurement, non-loaded vs. loaded for tension and compression
| Tension | Compression | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non-loaded | Loaded | Non-loaded | Loaded | |
| 1st-cycle indentation distance (ID 1st), μm | 21.72 ± 2.22# | 18.20 ± 1.04# | 29.58 ± 1.32 | 36.33 ± 1.98* |
| 1st-cycle unloading slope (US 1st), N/μm | 0.34 ± 0.01 | 0.33 ± 0.01 | 0.33 ± 0.01 | 0.32 ± 0.01 |
| 1st-cycle creep indentation distance (TID 1st-L), μm | 2.48 ± 0.27 | 2.11 ± 0.15# | 3.03 ± 0.16 | 4.00 ± 0.38 |
| Total indentation distance (TID 1st-L), μm | 24.55 ± 2.37# | 20.46 ± 1.06# | 32.05 ± 1.37 | 39.22 ± 2.09* |
| Indentation distance increase (ID 1st-L), μm | 4.79 ± 0.54 | 3.89 ± 0.29# | 5.05 ± 0.32 | 6.22 ± 0.52 |
| Avg creep indentation distance (Avg CID 1st-L), μm | 1.00 ± 0.07 | 1.03 ± 0.03 | 1.03 ± 0.03 | 1.16 ± 0.06* |
| Avg energy dissipated (Avg ED 3rd-L), μJ | 3.25 ± 0.29# | 3.03 ± 0.36 | 2.49 ± 0.17 | 3.60 ± 0.20* |
| Avg unloading slope (Avg US 1st-L), N/μm | 0.34 ± 0.01 | 0.32 ± 0.01 | 0.32 ± 0.01 | 0.31 ± 0.01 |
| Avg loading slope (Avg LS 1st-L), N/μm | 0.25 ± 0.01 | 0.25 ± 0.01# | 0.26 ± 0.01 | 0.22 ± 0.01* |
Mean +/− SEM for each RPI output measurement. Analyzed using ANOVA (SPSS): significant differences between tension (non-loaded vs. loaded) and compression (non-loaded vs. loaded) are denoted by *p < 0.05, and between non-loaded (tension vs. compression) and loaded (tension vs. compression) denoted by #p < 0.05
Fig. 3The material properties of the caudal region are less tough. a, c, e The total indentation distance. b, d, f The unloading slope (US) using RPI. a, b The average measure +/− 95% confidence interval across both regions for non-loaded vs. loaded. c, d The cranial region from proximal to distal along each bone for non-loaded vs. loaded. A third-order polynomial has been fitted to each set of data. e, f Caudal region from proximal to distal along each bone for non-loaded vs. loaded; a third-order polynomial has been fitted to each set of data
Fig. 4The caudal site is thicker and responds more to loading μCT analysis. a cortical area and b cortical thickness of loaded and non-loaded bones at the mid-diaphysis of the tibiae are shown as mean +/− 95% confidence interval. Cortical thickness is given as average for the whole bone, or specifically for the cranial, or caudal sites. Statistics: a Student’s t test, **p < 0.01 for non-loaded vs. loaded. b ANOVA in SPSS with Bonferroni post hoc comparison, **p < 0.01 and ***p < 0.001 for non-loaded vs. loaded