| Literature DB >> 30717730 |
Mustafa F Alkhouli1, Jun Hung1, Michaela Squire1, Miranda Anderson1, Monica Castro2, Jeganathan R Babu3, Layla Al-Nakkash4, Tom L Broderick5, Jeffrey H Plochocki6,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease (AD) and osteoporosis are progressive diseases that affect the elderly population. Both conditions are associated with fracture risk that is greater than twice that of the healthy population. Resveratrol and exercise are two treatments that have been linked with attenuation of age-related diseases, including the risk of bone fractures. In this study, we test the hypothesis that these treatments improve fracture resistance in a mouse model representative of the AD condition.Entities:
Keywords: Alzheimer’s; Exercise; Fracture; Resveratrol
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30717730 PMCID: PMC6360737 DOI: 10.1186/s12906-019-2451-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med ISSN: 1472-6882 Impact factor: 3.659
Fig. 1Results of three-point bending testing. a Tibias of AD control mice require less force and stress to fracture than wild type mice (*P < 0.05). Treatment with resveratrol and exercise increase ultimate force and ultimate stress (†P < 0.05), but not elastic modulus (P > 0.05) in comparison to AD controls. b Maximum bending moment was lowest in AD controls (*P < 0.05) and was reversed by resveratrol and exercise treatment (†P < 0.05). Tibias of AD control mice are less stiff than wild type mice *P < 0.05), but treatment did not affect tibial stiffness (†P > 0.05). Error bars are 2 ± SE
Cross-sectional geometric properties of the tibia midshaft
| Wild type | 3xTg-AD control | 3xTg-AD resveratrol | 3xTg-AD exercise | 3xTg-AD resveratrol + exercise | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Length (mm) | 19.5 ± 0.15 | 19.2 ± 0.13 | 19.1 ± 0.15 | 19.3 ± 0.17 | 19.3 ± 0.15 |
| Diameter (mm) | 0.69 ± 0.03 | 0.69 ± 0.02 | 0.69 ± 0.03 | 0.70 ± 0.05 | 0.76 ± 0.04* |
| Tt.Ar (mm2) | 0.86 ± 0.04 | 0.78 ± 0.26 | 0.84 ± 0.03 | 0.83 ± 0.10 | 0.93 ± 0.03* |
| M.Ar (mm2) | 0.27 ± 0.02 | 0.17 ± 0.01 | 0.19 ± 0.01 | 0.18 ± 0.02 | 0.20 ± 0.01 |
| Ct.Ar (mm2) | 0.59 ± 0.03 | 0.60 ± 0.02 | 0.64 ± 0.03 | 0.64 ± 0.07 | 0.74 ± 0.03* |
| Imax (×10−2, mm4) | 7.51 ± 0.78 | 6.69 ± 0.37 | 7.34 ± 0.73 | 8.06 ± 1.45 | 9.58 ± 0.83* |
| Imin (× 10− 2, mm4) | 4.33 ± 0.45 | 3.78 ± 0.33 | 4.68 ± 0.51 | 4.73 ± 0.78 | 5.65 ± 0.45* |
| J (×10−2, mm4) | 11.8 ± 1.20 0.06 | 10.5 ± 0.69 | 12.0 ± 1.22 | 12.8 ± 2.22 | 15.2 ± 1.24* |
Data displayed as mean ± SE; Tt.Ar, total area; M.Ar, medullary area; Ct.Ar, cortical area; Imax, maximum second moment of area; Imin, minimum second moment of area; J, polar moment of area. *, P < 0.05 in comparison with 3xTg-AD control
Fig. 2Comparison of corrected total bone fluorescence (CTBF) among treatment groups. a Tibia of a wild type mouse. b Tibia of an AD control mouse. c AD controls differed significantly from wild type mice (*P < 0.05). None of the AD treatment groups differed significantly from AD controls, nor did they differ significantly from wild type mice (P > 0.05 in both cases). Data are expressed as mean ± 2 SE. Scale bar 100 μm