| Literature DB >> 31388031 |
Ushashi C Dadwal1,2, Kevin A Maupin1, Ariane Zamarioli1,3, Aamir Tucker1, Jonathan S Harris1, James P Fischer1, Jeffery D Rytlewski1, David C Scofield1, Austin E Wininger1, Fazal Ur Rehman Bhatti1,2, Marta Alvarez1,2, Paul J Childress1,2, Nabarun Chakraborty4,5, Aarti Gautam4, Rasha Hammamieh4, Melissa A Kacena6,7.
Abstract
Spaceflight results in reduced mechanical loading of the skeleton, which leads to dramatic bone loss. Low bone mass is associated with increased fracture risk, and this combination may compromise future, long-term, spaceflight missions. Here, we examined the systemic effects of spaceflight and fracture surgery/healing on several non-injured bones within the axial and appendicular skeleton. Forty C57BL/6, male mice were randomized into the following groups: (1) Sham surgery mice housed on the earth (Ground + Sham); (2) Femoral segmental bone defect surgery mice housed on the earth (Ground + Surgery); (3) Sham surgery mice housed in spaceflight (Flight + Sham); and (4) Femoral segmental bone defect surgery mice housed in spaceflight (Flight + Surgery). Mice were 9 weeks old at the time of launch and were euthanized approximately 4 weeks after launch. Micro-computed tomography (μCT) was used to evaluate standard bone parameters in the tibia, humerus, sternebra, vertebrae, ribs, calvarium, mandible, and incisor. One intriguing finding was that both spaceflight and surgery resulted in virtually identical losses in tibial trabecular bone volume fraction, BV/TV (24-28% reduction). Another important finding was that surgery markedly changed tibial cortical bone geometry. Understanding how spaceflight, surgery, and their combination impact non-injured bones will improve treatment strategies for astronauts and terrestrial humans alike.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31388031 PMCID: PMC6684622 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-47695-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Experimental design and timeline. (A) Timeline detailing the overall experimental design including launch preparation/mouse acclimation, launch, and mouse euthanasia. (B) X-ray image of mouse skeleton with white arrows indicating the bones that were collected/analyzed. Representative reconstructed µCT images for each of these bones are shown.
Bone parameters for the appendicular skeleton (tibia:n = 5 and humerus:n = 9–10) as measured by µCT.
| Parameters | Ground | Flight | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sham | Surgery | Sham | Surgery | |
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| BV/TV (%) | 25.1(4.3) | 18.1 (3.5)* | 18.2 (1.5)† | 18.9 (8.9) |
| Tb. Th (mm) | 0.052 (0.002) | 0.047 (0.005) | 0.044 (0.007)† | 0.055 (0.014) |
| Tb.N (mm−1) |
|
|
|
|
| Tb.Sp (mm) |
|
|
|
|
| SMI |
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
| B.Ar/T.Ar (%) | 71 (2) | 54 (3)* | 70 (5) | 56 (3)* |
| M.Ar (mm2) |
|
|
|
|
| T.Ar (mm2) |
|
|
|
|
| B.Ar (mm2) | 0.73 (0.08) | 0.69 0.05) | 0.72 (0.09) | 0.74 (0.05) |
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| BV/TV (%) | 13.6 (4.7) | 12.6 (5.2) | 14.1 (5.8) | 11.3 (4.4) |
| Tb.Th (mm) | 0.064 (0.006) | 0.062 (0.006) | 0.064 (0.006) | 0.063 (0.007) |
| Tb.N (mm−1) | 2.1 (0.6) | 2.0 (0.7) | 2.1 (0.7) | 1.7 (0.6) |
| Tb.Sp (mm) | 0.24 (0.04) | 0.24 (0.04) | 0.23 (0.05) | 0.27 (0.06) |
| SMI | 2.5 0.05) | 2.6 (0.07) | 2.6 (0.07) | 2.6 (0.04) |
|
| ||||
| B.Ar/T.Ar (%) | 61 (2) | 60 (3) | 60 (5) | 58 (3) |
| M.Ar (mm2) |
|
|
|
|
| T.Ar (mm2) | 0.94 (0.07) | 0.91 (0.05) | 0.90 (0.06) | 0.95 (0.03) |
| B.Ar (mm2) | 0.58 (0.05) | 0.55 (0.04) | 0.53 (0.07) | 0.55 (0.03) |
Values are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation (SD). Bolded values indicate significant interactions were detected by 2-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni post-hoc analyses for parametric datasets. For non-parametric datasets, Art-ANOVA was used to determine significance (no significant differences were detected). A Student’s t-test was used to detect significant differences based on (i) Surgery (e.g., Ground + Sham vs. Ground + Surgery or Flight + Sham vs. Flight + Surgery, p < 0.05, designated by *) or (ii) gravity (e.g., Ground + Sham vs. Flight + Sham or Ground + Surgery vs. Flight + Surgery, p < 0.05, designated by †). BV = Bone volume; TV = Tissue volume; Tb.Th = Trabecular thickness; Tb.N = Trabecular number; Tb.Sp = Trabecular spacing; SMI = Structure model index; B.Ar = Bone area; T.Ar = Tissue area; M.Ar = Marrow area.
Figure 2Biomodal distribution of trabecular humerus bone data. Plotting each humerus specimen shows bimodal distribution of the samples for trabecular: (A) Bone volume/Tissue Volume (BV/TV) and (B) Trabecular Number (Tb.N).
Bone parameters for the axial skeleton (sternebrae:n = 5, vertebrae:n = 9–10, and ribs:n = 9–10) as measured by µCT.
| Parameters | Ground | Flight | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sham | Surgery | Sham | Surgery | |
|
| ||||
| BV/TV (%) | 9.7 (1.4) | 11.3 (1.8) | 9.6 (1.6) | 9.0 (0.8)† |
| Tb.Th (mm) |
|
|
|
|
| Tb.N (mm-1) | 2.4 (0.4) | 2.8 (0.3) | 2.6 (0.5) | 2.4 (0.2)† |
| Tb.Sp (mm) |
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
| BV/TV (%) |
|
|
|
|
| Tb.Th (mm) | 0.049 (0.005) | 0.048 (0.006) | 0.048 (0.003) | 0.045 (0.004) |
| Tb.N (mm−1) |
|
|
|
|
| Tb.Sp (mm) | 0.202 (0.013) | 0.200 (0.006) | 0.203 (0.009) | 0.210 (0.016) |
|
| ||||
| B.Ar/T.Ar (%) |
|
|
|
|
| M.Ar (mm2) |
|
|
|
|
| T.Ar (mm2) |
|
|
|
|
| B.Ar (mm2) |
|
|
|
|
| Cs.Th (mm) | 0.083 (0.003) | 0.082 (0.006) | 0.080 (0.004) | 0.082 (0.002) |
Values are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation (SD). Bolded values indicate significant interactions were detected by 2-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni post-hoc analyses. A Student’s t-test was used to detect significant differences based on (i) Surgery (e.g., Ground + Sham vs. Ground + Surgery or Flight + Sham vs. Flight + Surgery, p < 0.05, designated by*) or (ii) gravity (e.g., Ground + Sham vs. Flight + Sham or Ground + Surgery vs. Flight + Surgery, p < 0.05, designated by†). BV = Bone volume; TV = Tissue volume; Tb.Th = Trabecular thickness; Tb.N = Trabecular number; Tb.Sp = Trabecular spacing; B.Ar = Bone area; T.Ar = Tissue area; M.Ar = Marrow area; Cs.Th = Cross-sectional thickness.
Bone parameters for the axial skeleton (calvarium, mandible, and incisor) as measured by µCT.
| Parameters | Ground | Flight | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sham | Surgery | Sham | Surgery | |
|
| ||||
| BV (mm3) | 0.055 (0.005) | 0.054 (0.003) | 0.053 (0.003) | 0.053 (0.005) |
| Width (mm) | 0.164 (0.017) | 0.166 (0.008) | 0.156 (0.011) | 0.155 (0.012) |
|
| ||||
| B.Ar/T.Ar (%) | 69 (2) | 68 (2) | 68 (2) | 69 (1) |
| M.Ar (mm2) | 0.61 (0.05) | 0.63 (0.04) | 0.63 (0.05) | 0.61 (0.03) |
| T.Ar (mm2) | 1.96 (0.08) | 1.94 (0.02) | 1.96 (0.06) | 1.95 (0.05) |
| B.Ar (mm2) | 1.34 (0.04) | 1.31 (0.02) | 1.32 (0.05) | 1.33 (0.04) |
| CEJ-ABC (mm) | 0.204 (0.036) | 0.192 (0.008) | 0.193 (0.025) | 0.221 (0.027) |
|
| ||||
| [E + D]Ar/T.Ar (%) | 82 (6) | 80 (9) | 75 (6)† | 82 (5) |
| T.Ar (mm2) | 0.468 (0.015) | 0.466 (0.005) | 0.474 (0.012) | 0.481 (0.015) |
| [E + D]Ar (mm2) | 0.38 (0.03) | 0.38 (0.03) | 0.36 (0.03) | 0.39 (0.04) |
| Pu.Ar (mm2) | 0.083 (0.027) | 0.089 (0.030) | 0.116 (0.027)† | 0.087 ± (0.023) |
Values are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation (SD). Bolded values indicate significant interactions were detected by 2-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni post-hoc analyses (no significant differences were detected). A Student’s t-test was used to detect significant differences based on (i) Surgery (e.g., Ground + Sham vs. Ground + Surgery or Flight + Sham vs. Flight + Surgery) (no significant differences were detected) or (ii) gravity (e.g., Ground + Sham vs. Flight + Sham or Ground + Surgery vs. Flight + Surgery, p < 0.05, designated by†). BV = Bone volume; TV = Tissue volume; B.Ar = Bone area; T.Ar = Tissue area; M.Ar = Marrow area; CEJ-ABC = Cementoenamel junction to alveolar bone crest; [E + D]Ar = [enamel + dentin] area; Pu.Ar = Dental pulp area.
Figure 3Tibia cortical bone geometry changes. The illustration shows that the cortical bone of the tibial midshaft differs in geometry between sham and surgery mice. In the cross-sectional view (excluding the shaft), the marrow area (M.Ar) is in green, the bone area (B.Ar) is in blue, and the tissue area (T.AR) is the combination of the marrow area and bone area (blue + green). Although figure dimensions are exaggerated for visual understanding, the relationship as quantified by µCT data between sham (M.Ar, B.Ar, and T.Ar) and surgery (M.Ar’, B.Ar’, and T.Ar’) areas is as follows: M.Ar’ = 2M.Ar, B.Ar’ = B.Ar, and T.Ar’ = 1.3T.Ar. These images were adapted from Servier Medical Art with permission (http://smart.servier.com/).