N-acetylcysteine (NAC), an anti-oxidant, does not improve bone mechanical properties in a rat model of progressive chronic kidney disease-mineral bone disorder.

Individuals with chronic kidney disease have elevated levels of oxidative stress and are at a significantly higher risk of skeletal fracture. Advanced glycation end products (AGEs), which accumulate in bone and compromise mechanical properties, are known to be driven in part by oxidative stress. The goal of this study was to study effects of N-acetylcysteine (NAC) on reducing oxidative stress and improving various bone parameters, most specifically mechanical properties, in an animal model of progressive CKD. Male Cy/+ (CKD) rats and unaffected littermates were untreated (controls) or treated with NAC (80 mg/kg, IP) from 30 to 35 weeks of age. Endpoint measures included serum biochemistries, assessments of systemic oxidative stress, bone morphology, and mechanical properties, and AGE levels in the bone. CKD rats had the expected phenotype that included low kidney function, elevated parathyroid hormone, higher cortical porosity, and compromised mechanical properties. NAC treatment had mixed effects on oxidative stress markers, significantly reducing TBARS (a measure of lipid peroxidation) while not affecting 8-OHdG (a marker of DNA oxidation) levels. AGE levels in the bone were elevated in CKD animals and were reduced with NAC although this did not translate to a benefit in bone mechanical properties. In conclusion, NAC failed to significantly improve bone architecture/geometry/mechanical properties in our rat model of progressive CKD.

Introduction

Ten percent of Americans suffer from chronic kidney disease (CKD) [1]. Individuals with CKD are at a significantly higher risk of skeletal fracture and associated death, compared to the normal population [2]. The pathophysiology underling skeletal-related phenotype development in CKD is complex and driven primarily through disturbances in bone and mineral metabolism [3]. Yet there is a growing appreciation for factors outside of mineral metabolism that contribute to skeletal fragility in CKD [4][5].

Advanced glycation end products (AGEs) represent a heterogeneous group of modified proteins and fat that derive from the addition of a carbohydrate to an amino acid or lipid in a non-enzymatic reaction involving sugar. AGE accumulation in the body is influenced by various factors including levels of blood glucose (such as in diabetes), levels of dietary AGE intake, and as both downstream and upstream consequences of increased oxidative stress [6]. Bone represents the largest collection of long-lived proteins in the body, principally collagen, and thus is highly susceptible to AGE accumulation [7]. In vitro [8][9,10], preclinical [11,12], and clinical studies [13] have associated AGE accumulation/collagen cross-linking with reduced bone mechanical properties.

In patients with CKD, regardless of the presence or absence of diabetes, there are increased circulating levels of AGE proteins compared to age-matched controls [14,15]. We and others have found increased skeletal AGE levels in CKD animal models, and we have shown these levels are independent of PTH levels and bone turnover [12][16]. Thus AGE accumulation in bone of patients with CKD may contribute to the poor fracture resistance similar to the reduction in mechanical properties that we have observed in our animal model of CKD [17-19] and impaired bone quality in humans with this disease [20][21][22][23].

The anti-oxidant N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is commonly used in CKD as it has been shown to reduce systemic oxidative stress and AGE formation [24][25]. Whether this translates to reduced levels of AGEs in bone and, most importantly, improved mechanical properties, is unclear. Therefore, the goal of this study was to test the hypothesis that NAC reduces oxidative stress and improves the bone mechanical properties of bone in an animal model of progressive CKD.

Methods

Experimental design

Cy/+ rats are characterized by an autosomal dominant mutation in Anks6, a gene that codes for the protein SamCystin, and which has been linked to nephronophthisis in humans [26]. In this rat model, the mutation leads to a slow and gradual onset of CKD, paralleling human CKD conditions through the gradual development hyperphosphatemia, hyperparathyroidism, and skeletal abnormalities [27,28].

Male Cy/+ (CKD) rats (n = 25) and unaffected normal littermates (NL; n = 18) were placed on a casein diet (Envigo TD.04539; 0.7% Pi, 0.7% Ca, 15.9% Protein, 5.2% Fat) at 24 weeks of age in order to produce a more consistent kidney disease phenotype [29]. A higher number of CKD animals were started in the study due historical variability in disease and response to treatment. At 30 weeks of age, a subset of CKD (n = 12) and NL (n = 9) rats began treatment with N-acetylcysteine (NAC, 80 mg/kg, IP) for 5 weeks while the remaining animals served as non-treated controls (without vehicle treatment). The 5-week treatment duration was chosen as we have previously shown it to result in dramatic changes to bone properties in this model [18,30]. The NAC dose was based upon previous studies [31][32] and pilot dosing studies in our lab.

At 35 weeks of age, animals were anesthetized with isoflurane and underwent cardiac puncture for blood collection followed by exsanguination and bilateral pneumothorax to ensure death. Tibiae were fixed in 10% neutral buffered formalin and femora were stored in PBS-soaked gauze and frozen at -20C for analysis. All procedures were approved by and carried out according to the rules and regulations of the Indiana University School of Medicine’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee.

Biochemistry

Blood plasma was analyzed for BUN, calcium, and phosphorus using colorimetric assays (Point Scientific, Canton, MI, or Sigma kits). Intact PTH was determined by ELISA (Alpco, Salem, NH). Serum levels of an oxidative stress marker, 8-hydroxy-2' -deoxyguanosine (8-OHdG) were measured using an ELISA kit (Enzo Life Sciences, Farmingdale, NY) and TBARS were measured using TBARS assay (TCA method) kit (Cayman Chemical, Ann Arbor, MI).

Micro-Computed Tomography (microCT)

Proximal tibia were scanned with microCT (Skyscan 1172) using a 12 micron isotropic voxel size for determination of trabecular bone volume (BV/TV, %) and cortical porosity, using methods previously published [18]. BV/TV was measured within a region of interest in the proximal metaphysis starting at ~0.5 mm below the most distal region of the growth plate and extending downward for 1 mm. The ROI was manually drawn to excluded cortical bone. Cortical porosity was assessed on a single slice at the most distal edge of the trabecular ROI with the isolation of the cortex achieved through manual segmentation. Whole femur were scanned (Skyscan 1176) at a nominal resolution of 18 microns to assess geometric properties including total tissue area (TA), bone area (BA), polar cross-sectional moment of inertia (CSMIp) and cortical thickness (Ct.Th) on a single slice located at 50% of bone length [33]. Scans and analyses were done in accordance with standard guidelines [34].

Whole bone mechanics

Structural mechanical properties of the left femur were determined by four-point bending as previously described [35]. The anterior surface was placed on two lower supports located ±9 mm from the mid-diaphysis (18 mm span length) with an upper span length of 6 mm. Specimens were loaded to failure at a rate of 2 mm/min, producing a force-displacement curve for each sample. Structural-dependent mechanical properties were obtained directly from these curves, while apparent material properties were derived from the force-displacement curves, CSMIp from microCT, and the distances from the centroid to the tensile surface using standard beam-bending equations for four-point bending [36].

Measurements of skeletal collagen cross-linking of femoral cortical bone

After mechanical testing, segments of the femoral cortex (~3 mm in length) were processed for assessment of enzymatic collagen crosslinks and an AGE crosslink (pentosidine) by a high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) system (Beckman-Coulter System Gold 168) as previously published [12,37,38]. Briefly, the femoral shaft was flushed with saline to remove marrow followed by incubating with Immunocal (Decal Chemical Corporation, Congers, NY) to demineralize the bone for 2–3 days. Demineralization end-point determination assays (Polysciences, Warrington, PA) were used to verify demineralization of each specimen. The demineralized bone tissues were then hydrolyzed in 6 M HCL at 110°C for 16 hours. Standards of pyridinoline (PYD; Quidel), deoxypyridinoline (DPD; Quidel), and pentosidine (PE; International Maillard Reaction Society) were used. Hydroxyproline levels, also measured by HPLC, were used to normalize crosslink concentration (mol/mol collagen).

Measurement of total AGEs in bone tissue

The same demineralized bone tissues that were hydrolyzed for enzymatic cross-links were assessed for total AGE content using previously published methods [10,39]. Briefly, fluorescence readings taken with a CLARIOstar high performance microplate reader (BMG LABTECH Inc, Cary, NC) at wavelengths of 370nm/440nm excitation/emission against a quinine sulfate standard and normalized by the collagen content for the sample. The amount of collagen for each bone specimen was based on the amount of hydroxyproline determined by a hydroxyproline assay kit according to manufactures’ instruction (Sigma-Aldrich USA, St. Louis, MO).

Statistics

Comparisons among groups were assessed by two-way ANOVA with the main effects being disease (NL and CKD) and treatment (control vs. NAC). When a significant interaction was found in the two-way ANOVA Fisher’s LSD post-hoc tests across all four groups were performed. A priori α-levels were set at 0.05 to determine statistical significance. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation.

Results

The effect of NAC on kidney function, mineral metabolism and oxidative stress in CKD rats

CKD animals had significantly higher BUN (4-fold), phosphorus (1.7-fold) and serum PTH (8-fold) compared to NL (. NAC did not reduce PTH or BUN but did result in significantly lower phosphorus and significantly higher calcium in in CKD animals. There was no difference in levels of serum oxidative stress markers 8-OHdG () or TBARS () between NL and CKD rats. NAC had no effect on levels of 8-OHdG but decreased levels of TBARS ().

The systemic marker of oxidative stress.

Serum 8-OHdG (A) and TBPARS (B) in NL and CKD rats treated with or without NAC. Data presented as mean and standard deviation with point plots of individual data. (n = 8–12 each group).

The effect of NAC on skeletal morphology of femoral mid-diaphysis in CKD rats

There was no significant effect of phenotype, treatment, or an interaction on proximal tibia trabecular BV/TV (). Cortical porosity showed a significant main effect of phenotype (higher in CKD), but it was not affected by treatment (). At the mid-diaphysis, bone area, cross-sectional moment of inertia, and cortical thickness were all significantly affected by genotype (lower in CKD) without being significantly affected by NAC. Only CKD animals had measurable cortical porosity at the mid-diaphysis and levels were not affected by NAC treatment ().

The effect of CKD and NAC on bone architecture.

Cortical, but not trabecular bone is affected by CKD with no effect of NAC on either compartment. A) Proximal tibia trabecular bone was not significantly affected by NAC in either genotype. B) Cortical porosity was significantly higher in CKD animals while NAC did not affect levels in either genotype. Data presented as mean and standard deviation with point plots of individual data. (n = 8–12 each group).

The effect of NAC on bone mechanics in CKD rats

The majority of mechanical properties, both structural and estimated material-level, exhibited significant main effects of genotype, with CKD animals having inferior properties compared to NL ( There was no main effect of NAC treatment nor an interaction between genotype and treatment.

The effect of NAC on total bone AGE accumulation and skeletal collagen cross-linking of femoral cortical bone

Total AGEs in femoral bone tissue from untreated CKD rats were significantly higher compared to normal animals (). There was a significant interaction for total bone AGE with NAC-treated CKD rats having lower total bone AGE levels whereas NL rats treated with NAC had no effect compared to untreated NL rats (). Assessment of enzymatic collagen crosslinks and pentosidine by HPLC revealed that pyridinoline levels per unit collagen were significantly lower in CKD animals compared to NL with no effect of NAC treatment ( There was a significant interaction for pentosidine levels with NAC-treated NL animals having lower skeletal pentosidine levels while CKD animals treated with NAC were not significantly different compared to untreated controls (. Total AGE levels were negatively correlated to a number of mechanical properties with r values of ~0.3 that were statistically signfiicant (.

The effect of CKD and NAC on AGE accumulation.

There was increased accumulation of AGE in femoral shaft from CKD rats compared to control rats (Disease effect). There is no treatment effect overall but there is a significant interaction in which treatment with NAC reduced bone AGE accumulation in CKD rats but not in NL rats. Data presented as mean and standard deviation with point plots of individual data (n = 8–12 each group). *p < 0.05 vs all other groups.

Discussion

The systemic disruptions in mineral metabolism associated with chronic kidney disease are profound and result in pathophysiological changes in numerous organ systems including skeletal changes and calcification of arteries. Oxidative stress is common in many diseases including chronic kidney disease [40]. Although the cause is often multi-factorial, reducing oxidative stress represents a general approach to lessen the consequence of disease. In the present study we demonstrated that NAC, an anti-oxidant, given beginning at 30 weeks of age (approximately 60–70% reduction in kidney function) for 5 weeks did not alter kidney function, assessed by BUN, or mineral metabolism in CKD rats. While NAC marginally lowered serum levels of TBARS, a marker of lipid oxidation, it had no significant effect on serum 8-OHDG, a marker of DNA oxidation. Furthermore, we found no end-organ effects of NAC on the skeleton in CKD animals.

A major negative finding of this work is the absence of systemic oxidative stress elevations in the CKD animals and modulation of levels in either treatment. We chose to assess oxidative stress using 8-OHDG as it has shown to be elevated in our model of progressive chronic kidney disease [41] and can be modulated by NAC [40]. Surprisingly, not only was there no effect of disease, but there was no effect of NAC in either normal or disease conditions. Conversely, there was a significant effect of NAC on lowering of TBARS, a common assessment of lipid peroxidation. Previous work has shown that 7 weeks of NAC treatment (dosed orally at 150 mg/kg/day) reduced sodium fluoride-induced oxidative stress, as assessed by 8-OHDG [42]. Whether our conflicting results are due to different etiologies of oxidative stress, the need for additional measures of oxidative stress, different dosing routes (or doses), or treatment time are not clear. It is also unclear why there was no disease effect on oxidative stress given we have seen this previously in our animals. This could be due to the heterogeneity in disease severity we see across cohorts, although we observed many disease-induced changes that are typical in our model, such as changes to BUN, PTH, and bone outcomes.

The influence of oxidative stress on bone has been studied predominantly in the context of signaling bone cells. A lesser appreciated effect of oxidative stress is the effects it has on the existing matrix. AGE accumulation in bone is associated with negative effects on bone mechanical properties [7]. Their accumulation has been proposed to be responsible for the bone fragility associated with diabetes, a result of high blood sugar and circulating AGE levels (measured as HbA1c). Here we used a rat model of progressive CKD and demonstrated that total bone AGE, but not pentosidine levels, are increased in CKD rats compared to NL. Previous studies in this same CKD model have documented both higher [12] and unchanged [38] pentosidine levels in CKD animals. However, our current work documents that NAC lowered total bone AGE levels, with no effect on bone pentosidine levels in in CKD animals. It is well-known that pentosidine is just one of many AGEs within bone and that it’s concentration is relatively low compared to some others [43] Given the link between AGEs and bone is in part through their effects on mechanical properties [8][44][45], it is important to note that we found there was no appreciable benefit of NAC on any mechanical properties, despite CKD inducing many of the expected effects on reducing mechanical properties. This certainly points to the concept that AGEs are not the whole story and that the metabolic disturbances in CKD are having other tissue-level effects.

In addition to those discussed above, this work is limited in that assessments of the degree of redox in the bone were not assessed. Therefore it is possible that changes (or lack of change) in the serum does not reflect what is happening in the bone tissue.

In summary, NAC failed to alter the skeletal abnormality of our rat model of progressive CKD. While it is plausible that higher doses or longer treatment may have had more benefit, it is more likely that the pathophysiology of bone in CKD-MBD are multifactorial in etiology and that oxidative stress treatment is insufficient to prevent negative skeletal effects.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

9 Jan 2020

PONE-D-19-34955

N-acetylcysteine (NAC), an anti-oxidant, does not improve bone mechanical properties in a rat model of progressive chronic kidney disease-mineral bone disorder

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Allen,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Two reviewers have evaluated your manuscript. Fortunately, both found it of some interest. However, there are major issues that need to be resolved. Please address ALL their comments in your rebuttal and revised manuscript.

It is essential that data on CKD status are provided. At least plasma or serum creatinine and urea (more reliable than creatinine in rodents) and, if 24h urine is available, creatinine clearance. With 24h urine you can also measure TBARS excretion in the urine. This is often a useful integrative measure of oxidative damage.

Additional animal experiments are probably not necessary.

When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jaap A. Joles, DVM, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors reported the effect of N-acetylcysteine (NAC) treatment on systemic oxidative stress, the degree of bone collagen crosslinks, and bone mechanical properties in progressive chronic kidney disease (CKD) model rats. This study is important to understand the role of oxidative stress for deterioration of bone mechanical properties in CKD. There are some concerns as follows;

1) It is well known that the level of systemic or local oxidative stress increases in CKD condition. The previous study of the authors also reported 8-OHdG in serum was increased in 35weeks old Cy/+ rats (Avin KG, et al PLOS ONE 2016). However, why were the levels of oxidative stress marker in serum similar between Normal and CKD rats in this study? The authors should discuss this point.

2) Does the degree of redox in bone tissue reflect on the degree of redox in serum? Did the authors determine the level of anti-oxidant markers such as superoxide dismutase, or glutathione in both bone tissue and serum? It is necessary for the authors to present these data or argue this point while using previous studies.

3) What does the reducing of bone mechanical properties in CKD rats depend on in this study? Does the amount of total bone AGEs, or pentosidine correlate with bone mechanical properties?

4) What the level of serum creatinine or creatinine clearance in their CKD rats? This data is important to understand CKD related bone abnormalities. The authors should describe this data.

5) Was the method of total bone AGEs assessed by microplate reader authorized in this case? Did the value obtained by this method reflect AGEs content? The authors should address much more in detail about this method.

6) The authors described calcium and phosphorus content in materials and methods. It is well known that protein and fat content in diet affects kidney function and bone health. It is better for readers to have this information.

7) In the discussion, the authors described no effect of NAC on the aorta in CKD animals. Which data was this shown by?

8) In Table 4, was the data of pentosidine content in the two CKD groups correct? Was this data not replaced? It is recommended to check this data.

Reviewer #2: 1. The format of the tables should be modified to standard three-line table or four-line table and the results of pairwise comparisons should be indicated used the symbols, like “*”or others.

2. In the figures, the results of pairwise comparisons should also be indicated used the symbols and horizontal lines, which indicated the difference occurred in indicated two groups.

3. In the part of “The effect of NAC on total bone AGE accumulation and skeletal collagen cross-linking of femoral cortical bone”, the statement of ‘Assessment of enzymatic collagen crosslinks and pentosidine by HPLC revealed that pyridinoline levels per unit collagen were significantly lower in CKD animals compared to NL with no effect of NAC treatment (Table 4).’ is not clear.

4. In the ‘Statistics’ part, the statement should be clearer and should tell the readers the meaning of “interaction”.

5. The authors could make some bivariate correlation analysis, such as the correlation analysis of oxidative stress indicators with the AGEs, or the correlation relationship of AGEs with bone indicators of micro CT and bone biomechanics.

6. The expression and grammar should be improved, errors about singular and plural should be corrected.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

20 Feb 2020

Reviewer #1:

1) It is well known that the level of systemic or local oxidative stress increases in CKD condition. The previous study of the authors also reported 8-OHdG in serum was increased in 35weeks old Cy/+ rats (Avin KG, et al PLOS ONE 2016). However, why were the levels of oxidative stress marker in serum similar between Normal and CKD rats in this study? The authors should discuss this point.

The reviewer is certainly correct that we and others have noted elevated oxidative stress in CKD. We in fact have seen altered oxidative stress in two papers using this animal model. We are unclear as to the reasons they were not elevated here, as that was certainly the basis for the study/intervention with NAC. We have tried to make this explicitly clear in the discussion. Unfortunately, we don’t have great hypotheses for this finding (or lack of finding).

2) Does the degree of redox in bone tissue reflect on the degree of redox in serum? Did the authors determine the level of anti-oxidant markers such as superoxide dismutase, or glutathione in both bone tissue and serum? It is necessary for the authors to present these data or argue this point while using previous studies.

The reviewer raises a great question about relation of serum and bone levels but unfortunately we are not able to make those assessments in both bone and serum. We have added this as a limitation of the work.

3) What does the reducing of bone mechanical properties in CKD rats depend on in this study? Does the amount of total bone AGEs, or pentosidine correlate with bone mechanical properties?

We have added a correlation matrix table and a limited amount of text to the discussion. Total bone AGEs and 8-OHdG are both are negatively correlated to mechanical properties (r values around -0.3 for many variables). These relationships are not overly strong, albeit statistically significant.

4) What the level of serum creatinine or creatinine clearance in their CKD rats? This data is important to understand CKD related bone abnormalities. The authors should describe this data.

We did not measure serum or urine creatinine in the current study. We have previously undertaken creatine clearance in our animal model and shown that they correlated to BUN. in our animal model. Thus we are confident that BUN accurately reflects that CKD animals in this study had kidney disease and that NAC did not affect the degree of altered kidney function.

5) Was the method of total bone AGEs assessed by microplate reader authorized in this case? Did the value obtained by this method reflect AGEs content? The authors should address much more in detail about this method.

We followed previously published methods for measure of total AGEs. We have added citations to the methods section.

6) The authors described calcium and phosphorus content in materials and methods. It is well known that protein and fat content in diet affects kidney function and bone health. It is better for readers to have this information.

We have included dietary values of protein (17.7%) and fat (5.2%) in the methods..

7) In the discussion, the authors described no effect of NAC on the aorta in CKD animals. Which data was this shown by?

We have removed reference to the aorta – sorry for the confusion.

8) In Table 4, was the data of pentosidine content in the two CKD groups correct? Was this data not replaced? It is recommended to check this data.

We have verified that the pentosidine data in Table 4 is correct.

Reviewer #2:

1. The format of the tables should be modified to standard three-line table or four-line table and the results of pairwise comparisons should be indicated used the symbols, like “*”or others.

We are happy to edit the table as needed for publication but are unsure what the reviewer is requesting here.

2. In the figures, the results of pairwise comparisons should also be indicated used the symbols and horizontal lines, which indicated the difference occurred in indicated two groups.

We have revised our figures to make it clear that the notations in the upper left corner are main effect and interaction p values. In figures 1B and 2B, where there are main effects, we find it more complicated to add specific notations to the figure – these main effects make it clear that either drug or disease are different. For Figure 3 we have a notation in the figure legend that the * symbol represents difference from all other groups. We hope this is clear.

3. In the part of “The effect of NAC on total bone AGE accumulation and skeletal collagen cross-linking of femoral cortical bone”, the statement of ‘Assessment of enzymatic collagen crosslinks and pentosidine by HPLC revealed that pyridinoline levels per unit collagen were significantly lower in CKD animals compared to NL with no effect of NAC treatment (Table 4).’ is not clear.

This statement matches the table, which shows a significant main effect of disease for pyridinoline (0.0001) but not for treatment (and no interaction).

4. In the ‘Statistics’ part, the statement should be clearer and should tell the readers the meaning of “interaction”.

We have clarified the results section and the tables.

5. The authors could make some bivariate correlation analysis, such as the correlation analysis of oxidative stress indicators with the AGEs, or the correlation relationship of AGEs with bone indicators of micro CT and bone biomechanics.

We have added a correlation matrix table to the paper (Table 5) and referenced it in the results section.

6. The expression and grammar should be improved, errors about singular and plural should be corrected.

We have tried to correct grammar where we saw inconsistency.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

28 Feb 2020

N-acetylcysteine (NAC), an anti-oxidant, does not improve bone mechanical properties in a rat model of progressive chronic kidney disease-mineral bone disorder

PONE-D-19-34955R1

Dear Dr. Allen,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Jaap A. Joles, DVM, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have revised their article due to the reviewer’s comments and resubmitted it. The major concerns that were pointed by reviewers have been revised. Their study is important to argue the role of pentosidine crosslinks, total advanced glycation end products, and oxidative stress on bone mechanical properties in CKD.

Reviewer #2: the authors had answered solved all queries from reviewers.

at this stage, I have no more suggestion.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

9 Mar 2020

PONE-D-19-34955R1

N-acetylcysteine (NAC), an anti-oxidant, does not improve bone mechanical properties in a rat model of progressive chronic kidney disease-mineral bone disorder

Dear Dr. Allen:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Jaap A. Joles

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Table 1

Systemic biochemical markers.

	Normal		CKD		Main effect of disease	Main effect of treatment	Disease x treatment interaction
	Control (n = 9)	NAC (n = 9)	Control (n = 13)	NAC (n = 12)
Calcium, mg/dL	6.8 ± 1.2	7.3 ± 1.2	5.6 ± 1.9	8.0 ± 1.7 *	0.628	0.004	0.048
Phosphorous, mg/dL	5.1 ± 1.1	5.8 ± 2.8	8.8 ± 3.3	7.6 ± 3.3	0.004	0.808	0.281
BUN, mg/dL	14.1 ± 2.4	14.7 ± 2.9	57.8 ± 12.2	54.4 ± 12.5	<0.001	0.650	0.513
PTH, pg/mL	190 ± 64	-	1499 ± 1117	994 ± 746	<0.001	0.201	NA

Data presented as mean and standard deviation. CKD, chronic kidney disease; NAC, N-acetylcysteine; BUN, blood urea nitrogen; PTH, parathyroid hormone.

*p< 0.05 versus control within disease.

Table 2

Skeletal morphology of femoral mid-diaphysis.

	Normal		CKD		Main effect of disease	Main effect of treatment	Disease x treatment interaction
	Control (n = 8)	NAC (n = 8)	Control (n = 11)	NAC (n = 11)
Bone area, mm2	8.8 ± 0.8	9.1 ± 0.5	7.9 ± 1.0	7.5 ± 0.8	0.001	0.975	0.194
Cross-sectional moment of inertia, mm4	9.9 ± 1.2	10.9 ± 1.3	9.4 ± 1.5	8.7 ± 1.1	0.003	0.701	0.071
Cortical thickness, mm	0.74 ± 0.04	0.77 ± 0.04	0.63 ± 0.09	0.61 ± 0.13	0.001	0.876	0.463

Data presented as mean and standard deviation. CKD, chronic kidney disease; NAC, N-acetylcysteine.

Table 3

Mechanical properties of the femur mid-diaphysis.

	Normal		CKD		Main effect of disease	Main effect of treatment	Disease x treatment interaction
	Control (n = 8)	NAC (n = 7)	Control (n = 12)	NAC (n = 10)
Ultimate load, N	261 ± 19	252 ± 23	184 ± 45	183 ± 45	<0.001	0.667	0.739
Stiffness, N/mm	441 ± 36	415 ± 48	364 ± 42	347 ± 38	<0.001	0.125	0.755
Total displacement, μm	846 ± 101	883 ± 128	662 ± 137	768 ± 187	0.003	0.207	0.380
Work to failure, Nmm	129 ± 22	120 ± 24	70 ± 33	80 ± 39	<0.001	0.972	0.381
Ultimate stress, MPa	150 ± 17	140 ± 22	110 ± 32	114 ± 26	<0.001	0.706	0.419
Modulus, GPa	7.2 ± 0.8	6.5 ± 0.8	6.3 ± 1.0	6.4 ± 0.6	0.065	0.258	0.175
Total strain, μE	30371 ± 4115	31088 ± 4297	22967 ± 5242	26338 ± 6739	0.002	0.263	0.465
Toughness, MPa	2.59 ± 0.54	2.34 ± 0.55	1.45 ± 0.74	1.70 ± 0.84	0.001	0.989	0.297

Data presented as mean and standard deviation. CKD, chronic kidney disease; NAC, N-acetylcysteine.

Table 4

Skeletal collagen cross-linking of femoral cortical bone.

	Normal		CKD		Main effect of disease	Main effect of treatment	Disease x treatment interaction
	Control (n = 8)	NAC (n = 9)	Control (n = 13)	NAC (n = 12)
Pyridinoline/mmol collagen	0.195 ± 0.03	0.20 ± 0.02	0.163 ± 0.02	0.168 ± 0.03	0.001	0.679	0.817
Deoxypyridinoline/mmol collagen	0.131 ± 0.02	0.127 ± 0.02	0.119 ± 0.03	0.114 ± 0.03	0.138	0.595	0.976
Pentosidine/mmol collagen	70 ± 27	53 ± 10 *	59 ± 14	75 ± 31	0.444	0.925	0.023

Data presented as mean and standard deviation. CKD, chronic kidney disease; NAC, N-acetylcysteine.

*p< 0.05 versus control within disease.

Table 5

Correlation matrix between oxidative stress/collagen parameters and bone geometry/mechanics.

	Ultimate Force	Total Displacement	Stiffness	Total Work	Ultimate Stress	Total Strain	Modulus	Toughness	Bone area	CSMI	Cortical thickness
Total bone AGE	-0.360	-0.335	-0.288	-0.368	-0.298	-0.353	-0.103	-0.347	-0.376	-0.223	-0.478
8-OHdG	-0.388	-0.316	-0.364	-0.335	-0.357	-0.335	-0.177	-0.347	-0.025	-0.040	-0.134
PYD per collagen	0.280	0.144	0.340	0.196	0.232	0.139	0.254	0.165	0.255	0.038	0.336
DPD per collagen	0.324	0.324	0.194	0.297	0.361	0.339	0.202	0.328	0.248	0.243	0.290
PE per collagen	-0.220	-0.168	-0.131	-0.148	-0.098	-0.155	0.110	-0.079	-0.325	-0.335	-0.272

Data presented as r values with red highlighted cells noting correlations with p < 0.05. AGE, advanced glycation end products; PYD, Pyridinoline; DPD, Deoxypyridinoline; PE, Pentosidine; CSMI, cross-sectional moment of inertia