| Literature DB >> 34925226 |
Ines Foessl1, J H Duncan Bassett2, Åshild Bjørnerem3,4, Björn Busse5, Ângelo Calado6, Pascale Chavassieux7, Maria Christou8, Eleni Douni9,10, Imke A K Fiedler5, João Eurico Fonseca6,11, Eva Hassler12, Wolfgang Högler13, Erika Kague14, David Karasik15, Patricia Khashayar16, Bente L Langdahl17, Victoria D Leitch18, Philippe Lopes19, Georgios Markozannes8, Fiona E A McGuigan19, Carolina Medina-Gomez20, Evangelia Ntzani8,21, Ling Oei22, Claes Ohlsson22,23, Pawel Szulc7, Jonathan H Tobias24,25, Katerina Trajanoska20, Şansın Tuzun26, Amina Valjevac27, Bert van Rietbergen28, Graham R Williams2, Tatjana Zekic29, Fernando Rivadeneira20, Barbara Obermayer-Pietsch1.
Abstract
A synoptic overview of scientific methods applied in bone and associated research fields across species has yet to be published. Experts from the EU Cost Action GEMSTONE ("GEnomics of MusculoSkeletal Traits translational Network") Working Group 2 present an overview of the routine techniques as well as clinical and research approaches employed to characterize bone phenotypes in humans and selected animal models (mice and zebrafish) of health and disease. The goal is consolidation of knowledge and a map for future research. This expert paper provides a comprehensive overview of state-of-the-art technologies to investigate bone properties in humans and animals - including their strengths and weaknesses. New research methodologies are outlined and future strategies are discussed to combine phenotypic with rapidly developing -omics data in order to advance musculoskeletal research and move towards "personalised medicine".Entities:
Keywords: COST; GEMSTONE; animal models; bone and skeletal diseases; imaging; phenotyping
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34925226 PMCID: PMC8672201 DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2021.720728
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) ISSN: 1664-2392 Impact factor: 5.555
Figure 1Synopsis of clinical phenotyping. ALP, alkaline phosphatase; Biodex, muscle strength by isodynamic dynamometer; CT, computed tomography; CTX, serum crosslaps; DM, diabetes mellitus; DXA, dual energy x-ray absorptiometry; FRAX, fracture risk assessment tool (https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/FRAX/); HGS, handgrip strength; HRpQCT, high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT; PINP, N-terminal propeptide of type I procollagen; PPAR, peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor agonists; pQCT, peripheral quantitative CT; QUS, quantitative bone ultrasound; SPECT, single photon emission computed tomography; SSRI, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors; TBS, trabecular bone score; VFA, vertebral fracture assessment; biochemical parameters include 25OHD, 25-hydroxy-vitamin D; PTH, parathyroid hormone; [see also Bone Turnover Markers (BTMs)].
Comparison of 2D imaging and bone density techniques between species.
| Imaging technique | Human | Mouse/rat models | Zebrafish models | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strengths | Limitations | Strengths | Limitations | Strengths | Limitations | |
| Plain radiographs | Widely available | 2D analyses | availability | 2D image | Longitudinal skeletal assessment | Detailed aspects of bone morphology and density are not captured due to the imaging resolution, overlay with soft tissues, and small bones in zebrafish |
| Additional density estimation in development | Potential superposition | Poor or inconsistent positioning of the animal or bone. | Relative bone density estimation | |||
| Low cost | Low cost and rapid imaging for high-throughput screenings | |||||
| Moderate radiation dose | Full fish recovery after imaging | |||||
| DXA | Low radiation | Artefacts from bone (fractures), osteophytes, vascular calcifications and other superpositions | Most suitable method for BMD measurement in small animals | General anaesthesia needed | N.A. | N.A. |
| Fast and highly reproducible measurements | 2D information only | Poor edge detection and accuracy for very small animals (<50 gr) | ||||
| Widely available and full automatization | No differentiation of trabecular vs cortical compartments | Accurate positioning of the animals and placement of the region of interest can be challenging | ||||
| WHO/ISCD definition for osteoporosis/osteopenia Individual longitudinal monitoring possible | No correction for bone size or skeletal maturity (e.g. in children) | Measurements affected by size and weight of the animal | ||||
| TBS | Non-invasive | No direct relation to fracture risk published | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. |
| Tool for trabecular bone structure | Improvement of risk prediction | |||||
| Discrimination in secondary osteoporosis e.g. in diabetes mellitus | Potential artefacts | |||||
| VFA | Information on vertebral fractures | Lateral positioning of patient sometimes difficult | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. |
| Low radiation exposure | ||||||
| QUS | Transportable | No WHO definitions of osteoporosis/osteopenia | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. |
| Quick | Many different devices – no standardization | |||||
| Non-invasive | Individual monitoring difficult | |||||
| radiation free | No direct translation to bone structure | |||||
| Inexpensive | ||||||
| It can be used apart from specialised centres | ||||||
| Bone scintigraphy | Widely available | Potential false positive results | Mainly use of SPECT (see | Mainly use of SPECT (see | N.A. | N.A. |
| Inferior to SPECT in 3D questions | ||||||
DXA, dual energy x-ray absorptiometry; FRAX, fracture risk assessment tool; QUS, quantitative ultrasound; SPECT, Single-photon emission computed tomography; TBS, trabecular bone score; VFA, vertebral fracture assessment.
N.A., not applicable.
Figure 2Bone imaging techniques in humans; mice and fish. CT, computed tomography; µCT, microCT; DXA, dual energy x-ray absorptiometry; FE, finite element analysis; HRpQCT, high resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; pQCT, peripheral quantitative CT; QCT, quantitative CT; QUS, quantitative bone ultrasound; SPECT, single-photon emission computed tomography.
Comparison of 3D imaging techniques between species.
| Imaging technique | Human | Mouse/rat models | Zebrafish models | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strengths | Limitations | Strengths | Limitations | Strengths | Limitations | |
| CT | Widely available | High radiation exposure | See µCT below | See µCT below | N.A | Low resolution |
| Morphological use | No direct comparison to 2D methods (e.g. DXA) | |||||
| Concomitant differential diagnosis | ||||||
| SPECT/CT | Correlation of skeletal standardized uptake values (SUVs) and BMD possible | Not useful in children due to radiation and inflammation concerns radiation exposure | Good spatial resolution | Radiation | N.A. | N.A. |
| Useful for bone growth and repair | ||||||
| Non-invasive and longitudinal tracking of changes | ||||||
| QCT | Volumetric bone density information | Considerable costs | See µCT below | See µCT below | See µCT below | See µCT below |
| Can be used for continuum FE models | Higher radiation dosage | |||||
| Long operational time | ||||||
| pQCT | Evaluation of cortical and trabecular bone density, structure and strength | Thresholding and difficulties with standardisation at distal sites | See µCT below | See µCT below | See µCT below | See µCT below |
| Relatively low radiation dose | Size artefacts by partial volume effect | |||||
| Needs adjustment for bone length | ||||||
| HR-pQCT | Only existing non-invasive imaging method obtaining bone microarchitecture | Only for distal extremities | See µCT below | See µCT below | See µCT below | See µCT below |
| Fast and safe | Movement artefacts | |||||
| Low radiation dose 3 µSv/scan | Manual analysis required due to potential inaccurate estimates | |||||
| Good reproducibility No side effects | ||||||
| MicroCT (µCT) | In bone specimen, fast and non-destructive assessment |
| Most suitable method for skeletal measurement | Time-consuming | Most suitable method for skeletal measurements as well as assessment of individual bone morphologies | High radiation allows only |
| Excellent reproducibility and accuracy | Lack of specificity for soft tissues | Stabilization required | ||||
| Radiation exposure | ||||||
| MRI | No radiation exposure | No direct comparison to 2D methods (DXA) | Longitudinal assessment | Long scanning time | Bones and muscles can be visualized | Aquatic flow cell system is needed for |
| Widely available | Low resolution due to small sample | Low resolution | ||||
| Well-defined morphological tools | Difficult in use | |||||
CT, computed tomography; µCT, microCT; FE, finite element analysis; HRpQCT, high resolution peripheral computed tomography; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; pQCT, peripheral quantitative CT; QCT, quantitative CT; SPECT, Single-photon emission computed tomography.
N.A., not applicable.
Figure 3Bone turnover markers and players in bone turnover/mass balance. bALP; bone alkaline phosphatase, Ca2+; calcium/ionised calcium, CTX; C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen, DPD; deoxypyridinoline, FGF23; fibroblast growth factor 23, HPro. hydroxyproline, PINP and PICP; N-terminal and C-terminal propeptides of type I procollagen, ; phosphate, PTH; parathyroid hormone, TRAP5b; tartrate-specific acid phosphatase type 5b.