Literature DB >> 9536296

Genetic and environmental components of the population variance in bone density.

E Seeman1, J L Hopper.   

Abstract

Understanding of the genetic and environmental factors contributing to the differences in fracture rates between young and old, between women and men, and between races is limited. The reasons for this may partly relate to the lack of a detailed understanding of the structural basis of bone fragility. This information, although difficult to obtain because of the invasiveness of bone biopsy, will be required if advances are to occur. aBMD cannot be relied upon as an endpoint in the study of the pathophysiology of osteoporosis. Advances will require the description of the age-, gender and race-specific means and variances in trabecular number, thickness, spacing and orientation, cortical thickness, and bone size and shape in women and men of different racial groups. Subsequent comparison of the structures in young versus old, female versus male, and in racial groups may reveal the structural differences from which inferences may be made concerning the differences in fracture rates between these groups. By defining the structural basis for bone fragility, the genetic and modifiable environmental determinants of these structures may then be identified, providing hypotheses to be tested in randomized trials aimed at reducing the incidence of fractures in these groups.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9536296     DOI: 10.1007/BF03194336

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Osteoporos Int        ISSN: 0937-941X            Impact factor:   5.071


  20 in total

1.  Genetic, common environment, and individual specific components of variance for bone mineral density in 10- to 26-year-old females: a twin study.

Authors:  J L Hopper; R M Green; C A Nowson; D Young; A J Sherwin; B Kaymakci; R G Larkins; J D Wark
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1998-01-01       Impact factor: 4.897

Review 2.  From density to structure: growing up and growing old on the surfaces of bone.

Authors:  E Seeman
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 6.741

3.  Do genetic factors explain associations between muscle strength, lean mass, and bone density? A twin study.

Authors:  E Seeman; J L Hopper; N R Young; C Formica; P Goss; C Tsalamandris
Journal:  Am J Physiol       Date:  1996-02

4.  Trend towards earlier menarche in London, Olso, Copenhagen, the Netherlands and Hungary.

Authors:  J M Tanner
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1973-05-11       Impact factor: 49.962

5.  The bone density of female twins discordant for tobacco use.

Authors:  J L Hopper; E Seeman
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1994-02-10       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Commentary: genes for osteoarthritis: interpreting twin data.

Authors:  J Hopper
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-04-13

7.  Vitamin D receptor gene polymorphism and bone mineral density in healthy Japanese women.

Authors:  Z Yamagata; T Miyamura; S Iijima; A Asaka; M Sasaki; J Kato; K Koizumi
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1994-10-08       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  Effect of dietary calcium on bone density in growing rabbits.

Authors:  V Gilsanz; T F Roe; J Antunes; M Carlson; M L Duarte; W G Goodman
Journal:  Am J Physiol       Date:  1991-03

9.  Vitamin D receptor alleles and rates of bone loss: influences of years since menopause and calcium intake.

Authors:  E A Krall; P Parry; J B Lichter; B Dawson-Hughes
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 6.741

10.  Calcium absorption on high and low calcium intakes in relation to vitamin D receptor genotype.

Authors:  B Dawson-Hughes; S S Harris; S Finneran
Journal:  J Clin Endocrinol Metab       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 5.958

View more
  5 in total

1.  The differing tempo of growth in bone size, mass, and density in girls is region-specific.

Authors:  S Bass; P D Delmas; G Pearce; E Hendrich; A Tabensky; E Seeman
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 14.808

Review 2.  Genetic determinants of bone strength and fracture in humans: dreams and realities.

Authors:  Sergio Livio Ferrari
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2003-08-29       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 3.  Disentangling the genetic determinants of human aging: biological age as an alternative to the use of survival measures.

Authors:  David Karasik; Serkalem Demissie; L Adrienne Cupples; Douglas P Kiel
Journal:  J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 6.053

4.  Physical activity and dietary calcium interactions in bone mass in Scottish postmenopausal women.

Authors:  A Mavroeidi; A D Stewart; D M Reid; H M Macdonald
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2008-07-17       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 5.  Nutrition and bone growth and development.

Authors:  Ann Prentice; Inez Schoenmakers; M Ann Laskey; Stephanie de Bono; Fiona Ginty; Gail R Goldberg
Journal:  Proc Nutr Soc       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 6.297

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.