4.6 Article

Bone biomechanical properties in prostaglandin EP1 and EP2 knockout mice

Journal

BONE
Volume 29, Issue 2, Pages 121-125

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S8756-3282(01)00486-0

Keywords

prostaglandin; EP receptors; mice; strength; bone ash

Funding

  1. PHS HHS [12556] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Prostaglandins play an important role in regulating the bone adaptation response to mechanical stimuli. Prostaglandin E2 (PGE(2)) is an effective modulator of bone metabolism. Administration of PGE2 to rodents results in increased cancellous and cortical bone mass translating into enhanced, mechanical strength. The PGE2 influence on bone is mediated through four well-characterized receptors (EP1, EP2, EP3, and EP,). Although the PGE2 pathways and mechanisms of action on cells involved in bone adaptation are still under investigation, it is now known that each receptor plays a unique role in regulating PGE(2)-related bone cell function. The EP1 subtype is coupled with Ca2+ mobilization. The EP2 subtype stimulates cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) formation. cAMP in turn is responsible for the early cellular signal that stimulates bone formation. This study compared physical and biomechanical properties of bone in EP1 and EP2 knockout mice to their corresponding wild-type controls. Ash weight was measured in the ulnae, and femurs and vertebral bodies were tested in three-point bending and compression, respectively. The results suggest: (a) EP1 receptors have a minimal influence on skeletal strength or size in mice; and (b) EP2 receptors have a major influence on the biomechanical properties of bone in mice. The absence of EP2 receptors resulted in weak bone biomechanical strength properties in the EP2 knockout model as compared with the corresponding wild-type control mice. (C) 2001 by Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available