4.7 Article

Increased marrow adipogenesis does not contribute to age-dependent appendicular bone loss in female mice

期刊

AGING CELL
卷 19, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/acel.13247

关键词

aging; osteoporosis; osteoblasts; PPARγ rosiglitazone; porosity

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01 CA122023, R01 CA211963] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NCRR NIH HHS [UL1 RR029884] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIAMS NIH HHS [R01 AR056679] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NIA NIH HHS [P01 AG013918] Funding Source: Medline
  5. NIGMS NIH HHS [P20 GM125503] Funding Source: Medline
  6. BLRD VA [I01 BX001405, I01 BX003901] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Marrow adipocytes and osteoblasts differentiate from common mesenchymal progenitors in a mutually exclusive manner, and diversion of these progenitors toward adipocytes in old age has been proposed to account for the decline in osteoblasts and the development of involutional osteoporosis. This idea has been supported by evidence that thiazolidinedione (TZD)-induced activation of PPAR gamma, the transcription factor required for adipocyte differentiation, increases marrow fat and causes bone loss. We functionally tested this hypothesis using C57BL/6J mice with conditional deletion of PPAR gamma from early mesenchymal progenitors targeted by the Prx1-Cre transgene. Using a longitudinal littermate-controlled study design, we observed that PPAR gamma is indispensable for TZD-induced increase in marrow adipocytes in 6-month-old male mice, and age-associated increase in marrow adipocytes in 22-month-old female mice. In contrast, PPAR gamma is dispensable for the loss of cortical and trabecular bone caused by TZD or old age. Instead, PPAR gamma restrains age-dependent development of cortical porosity. These findings do not support the long-standing hypothesis that increased marrow adipocyte differentiation contributes to bone loss in old age but reveal a novel role of mesenchymal cell PPAR gamma in the maintenance of cortical integrity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据