4.4 Article

Lack of Evidence that Soluble Urate Directly Influences Bone Remodelling: A Laboratory and Clinical Study

期刊

CALCIFIED TISSUE INTERNATIONAL
卷 102, 期 1, 页码 73-84

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00223-017-0328-6

关键词

Urate; Bone; Osteoclast; Osteoblast; Osteocyte

资金

  1. Auckland Medical Research Foundation
  2. Health Research Council of New Zealand

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Numerous observational studies have reported that serum urate concentration positively correlates with bone density and reduced risk of fractures. The aim of this study was to examine whether soluble urate directly influences bone remodelling. In laboratory studies, the in vitro effects of soluble urate were examined in osteoclast, osteoblast and osteocyte assays at a range of urate concentrations consistent with those typically observed in humans (up to 0.70 mmol/L). The clinical relevance of the in vitro assay findings was assessed using serial procollagen-1 N-terminal propeptide (P1NP) and Month 12 bone density data from a randomised controlled trial of allopurinol dose escalation in people with gout. Addition of urate in the RAW264.7 cell osteoclastogenesis assay led to small increases in osteoclast formation (ANOVA p = 0.018), but no significant difference in bone resorption. No significant effects on osteoclast number or activity were observed in primary cell osteoclastogenesis or resorption assays. Addition of urate did not alter viability or function in MC3T3-E1 pre-osteoblast, primary human osteoblast, or MLO-Y4 osteocyte assays. In the clinical trial analysis, reducing serum urate over a 12 month period by allopurinol dose escalation did not lead to significant changes in P1NP or differences in bone mineral density. Addition of soluble urate at physiological concentrations does not influence bone remodelling in vitro. These data, together with clinical trial data showing no effect of urate-lowering on P1NP or bone density, do not support a direct role for urate in influencing bone remodelling.

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

4.4
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