4.7 Article

Inhibition of PPARγ prevents type I diabetic bone marrow adiposity but not bone loss

期刊

JOURNAL OF CELLULAR PHYSIOLOGY
卷 209, 期 3, 页码 967-976

出版社

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/jcp.20804

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK 061184] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Diabetes type I is associated with bone loss and increased bone adiposity. Osteoblasts and adipocytes are both derived from mesenchymal stern cells located in the hone marrow, therefore we hypothesized that if we could block adipocyte differentiation we might prevent bone loss in diabetic mice. Control and insulin-deficient diabetic BALB/c mice were chronically treated with a peroxisomal proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPAR gamma) antagonist, bisphenol-A-diglycidyl ether (BADGE), to block adipocyte differentiation. Effects on bone density, adiposity, and gene expression were measured. BADGE treatment did not prevent diabetes-associated hyperglycemia or weight loss, but did prevent diabetes-induced hyperlipidemia and effectively blocked diabetes type I-induced bone adiposity. Despite this, BADGE treatment did not prevent diabetes type I suppression of osteoblast markers (runx2 and osteocalcin) and bone loss (as determined by micro-computed tomography). BADGE did not suppress osteoblast gene expression or bone mineral density in control mice, however, chronic (but not acute) BADGE treatment did suppress osteocalcin expression in osteoblasts in vitro. Taken together, our findings suggest that BADGE treatment is an effective approach to reduce serum triglyceride and free fatty acid levels as well as bone adiposity associated with type I diabetes. The inability of BADGE treatment to prevent bone loss in diabetic mice Suggests that marrow adiposity is not linked to bone density status in type I diabetes, but we cannot exclude the possibility of additional BADGE effects on osteoblasts or other bone cells, which could contribute to preventing the rescue of the bone phenotype.

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