4.6 Article

Age-related changes in the collagen network and toughness of bone

期刊

BONE
卷 31, 期 1, 页码 1-7

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S8756-3282(01)00697-4

关键词

bone; toughness; collagen; denaturation; crosslinks; aging

资金

  1. NIAMS NIH HHS [R03 AR46428] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The hypothesis of this study is that the mechanical integrity of the collagen network in bone deteriorates with age, and such adverse changes correlate with the decreased toughness of aged bone. To test the hypothesis, 30 human cadaveric femurs from donors ranging from 19 to 89 years of age were tested to determine the age-related changes in the mechanical properties of demineralized bone and fresh bone samples. Along with bone porosity, bone density, and weight fractions of the mineral and organic phases, collagen denaturation and concentrations of collagen cross-links (HP, hydroxylysylpyridinoline; LP, lysylpyridinoline; PE, pentosidine) were determined for these bone specimens as a function age. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that age-dependent changes were reflected in the decreased strength, work to fracture, and fracture toughness of bone; in the decreased strength, elastic modulus, and work to fracture of the collagen network; as well as in the increased concentration of pentosidine (a marker of nonenzymatic glycation) and increased bone porosity. Regression analyses of the measured parameters showed that the age-related decrease in work to fracture of bone (especially its postyield portion) correlated significantly with deterioration in the mechanical integrity of the collagen network. The results of this study indicate that the adverse changes in the collagen network occur as people age and such changes may lead to the decreased toughness of bone. Also, the results suggest that nonenzymatic glycation may be an important contributing factor causing changes in collagen and, consequently, leading to the age-related deterioration of bone quality.

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

4.6
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