4.6 Article

Bone brittleness varies with genetic background in A/J and C57BL/6J inbred mice

期刊

JOURNAL OF BONE AND MINERAL RESEARCH
卷 16, 期 10, 页码 1854-1862

出版社

AMER SOC BONE & MINERAL RES
DOI: 10.1359/jbmr.2001.16.10.1854

关键词

genetics; bone biomechanics; skeletal fragility; inbred mice; bone density; bone quality

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [RR12305] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIAMS NIH HHS [AR44927] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The contribution of genetic and environmental factors to variations in bone quality are understood poorly. We tested whether bone brittleness varies with genetic background using the A/J and C57BL/6J inbred Mouse strains. Whole bone four-point bending tests revealed a 70% decrease in postyield deflection of A/J femurs compared with C57BL/6J, indicating that A/J femurs failed in a significantly more brittle manner. Cyclic loading studies indicated that A/J femurs accumulated damage differently than C57BL/6J femurs, consistent with their increased brittleness. Differences in matrix composition also were observed between the two mouse strains. A/J femurs had a 4.5% increase in ash content and an 11.8% decrease in collagen content. Interestingly, a reciprocal relationship was observed between femoral geometry and material stiffness; this relationship may have contributed to the brittle phenotype of A/J femurs. A/J femurs are more slender than those of C57BL/6J femurs; however, their 47% smaller moment of inertia appeared to be compensated by an increased tissue stiffness at the expense of altered tissue damageability. Importantly, these differences in whole bone mechanical properties between A/J and C57BL/6J femurs could not have been predicted from bone mass or density measures alone. The results indicated that bone brittleness is a genetically influenced trait and that it is associated with genetically determined differences in whole bone architecture, bone matrix composition, and mechanisms of cyclical damage accumulation.

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