4.6 Article

Noninvasive loading of the murine tibia: An in vivo model for the study of mechanotransduction

期刊

JOURNAL OF BONE AND MINERAL RESEARCH
卷 17, 期 3, 页码 493-501

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1359/jbmr.2002.17.3.493

关键词

mice; mechanical loading; mechanotransduction; bone formation; insulin-like growth factor 1

资金

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ARTHRITIS AND MUSCULOSKELETAL AND SKIN DISEASES [R01AR048102] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NIAMS NIH HHS [AR48102, R01 AR048102] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Transgenic and knockout mice present a unique opportunity to study mechanotransduction pathways in vivo, but the difficulty inherent with applying externally controlled loads to the small mouse skeleton has hampered this approach. We have developed a novel device that enables the noninvasive application of controlled mechanical loads to the murine tibia. Calibration of tissue strains induced by the device indicated that the normal strain environment was repeatable across loading bouts. Two in vivo studies were performed to show the usefulness of the device. Using C57Bl/6J mice, we found that dynamic but not static loading increased cortical bone area. This result is consistent with previous models of bone adaptation, and the lack of adaptation induced by static loading serves as a negative control for the device. In a preliminary study, transgenic mice selectively overexpressing insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) in osteoblasts underwent a low-magnitude loading regimen. Periosteal bone formation was elevated 5-fold in the IGF-1-overexpressing mice but was not elevated in wild-type littermates, showing the potential for synergism between mechanical loading and selected factors. Based on these data, we anticipate that the murine tibia-loading device will enhance assessment of mechanotransduction pathways in vivo and, as a result, has the potential to facilitate novel gene discovery and optimization of synergies between drug therapies and mechanical loading.

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