Mechanostat parameters estimated from time-lapsedin vivomicro-computed tomography data of mechanically driven bone adaptation are logarithmically dependent on loading frequency

Abstract

Mechanical loading is a key factor governing bone remodeling and adaptation. Both preclinical and clinical studies have demonstrated its effects on bone tissue, which were also notably predicted in the mechanostat theory. Indeed, existing methods to quantify bone mechanoregulation have successfully associated the frequency of remodeling events with local mechanical signals, combining time-lapsed in vivo micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) imaging and micro-finite element (micro-FE) analysis. However, a correlation between the local surface velocity of remodeling events and mechanical signals has not been shown. As many degenerative bone diseases have also been linked to impaired bone remodeling, this relationship could provide an advantage in detecting the effects of such conditions and advance our understanding of the underlying mechanisms. Therefore, in this study, we introduce a novel method to estimate remodeling velocity (RmV) curves from time-lapsed in vivo mouse caudal vertebrae data under static and cyclic mechanical loading. These curves can be fitted with piecewise linear functions as proposed in the mechanostat theory. Accordingly, new remodeling parameters can be derived from such data, including formation saturation levels (FSL), resorption velocity modulus (RVM), and remodeling thresholds (RmT). Our results revealed that the norm of the gradient of strain energy density (gradSED) yielded the highest accuracy to quantify mechanoregulation data using micro-FE analysis with homogeneous material properties, while effective strain was the best predictor for micro-FE analysis with heterogeneous material properties. Furthermore, RmV curves could be accurately described with piecewise linear and hyperbola functions (root mean square error below 0.2 um/day for weekly analysis) and several remodeling parameters determined from these curves followed a logarithmic relationship with loading frequency, especially FSL and RmT values for both weekly and four-weekly analysis. Crucially, RmV curves and derived parameters could detect differences in mechanically driven bone adaptation, which complemented previous results showing a logarithmic relationship between loading frequency and net change in bone volume fraction over four weeks. Together, we expect this data to support the calibration of in silico models of bone adaptation and the characterization of the effects of mechanical loading and pharmaceutical treatment interventions in vivo.

Trabecular bone remodeling in the ageing mouse: a micro-multiphysics agent-basedin silicomodel using single-cell mechanomics

“…The trabecular region was automatically obtained for each sample as described previously (C. Marques et al 2023) comprising a lattice of up to 200x200x300 voxels of the same resolution of in vivo data, hence 12 million voxels. In a first step, the greatest connected component (GCC) of the vertebra was defined.…”

Tetrapod terrestrialisation: a weight-bearing potential already present in the humerus of the stem-tetrapod fishEusthenopteron foordi

“…data 24) identified in previous studies as marrow processes (15,18). The theory of “bone’s mechanostat” proposed by Frost (96,97) suggests that bone mass tends to increase in overloaded regions and decrease in low strained regions through remodelling to minimise the strain energy (98). Because the “plain” and “isotropic cancellous” models artificially comprise a homogeneous bone filled in with a large mass of mineralised material, they artificially absorb more energy, thereby restraining the diffusion of the stress within the bone.…”

3D-bioprinted patient-specific organotypic bone model mimicking mineralization dysregulation inFKBP10-related osteogenesis imperfecta

“…AUC for tissue formation was computed based on formation associated effective strain and effective strain on the scaffold surface, resulting in a value between 0.5 and 1, indicating the level of mechanoregulation present in tissue formation (64,65). Similarly, CCR was calculated, indicating the level of overall mechanoregulation, also a value between 0.5 and 1 (66,67). For both AUC and CCR, a value of 0.5 indicates no dependency of formation on the mechanical environment, while a value of 1 indicates formation is completely controlled by the mechanical environment.…”