2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.bone.2016.02.007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Transcriptional profiling of cortical versus cancellous bone from mechanically-loaded murine tibiae reveals differential gene expression

Abstract: Mechanical loading is an anabolic stimulus that increases bone mass, and thus a promising method to counteract osteoporosis-related bone loss. The mechanism of this anabolism remains unclear, and needs to be established for both cortical and cancellous envelopes individually. We hypothesized that cortical and cancellous bone display different gene expression profiles at baseline and in response to mechanical loading. To test this hypothesis, the left tibiae of 10-week-old female C57Bl/6 mice were subjected to … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

12
77
2

Year Published

2016
2016
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 62 publications
(91 citation statements)
references
References 58 publications
12
77
2
Order By: Relevance
“…5 E ). These findings are consistent with Kelly and colleagues, (46) who performed RNA-Seq on tibias of 10-week-old mice after one bout of tibial compression. They reported increased Wnt1 expression in cortical bone at 3 hours (6.2-fold) and 24 hours (6.1-fold) after loading, and increased Wnt7b (3.2-fold) at 3 hours.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…5 E ). These findings are consistent with Kelly and colleagues, (46) who performed RNA-Seq on tibias of 10-week-old mice after one bout of tibial compression. They reported increased Wnt1 expression in cortical bone at 3 hours (6.2-fold) and 24 hours (6.1-fold) after loading, and increased Wnt7b (3.2-fold) at 3 hours.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…First, we did not find a significant change in Wnt10b expression after one bout of loading, whereas others have reported increased Wnt10b at 3 to 4 hours and 24 hours after loading. (45,46) One possible reason for the difference is that we used a less stimulating protocol. We applied 7 to 8 N peak force to engender −2200 με peak compressive strain at the diaphyseal site of interest, a protocol we have shown stimulates lamellar bone formation with little to no woven bone.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Differences between the studies, potentially due to differences in the loading protocols used and time points assayed, include differences in the Wnt ligands found to be regulated by loading. Holguin et al (2016) did not observe changes in the canonical Wnt ligand Wnt10b within the first day following loading, whereas enhanced Wnt10b levels were observed acutely following loading in the current study, as well as in previous studies (Johnson et al, 2006, Kelly et al, 2016). …”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 84%
“…This would further suggest that the load duration-related response could be strain magnitude dependent, with bone tissues that are subjected to lower peak strains reaching a load duration saturation at fewer load cycles than tissues subjected to greater strain magnitudes. It is also possible that the cellular mechanisms of the cancellous and cortical bone tissues’ responses to mechanical loading could be different [38] due to differences in their biological microenvironment [39, 40]. Another possibility is that longer loading durations (e.g.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%