Mineralization kinetics in murine trabecular bone quantified by time-lapsed in vivo micro-computed tomography.

Trabecular bone is a highly dynamic tissue due to bone remodeling, mineralization and demineralization. The mineral content and its spatial heterogeneity are main contributors to bone quality. Using time-lapsed in vivo micro-computed tomography (micro-CT), it is now possible to resolve in three dimensions where bone gets resorbed and deposited over several weeks. In addition, the gray values in the micro-CT images contain quantitative information about the local tissue mineral density (TMD). The aim of this study was to measure how TMD increases with time after new bone formation and how this mineralization kinetics is influenced by mechanical stimulation. Our analysis of changes in TMD was based on an already reported experiment on 15-week-old female mice (C57BL/6), where in one group the sixth caudal vertebra was mechanically loaded with 8N, while in the control group no loading was applied. Comparison of two consecutive images allows the categorization of bone into newly formed, resorbed, and quiescent bone for different time points. Gray values of bone in these categories were compared layer-wise to minimize the effects of beam hardening artifacts. Quiescent bone in the control group was found to mineralize with a rate of 8 ± 1 mgHA/cm(3) per week, which is about half as fast as observed for newly formed bone. Mechanical loading increased the rate of mineral incorporation by 63% in quiescent bone. The week before bone resorption, demineralization could be observed with a drop of TMD by 36 ± 4 mgHA/cm(3) in the control and 34 ± 3 mgHA/cm(3) in the loaded group. In conclusion, this study shows how time-lapsed in vivo micro-CT can be used to assess changes in TMD of bone with high spatial and temporal resolution. This will allow a quantification of how bone diseases and pharmaceutical interventions influence not only microarchitecture of trabecular bone, but also its material quality.

[1]  Ralph Müller,et al.  Quantitative micro-computed tomography: a non-invasive method to assess equivalent bone mineral density. , 2008, Bone.

[2]  S. Teitelbaum,et al.  Genetic regulation of osteoclast development and function , 2003, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[3]  P. Delmas,et al.  Bone quality--the material and structural basis of bone strength and fragility. , 2006, The New England journal of medicine.

[4]  P. Fratzl,et al.  The bone mineralization density distribution as a fingerprint of the mineralization process. , 2007, Bone.

[5]  B. Hallgrímsson,et al.  Timing of growth hormone treatment affects trabecular bone microarchitecture and mineralization in growth hormone deficient mice. , 2010, Bone.

[6]  M. Jergas,et al.  Accurate assessment of precision errors: How to measure the reproducibility of bone densitometry techniques , 2005, Osteoporosis International.

[7]  J. H. Koolstra,et al.  Architecture and mineralization of developing trabecular bone in the pig mandibular condyle. , 2005, The anatomical record. Part A, Discoveries in molecular, cellular, and evolutionary biology.

[8]  Ralph Müller,et al.  Guidelines for assessment of bone microstructure in rodents using micro–computed tomography , 2010, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[9]  I. Kola,et al.  Cathepsin K Knockout Mice Develop Osteopetrosis Due to a Deficit in Matrix Degradation but Not Demineralization , 1999, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[10]  Ralph Müller,et al.  A novel in vivo mouse model for mechanically stimulated bone adaptation – a combined experimental and computational validation study , 2008, Computer methods in biomechanics and biomedical engineering.

[11]  P. Fratzl,et al.  Validation of quantitative backscattered electron imaging for the measurement of mineral density distribution in human bone biopsies. , 1998, Bone.

[12]  Ralph Müller,et al.  Image interpolation allows accurate quantitative bone morphometry in registered micro-computed tomography scans , 2014, Computer methods in biomechanics and biomedical engineering.

[13]  S. Teitelbaum,et al.  Bone resorption by osteoclasts. , 2000, Science.

[14]  P. Meunier,et al.  Methodological considerations in measurement of bone mineral content , 2003, Osteoporosis International.

[15]  A Staines,et al.  Bone adaptation to load: microdamage as a stimulus for bone remodelling , 2002, Journal of anatomy.

[16]  P. Fratzl,et al.  Bone mineralization density distribution in health and disease. , 2008, Bone.

[17]  Ara Nazarian,et al.  Specimen size and porosity can introduce error into microCT-based tissue mineral density measurements. , 2009, Bone.

[18]  S. Teitelbaum,et al.  The osteoclast: friend or foe? , 2008, Annual review of pathology.

[19]  R. Müller,et al.  Mechanical loading of mouse caudal vertebrae increases trabecular and cortical bone mass-dependence on dose and genotype , 2010, Biomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology.

[20]  Ralph Müller,et al.  In vivo micro-computed tomography allows direct three-dimensional quantification of both bone formation and bone resorption parameters using time-lapsed imaging. , 2011, Bone.

[21]  S. Teitelbaum,et al.  Isolated osteoclasts resorb the organic and inorganic components of bone , 1986, The Journal of cell biology.

[22]  R. Fajardo,et al.  Further improvements on the factors affecting bone mineral density measured by quantitative micro-computed tomography. , 2012, Bone.

[23]  J. Dunlop,et al.  Trabecular bone remodelling simulated by a stochastic exchange of discrete bone packets from the surface. , 2011, Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials.

[24]  P. Fratzl,et al.  Constant mineralization density distribution in cancellous human bone. , 2003, Bone.

[25]  Ralph Müller,et al.  Automated compartmental analysis for high-throughput skeletal phenotyping in femora of genetic mouse models. , 2007, Bone.

[26]  Julia F. Barrett,et al.  Artifacts in CT: recognition and avoidance. , 2004, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[27]  S. Majumdar,et al.  Quantitative Assessment of Bone Tissue Mineralization with Polychromatic Micro-Computed Tomography , 2008, Calcified Tissue International.

[28]  Harrie Weinans,et al.  An Improved Segmentation Method for In Vivo μCT Imaging , 2004 .

[29]  Richard Weinkamer,et al.  Effect of Temporal Changes in Bone Turnover on the Bone Mineralization Density Distribution: A Computer Simulation Study , 2008, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[30]  P. Fratzl,et al.  The Heterogeneous Mineral Content of Bone—Using Stochastic Arguments and Simulations to Overcome Experimental Limitations , 2011 .

[31]  J. W. C. Dunlop,et al.  New Suggestions for the Mechanical Control of Bone Remodeling , 2009, Calcified Tissue International.

[32]  R. Müller,et al.  Compartmental Bone Morphometry in the Mouse Femur: Reproducibility and Resolution Dependence of Microtomographic Measurements , 2005, Calcified Tissue International.

[33]  P. Vargha,et al.  LETTER TO THE EDITOR A CRITICAL DISCUSSION OF INTRACLASS CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS by R. Müller and P. Büttner, Statistics in Medicine, 13, 2465–2476 (1995) , 1997 .

[34]  Ralph Müller,et al.  Mouse tail vertebrae adapt to cyclic mechanical loading by increasing bone formation rate and decreasing bone resorption rate as shown by time-lapsed in vivo imaging of dynamic bone morphometry. , 2011, Bone.