Calcified Tissue International

, Volume 77, Issue 5, pp 281–290 | Cite as

Compartmental Bone Morphometry in the Mouse Femur: Reproducibility and Resolution Dependence of Microtomographic Measurements

  • T. Kohler
  • M. Beyeler
  • D. Webster
  • R. MüllerEmail author
Clinical Investigations


Microcomputed tomography (μCT) is widely used for nondestructive bone phenotyping in small animals, especially in the mouse. Here, we investigated the reproducibility and resolution dependence of μCT analysis of microstructural parameters in three different compartments in the mouse femur. Reproducibility was assessed with respect to precision error (PE%CV) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). We examined 14 left femurs isolated postmortem from two strains of mice (seven per group). Measurements and analyses were repeated five times on different days. In a second step, analysis was repeated again five times for a single measurement. Resolution dependence was assessed by high-resolution measurements (10 μm) in one strain and subsequent image degrading. Reproducibility was better in full bone compartment and in cortical bone compartment in the diaphysis (PE%CV = 0.06–2.16%) than in trabecular compartment in the distal metaphysis (PE%CV = 0.59–5.24%). Nevertheless, ICC (0.92–1.00) showed a very high reliability of the assessed parameters in all regions, indicating very small variances within repeated measurements compared to the population variances. Morphometric indices computed from lower- and higher-resolution images displayed in general only weak dependence and were highly correlated with each other (R 2 = 0.91–0.99). The results show that parameters in the full and cortical compartments were very reproducible, whereas precision in the trabecular compartment was somewhat lower. Nevertheless, all compartmental analysis methods were very robust, as shown by the high ICC values, demonstrating high suitability for application in inbred strains, where highest precision is needed due to small population variances.


Microcomputed tomography (μCT) Inbred mouse strain Bone density Bone architecture/structure Reproducibility Resolution dependence 



This study was supported by the SNF Professorship in Bioengineering of the Swiss National Science Foundation (FP 620-58097.99). The authors thank Dr. Itai Bab for providing the mice and Christoph Buser from the Seminar for Statistics (ETH Zürich) for the helpful discussions on statistics.


  1. 1.
    Silver LM (1995) Mouse genetics. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rüegsegger P, Koller B, Müller R (1996) A microtomographic system for the nondestructive evaluation of bone architecture. Calcif Tissue Int 58:24–29PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Müller R, Rüegsegger P (1997) Microtomographic imaging for the nondestructive evaluation of trabecular bone architecture. Stud Health Technol Inform 40:61–79PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eckstein F, Lochmüller EM, Koller B, Wehr U, Weusten A, Rambeck W, Hoeflich A, Wolf E (2002) Body composition, bone mass and microstructural analysis in GH-transgenic mice reveals that skeletal changes are specific to bone compartment and gender. Growth Horm IGF Res 12:116–125PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Müller R (2003) Bone microarchitecture assessment: current and future trends. Osteoporos Int 14(suppl 5):89–99PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Borah B, Dufresne TE, Chmielewski PA, Johnson TD, Chines A, Manhart MD (2004) Risedronate preserves bone architecture in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis as measured by three-dimensional microcomputed tomography. Bone 34:736–746CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ito M, Nishida A, Nakamura T, Uetani M, Hayashi K (2002) Differences of three-dimensional trabecular microstructure in osteopenic rat models caused by ovariectomy and neurectomy. Bone 30:594–598CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Müller R, Van Campenhout H, Van Damme B, Van Der Perre G, Dequeker J, Hildebrand T, Rüegsegger P (1998) Morphometric analysis of human bone biopsies: a quantitative structural comparison of histological sections and microcomputed tomography. Bone 23:59–66PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kapadia RD, Stroup GB, Badger AM, Koller B, Levin JM, Coatney RW, Dodds RA, Liang X, Lark MW, Gowen M (1998) Applications of microCT and MR microscopy to study pre-clinical models of osteoporosis and osteoarthritis. Technol Health Care 6:361–372PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Balto K, Muller R, Carrington DC, Dobeck J, Stashenko P (2000) Quantification of periapical bone destruction in mice by microcomputed tomography. J Dent Res 79:35–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Alexander JM, Bab I, Fish S, Müller R, Uchiyama T, Gronowicz G, Nahounou M, Zhao Q, White DW, Chorev M, Gazit D, Rosenblatt M (2001) Human parathyroid hormone 1-34 reverses bone loss in ovariectomized mice. J Bone Miner Res 16:1665–1673PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schmidt C, Priemel M, Kohler T, Weusten A, Müller R, Amling M, Eckstein F (2003) Precision and accuracy of peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT) in the mouse skeleton compared with histology and microcomputed tomography (microCT). J Bone Miner Res 18:1486–1496PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lochmüller EM, Jung V, Weusten A, Wehr U, Wolf E, Eckstein F (2001) Precision of high-resolution dual energy X-ray absorptiometry of bone mineral status and body composition in small animal models. Eur Cell Mater 1:43–51PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Henzell S, Dhaliwal S, Pontifex R, Gill F, Price R, Retallack R, Prince R (2000) Precision error of fan-beam dual X-ray absorptiometry scans at the spine, hip, and forearm. J Clin Densitom 3:359–364CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Iida-Klein A, Lu SS, Yokoyama K, Dempster DW, Nieves JW, Lindsay R (2003) Precision, accuracy, and reproducibility of dual X-ray absorptiometry measurements in mice in vivo. J Clin Densitom 6:25–33CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leong KH (1997) Ultrasound of the tibia – precision error, left versus right sides and correlation with bone mineral density. Ann Acad Med Singapore 26:747–749PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Giraudeau B, Gomez MA, Defontaine M (2003) Assessing the reproducibility of quantitative ultrasound parameters with standardized coefficient of variation or intraclass correlation coefficient: a unique approach. Osteoporos Int 14:614–615CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Newitt DC, van Rietbergen B, Majumdar S (2002) Processing and analysis of in vivo high-resolution MR images of trabecular bone for longitudinal studies: reproducibility of structural measures and microfinite element analysis derived mechanical properties. Osteoporos Int 13:278–287CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Laib A, Newitt DC, Lu Y, Majumdar S (2002) New model-independent measures of trabecular bone structure applied to in vivo high-resolution MR images. Osteoporos Int 13:130–136CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gomberg BR, Wehrli FW, Vasilic B, Weening RH, Saha PK, Song HK, Wright AC (2004) Reproducibility and error sources of microMRI-based trabecular bone structural parameters of the distal radius and tibia. Bone 35:266–276CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kubo H, Harada M, Sakama M, Nishitani H (2003) Reproducibility of metabolite concentration evaluated by intraclass correlation coefficient using clinical MR apparatus. J Comput Assist Tomogr 27:449–453CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Müller R, Hildebrand T, Hauselmann HJ, Rüegsegger P (1996) In vivo reproducibility of three-dimensional structural properties of noninvasive bone biopsies using 3D-pQCT. J Bone Miner Res 11:1745–1750PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gluer CC, Blake G, Lu Y, Blunt BA, Jergas M, Genant HK (1995) Accurate assessment of precision errors: how to measure the reproducibility of bone densitometry techniques. Osteoporos Int 5:262–270PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shrout PE (1979) Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 86:420–428Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Judex S, Garman R, Squire M, Donahue LR, Rubin C (2004) Genetically based influences on the site-specific regulation of trabecular and cortical bone morphology. J Bone Miner Res 19:600–606PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Beamer WG, Donahue LR, Rosen CJ, Baylink DJ (1996) Genetic variability in adult bone density among inbred strains of mice. Bone 18:397–403CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rüegsegger P, Münch B, Felder M (1993) Early detection of osteoarthritis by 3D computed tomography. Technol Health Care 1:53–66Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hildebrand T, Laib A, Müller R, Dequeker J, Rüegsegger P (1999) Direct three-dimensional morphometric analysis of human cancellous bone: microstructural data from spine, femur, iliac crest, and calcaneus. J Bone Miner Res 14:1167–1174PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bonnick SL (2004) Bone densitometry in clinical practice, 2nd ed. Humana Press, Totowa, NJGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vargha P (1997) A critical discussion of intraclass correlation coefficients. Stat Med 16:821–823CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kim DG, Christopherson GT, Dong XN, Fyhrie DP, Yeni YN (2004) The effect of microcomputed tomography scanning and reconstruction voxel size on the accuracy of stereological measurements in human cancellous bone. Bone 35:1375–1382CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chappard D, Retailleau-Gaborit N, Legrand E, Basle MF, Audran M (2005) Comparison insight bone measurements by histomorphometry and muCT. J Bone Miner Res 20:1177–1184PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Biomedical EngineeringSwiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) and University of ZürichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations