Calcified Tissue International

, Volume 83, Issue 1, pp 61–69 | Cite as

Differential Effects of Bone Structural and Material Properties on Bone Competence in C57BL/6 and C3H/He Inbred Strains of Mice

  • Romain Voide
  • G. Harry van Lenthe
  • Ralph MüllerEmail author


The femoral neck is a relevant and sensitive site for studying the degree of osteopenia. Engineering principles predict that bone structural parameters, like cross-sectional geometry, are important determinants of bone mechanical parameters. Mechanical parameters are also directly affected by the material properties of the bone tissue. However, the relative importance of structural and material properties is still unknown. The aim of this study was to compare bone competence and structural parameters between a murine strain showing a low bone mass phenotype, C57BL/6 (B6), and another one showing a high bone mass phenotype, C3H/He (C3H), in order to better determine the role of bone structure and geometry in bone failure behavior. Murine femora of 12- and 16-week-old B6 and 12- and 16-week-old C3H inbred strains were mechanically tested under axial loading of the femoral head. In order to assess the structural properties, we performed three-dimensional morphometric analyses in five different compartments of the mouse femur using micro-computed tomography. The mechanical tests revealed that B6 femora became stiffer, stronger, and tougher at 12–16 weeks, while bone brittleness stayed constant. C3H bone stiffness increased, but strength remained constant, work to failure decreased, and bone became more brittle. These age effects indicated that B6 did not reach peak bone properties at 16 weeks of age and C3H did reach maximal skeletal biomechanical properties before 16 weeks of age. Our investigations showed that 83% of the strength of the femoral neck in the B6 strain was explained by cortical thickness at this location; in contrast, in C3H none of the mechanical properties of the femoral neck was explained by bone structural parameters. The relative contributions of bone structural and material properties on bone strength are different in B6 and C3H. We hypothesize that these different contributions are related to differences at the ultrastructural level of bone that affect bone failure.


Inbred strain Biomechanics Bone strength Bone structure Bone quality 



This work was supported through ETH Intramural Funding (TH 00124/41-2631.5) and the Swiss National Science Foundation (FP 620-58097.99, PP-104317/1). We thank Paul Lüthi for indispensable help with our loading device.


  1. 1.
    WHO (1999) Osteoporosis: both health organizations and individuals must act now to avoid an impending epidemic. Press Release WHO/58.
  2. 2.
    Chevalley T, Rizzoli R, Nydegger V, Slosman D, Tkatch L, Rapin CH, Vasey H, Bonjour JP (1991) Preferential low bone mineral density of the femoral neck in patients with a recent fracture of the proximal femur. Osteoporos Int 1:147–154PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cummings SR, Nevitt MC, Browner WS, Stone K, Fox KM, Ensrud KE, Cauley J, Black D, Vogt TM (1995) Risk factors for hip fracture in white women. Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. N Engl J Med 332:767–773PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Duboeuf F, Hans D, Schott AM, Kotzki PO, Favier F, Marcelli C, Meunier PJ, Delmas PD (1997) Different morphometric and densitometric parameters predict cervical and trochanteric hip fracture: the EPIDOS Study. J Bone Miner Res 12:1895–1902PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Faulkner KG, Cummings SR, Nevitt MC, Pressman A, Jergas M, Genant HK (1995) Hip axis length and osteoporotic fractures. Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. J Bone Miner Res 10:506–508PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gnudi S, Ripamonti C, Gualtieri G, Malavolta N (1999) Geometry of proximal femur in the prediction of hip fracture in osteoporotic women. Br J Radiol 72:729–733PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cummings SR, Cauley JA, Palermo L, Ross PD, Wasnich RD, Black D, Faulkner KG (1994) Racial differences in hip axis lengths might explain racial differences in rates of hip fracture. Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. Osteoporos Int 4:226–229PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Faulkner KG, Cummings SR, Black D, Palermo L, Gluer CC, Genant HK (1993) Simple measurement of femoral geometry predicts hip fracture: the study of osteoporotic fractures. J Bone Miner Res 8:1211–1217PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Silver L (1995) Mouse genetics. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Peng Z, Tuukkanen J, Zhang H, Jamsa T, Vaananen HK (1994) The mechanical strength of bone in different rat models of experimental osteoporosis. Bone 15:523–532PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sogaard CH, Danielsen CC, Thorling EB, Mosekilde L (1994) Long-term exercise of young and adult female rats: effect on femoral neck biomechanical competence and bone structure. J Bone Miner Res 9:409–416PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Turner CH, Hsieh YF, Müller R, Bouxsein ML, Rosen CJ, McCrann ME, Donahue LR, Beamer WG (2001) Variation in bone biomechanical properties, microstructure, and density in BXH recombinant inbred mice. J Bone Miner Res 16:206–213PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Turner CH, Sun Q, Schriefer J, Pitner N, Price R, Bouxsein ML, Rosen CJ, Donahue LR, Shultz KL, Beamer WG (2003) Congenic mice reveal sex-specific genetic regulation of femoral structure and strength. Calcif Tissue Int 73:297–303PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Turner CH, Takano Y, Hirano T (1996) Reductions in bone strength after fluoride treatment are not reflected in tissue-level acoustic measurements. Bone 19:603–607PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tuukkanen J, Peng Z, Vaananen HK (1994) Effect of running exercise on the bone loss induced by orchidectomy in the rat. Calcif Tissue Int 55:33–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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 34:736–746PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Eckstein F, Lochmuller 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 12:116–125PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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 30:594–598PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Müller R (2003) Bone microarchitecture assessment: current and future trends. Osteoporos Int 14(Suppl 5):89–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Müller R, Rüegsegger P (1997) Micro-tomographic imaging for the nondestructive evaluation of trabecular bone architecture. Stud Health Technol Inform 40:61–79PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rüegsegger P, Koller B, Muller R (1996) A microtomographic system for the nondestructive evaluation of bone architecture. Calcif Tissue Int 58:24–29PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    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 16:1665–1673PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Balto K, Müller R, Carrington DC, Dobeck J, Stashenko P (2000) Quantification of periapical bone destruction in mice by micro-computed tomography. J Dent Res 79:35–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kapadia RD, Stroup GB, Badger AM, Koller B, Levin JM, Coatney RW, Dodds RA, Liang X, Lark MW, Gowen M (1998) Applications of micro-CT and MR microscopy to study pre-clinical models of osteoporosis and osteoarthritis. Technol Health Care 6:361–372PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    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 micro-computed tomography. Bone 23:59–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schmidt K, Schinke T, Haberland M, Priemel M, Schilling AF, Mueldner C, Rueger JM, Sock E, Wegner M, Amling M (2005) The high mobility group transcription factor Sox8 is a negative regulator of osteoblast differentiation. J Cell Biol 168:899–910PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jepsen KJ, Akkus OJ, Majeska RJ, Nadeau JH (2003) Hierarchical relationship between bone traits and mechanical properties in inbred mice. Mamm Genome 14:97–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tommasini SM, Morgan TG, van der Meulen M, Jepsen KJ (2005) Genetic variation in structure–function relationships for the inbred mouse lumbar vertebral body. J Bone Miner Res 20:817–827PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Turner CH, Hsieh YF, Müller R, Bouxsein ML, Baylink DJ, Rosen CJ, Grynpas MD, Donahue LR, Beamer WG (2000) Genetic regulation of cortical and trabecular bone strength and microstructure in inbred strains of mice. J Bone Miner Res 15:1126–1131PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Akhter MP, Cullen DM, Pedersen EA, Kimmel DB, Recker RR (1998) Bone response to in vivo mechanical loading in two breeds of mice. Calcif Tissue Int 63:442–449PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kodama Y, Umemura Y, Nagasawa S, Beamer WG, Donahue LR, Rosen CR, Baylink DJ, Farley JR (2000) Exercise and mechanical loading increase periosteal bone formation and whole bone strength in C57BL/6J mice but not in C3H/Hej mice. Calcif Tissue Int 66:298–306PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Beamer WG, Sen S, Churchill GA, Rosen CJ, Donahue LR, Shultz KL, Mytar J, Turner CH, Müller R, Uchiyama T, Bouxsein ML (2001) Genetic relationships among bone phenotypes regulated by sets of quantitative trait loci (QTL) in B6C3F2 mice. J Bone Miner Res 16:S197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ng AH, Wang SX, Turner CH, Beamer WG, Grynpas MD (2007) Bone quality and bone strength in BXH recombinant inbred mice. Calcif Tissue Int 81:215–223PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kohler T, Beyeler M, Webster D, Müller R (2005) Compartmental bone morphometry in the mouse femur: reproducibility and resolution dependence of microtomographic measurements. Calcif Tissue Int 77:281–290PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hildebrand T, Rüegsegger P (1997) A new method for the model-independent assessment of thickness in three-dimensional images. J Microsc 185:67–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rüegsegger P, Koller B, Müller R (1996) A microtomographic system for the nondestructive evaluation of bone architecture. Calcif Tissue Int 58:24–29PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    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 14:1167–1174PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Voide R, van Lenthe GH, Müller R (2008) Femoral stiffness and strength critically depend on loading angle—a parametric study in a mouse inbred strain. Biomed Tech. doi: 10.1515/BMT.2008.019
  39. 39.
    Brodt MD, Ellis CB, Silva MJ (1999) Growing C57Bl/6 mice increase whole bone mechanical properties by increasing geometric and material properties. J Bone Miner Res 14:2159–2166PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ferguson VL, Ayers RA, Bateman TA, Simske SJ (2003) Bone development and age-related bone loss in male C57BL/6J mice. Bone 33:387–398PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Boivin G, Meunier PJ (2003) The mineralization of bone tissue: a forgotten dimension in osteoporosis research. Osteoporos Int 14(Suppl 3):S19–S24PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Jepsen KJ (2003) The aging cortex: to crack or not to crack. Osteoporos Int 14(Suppl 5):57–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wang X, Shen X, Li X, Agrawal CM (2002) Age-related changes in the collagen network and toughness of bone. Bone 31:1–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Katz JL (1971) Hard tissue as a composite material. I. Bounds on the elastic behavior. J Biomech 4:455–473PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Jamsa T, Tuukkanen J, Jalovaara P (1998) Femoral neck strength of mouse in two loading configurations: method evaluation and fracture characteristics. J Biomech 31:723–729PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Cooper C (1993) The epidemiology of fragility fractures: is there a role for bone quality? Calcif Tissue Int 53(Suppl 1):S23–S26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Schnitzler CM (1993) Bone quality: a determinant for certain risk factors for bone fragility. Calcif Tissue Int 53(Suppl 1):S27–S31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wallach S, Feinblatt JD, Carstens JH Jr, Avioli LV (1992) The bone “quality” problem. Calcif Tissue Int 51:169–172PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Simmons ED Jr, Pritzker KP, Grynpas MD (1991) Age-related changes in the human femoral cortex. J Orthop Res 9:155–167PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Evans F (1976) Changes in mechanical properties and histology of human compact bone. ColombusGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Currey JD (1988) The effect of porosity and mineral content on the Young’s modulus of elasticity of compact bone. J Biomech 21:131–139PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Boskey AL, Wright TM, Blank RD (1999) Collagen and bone strength. J Bone Miner Res 14:330–335PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Burstein AH, Zika JM, Heiple KG, Klein L (1975) Contribution of collagen and mineral to the elastic-plastic properties of bone. J Bone Joint Surg Am 57:956–961PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Currey JD, Foreman J, Laketic I, Mitchell J, Pegg DE, Reilly GC (1997) Effects of ionizing radiation on the mechanical properties of human bone. J Orthop Res 15:111–117PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Zioupos P, Currey JD, Hamer AJ (1999) The role of collagen in the declining mechanical properties of aging human cortical bone. J Biomed Mater Res 45:108–116PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Sheng MH, Baylink DJ, Beamer WG, Donahue LR, Rosen CJ, Lau KH, Wergedal JE (1999) Histomorphometric studies show that bone formation and bone mineral apposition rates are greater in C3H/HeJ (high-density) than C57BL/6J (low-density) mice during growth. Bone 25:421–429PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Sheng MH, Lau KH, Beamer WG, Baylink DJ, Wergedal JE (2004) In vivo and in vitro evidence that the high osteoblastic activity in C3H/HeJ mice compared to C57BL/6J mice is intrinsic to bone cells. Bone 35:711–719PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Jepsen KJ, Schaffler MB, Kuhn JL, Goulet RW, Bonadio J, Goldstein SA (1997) Type I collagen mutation alters the strength and fatigue behavior of Mov13 cortical tissue. J Biomech 30:1141–1147PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Schaffler MB, Choi K, Milgrom C (1995) Aging and matrix microdamage accumulation in human compact bone. Bone 17:521–525PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Wergedal JE, Sheng MH, Ackert-Bicknell CL, Beamer WG, Baylink DJ (2005) Genetic variation in femur extrinsic strength in 29 different inbred strains of mice is dependent on variations in femur cross-sectional geometry and bone density. Bone 36:111–122PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Romain Voide
    • 1
  • G. Harry van Lenthe
    • 1
  • Ralph Müller
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Institute for Biomedical EngineeringUniversity and ETH ZürichZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Institute for BiomechanicsETH ZürichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations