Advertisement

Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology

, Volume 15, Issue 5, pp 1091–1100 | Cite as

A threshold of mechanical strain intensity for the direct activation of osteoblast function exists in a murine maxilla loading model

  • Natsuki Suzuki
  • Kazuhiro Aoki
  • Petr Marcián
  • Libor Borák
  • Noriyuki Wakabayashi
Original Paper

Abstract

The response to the mechanical loading of bone tissue has been extensively investigated; however, precisely how much strain intensity is necessary to promote bone formation remains unclear. Combination studies utilizing histomorphometric and numerical analyses were performed using the established murine maxilla loading model to clarify the threshold of mechanical strain needed to accelerate bone formation activity. For 7 days, 191 kPa loading stimulation for 30 min/day was applied to C57BL/6J mice. Two regions of interest, the AWAY region (away from the loading site) and the NEAR region (near the loading site), were determined. The inflammatory score increased in the NEAR region, but not in the AWAY region. A strain intensity map obtained from \(\upmu \hbox {CT}\) images was superimposed onto the images of the bone formation inhibitor, sclerostin-positive cell localization. The number of sclerostin-positive cells significantly decreased after mechanical loading of more than \(150\,{\upmu }{\upvarepsilon }\) in the AWAY region, but not in the NEAR region. The mineral apposition rate, which shows the bone formation ability of osteoblasts, was accelerated at the site of surface strain intensity, namely around \(170\,{\upmu }{\upvarepsilon }\), but not at the site of lower surface strain intensity, which was around \(80\,{\upmu }{\upvarepsilon }\) in the AWAY region, thus suggesting the existence of a strain intensity threshold for promoting bone formation. Taken together, our data suggest that a threshold of mechanical strain intensity for the direct activation of osteoblast function and the reduction of sclerostin exists in a murine maxilla loading model in the non-inflammatory region.

Keywords

Mechanical strain intensity Murine maxilla Bone formation Inflammation Sclerostin Numerical analyses 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. Kengo Fujiki for valuable advice in setting up the maxilla loading model. We also thank Dr. Hiroshi Kajiya and Dr. Koji Okabe (Fukuoka Dental College, Fukuoka, Japan) for performing experiments using the TNF-\(\upalpha \)-deficient mice. This work was supported by JSPS grants from KAKENHI to K.A. (Nos. 23659867 and 25293377) and N.W. (No. 24592902). The co-authors affiliated with Brno University of Technology were funded by project FSI-S-14-2344 and NETME CENTRE PLUS (LO1202) created with financial support from the Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sports of the Czech Republic under the “National Sustainability Programme I.” The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

No competing financial interests exist.

References

  1. Abu-Amer Y, Ross FP, Edwards J, Teitelbaum SL (1997) Lipopolysaccharide-stimulated osteoclastogenesis is mediated by tumor necrosis factor via its P55 receptor. J Clin Invest 100:1557–1565. doi: 10.1172/jci119679 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adachi T, Sato K, Tomita Y (2003) Directional dependence of osteoblastic calcium response to mechanical stimuli. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 2:73–82. doi: 10.1007/s10237-003-0029-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aoki K et al (2006) A TNF receptor loop peptide mimic blocks RANK ligand-induced signaling, bone resorption, and bone loss. J Clin Invest 116:1525–1534. doi: 10.1172/jci22513 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Azuma Y, Kaji K, Katogi R, Takeshita S, Kudo A (2000) Tumor necrosis factor-alpha induces differentiation of and bone resorption by osteoclasts. J Biol Chem 275:4858–4864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baek K et al (2014) TNF-alpha upregulates sclerostin expression in obese mice fed a high-fat diet. J Cell Physiol 229:640–650. doi: 10.1002/jcp.24487 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Birch MJ, Srodon PD (2009) Biomechanical properties of the human soft palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 46:268–274. doi: 10.1597/08-012.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonewald LF (2011) The amazing osteocyte. J Bone Miner Res 26:229–238. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.320 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brunski JB (1999) In vivo bone response to biomechanical loading at the bone/dental-implant interface. Adv Dent Res 13:99–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen J, Ahmad R, Suenaga H, Li W, Swain M, Li Q (2015) A comparative study on complete and implant retained denture treatments—a biomechanics perspective. J Biomech 48:512–519. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.11.043 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Compton JT, Lee FY (2014) A review of osteocyte function and the emerging importance of sclerostin. J Bone Joint Surg Am 96:1659–1668. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.M.01096 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dempster DW et al (2013) Standardized nomenclature, symbols, and units for bone histomorphometry: a 2012 update of the report of the ASBMR Histomorphometry Nomenclature Committee. J Bone Miner Res 28:2–17. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.1805 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Field C, Li Q, Li W, Thompson M, Swain M (2010) Prediction of mandibular bone remodelling induced by fixed partial dentures. J Biomech 43:1771–1779. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2010.02.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frost HM (1987) The mechanostat: a proposed pathogenic mechanism of osteoporoses and the bone mass effects of mechanical and nonmechanical agents. Bone Miner 2:73–85Google Scholar
  14. Frost HM (2003) Bone’s mechanostat: a 2003 update. Anat Rec A Discov Mol Cell Evol Biol 275:1081–1101. doi: 10.1002/ar.a.10119 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fujiki K et al (2013) The influence of mechanical stimulation on osteoclast localization in the mouse maxilla: bone histomorphometry and finite element analysis. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 12:325–333. doi: 10.1007/s10237-012-0401-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Galea GL, Sunters A, Meakin LB, Zaman G, Sugiyama T, Lanyon LE, Price JS (2011) Sost down-regulation by mechanical strain in human osteoblastic cells involves PGE2 signaling via EP4. FEBS Lett 585:2450–2454. doi: 10.1016/j.febslet.2011.06.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huang H, Zhao N, Xu X, Xu Y, Li S, Zhang J, Yang P (2011) Dose-specific effects of tumor necrosis factor alpha on osteogenic differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells. Cell Prolif 44:420–427. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2184.2011.00769.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ikeda K, Takeshita S (2014) Factors and mechanisms involved in the coupling from bone resorption to formation: how osteoclasts talk to osteoblasts. J Bone Metab 21:163–167. doi: 10.11005/jbm.2014.21.3.163 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kawamoto T (2003) Use of a new adhesive film for the preparation of multi-purpose fresh-frozen sections from hard tissues, whole-animals, insects and plants. Arch Histol Cytol 66:123–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kim BJ et al (2012) TNF-alpha mediates the stimulation of sclerostin expression in an estrogen-deficient condition. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 424:170–175. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2012.06.100 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kobayashi Y et al (2000) Force-induced osteoclast apoptosis in vivo is accompanied by elevation in transforming growth factor beta and osteoprotegerin expression. J Bone Miner Res 15:1924–1934. doi: 10.1359/jbmr.2000.15.10.1924 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kotake S, Nanke Y (2014) Effect of TNFalpha on osteoblastogenesis from mesenchymal stem cells. Biochim Biophys Acta 1840:1209–1213. doi: 10.1016/j.bbagen.2013.12.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lanyon L (2008) Strain-related control of bone (re)modeling: objectives, mechanisms and failures. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact 8:298–300Google Scholar
  24. Matsuo K, Otaki N (2012) Bone cell interactions through Eph/ephrin: bone modeling, remodeling and associated diseases. Cell Adhes Migr 6:148–156. doi: 10.4161/cam.20888 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Memari Y, Geramy A, Fayaz A, Rezvani Habib Abadi S, Mansouri Y (2014) Influence of implant position on stress distribution in implant-assisted distal extension removable partial dentures: a 3D finite element analysis. J Dent (Tehran) 11:523–530Google Scholar
  26. Moustafa A, Sugiyama T, Prasad J, Zaman G, Gross TS, Lanyon LE, Price JS (2012) Mechanical loading-related changes in osteocyte sclerostin expression in mice are more closely associated with the subsequent osteogenic response than the peak strains engendered. Osteoporos Int 23:1225–1234. doi: 10.1007/s00198-011-1656-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nagano K et al (2011) The tumor necrosis factor type 2 receptor plays a protective role in tumor necrosis factor-alpha-induced bone resorption lacunae on mouse calvariae. J Bone Miner Metab 29:671–681. doi: 10.1007/s00774-011-0270-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nickel JC, True LD, Krieger JN, Berger RE, Boag AH, Young ID (2001) Consensus development of a histopathological classification system for chronic prostatic inflammation. BJU Int 87:797–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Robling AG, Turner CH (2009) Mechanical signaling for bone modeling and remodeling. Crit Rev Eukaryot Gene Expr 19:319–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Saito H et al (2007) A tumor necrosis factor receptor loop peptide mimic inhibits bone destruction to the same extent as anti-tumor necrosis factor monoclonal antibody in murine collagen-induced arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 56:1164–1174. doi: 10.1002/art.22495 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sapir-Koren R, Livshits G (2014) Osteocyte control of bone remodeling: is sclerostin a key molecular coordinator of the balanced bone resorption-formation cycles? Osteoporos Int 25:2685–2700. doi: 10.1007/s00198-014-2808-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schaffler MB, Cheung WY, Majeska R, Kennedy O (2014) Osteocytes: master orchestrators of bone. Calcif Tissue Int 94:5–24. doi: 10.1007/s00223-013-9790-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shefelbine SJ et al (2005) Prediction of fracture callus mechanical properties using micro-CT images and voxel-based finite element analysis. Bone 36:480–488. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2004.11.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Suenaga H, Chen J, Yamaguchi K, Li W, Sasaki K, Swain M, Li Q (2015) Mechanobiological bone reaction quantified by positron emission tomography. J Dent Res 94:738–744. doi: 10.1177/0022034515573271 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Varga P et al (2015) Synchrotron X-ray phase nano-tomography-based analysis of the lacunar-canalicular network morphology and its relation to the strains experienced by osteocytes in situ as predicted by case-specific finite element analysis. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 14:267–282. doi: 10.1007/s10237-014-0601-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wang H, Ji B, Liu XS, van Oers RF, Guo XE, Huang Y, Hwang KC (2014) Osteocyte-viability-based simulations of trabecular bone loss and recovery in disuse and reloading. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 13:153–166. doi: 10.1007/s10237-013-0492-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Watabe H, Furuhama T, Tani-Ishii N, Mikuni-Takagaki Y (2011) Mechanotransduction activates alpha(5)beta(1) integrin and PI3K/Akt signaling pathways in mandibular osteoblasts. Exp Cell Res 317:2642–2649. doi: 10.1016/j.yexcr.2011.07.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wright PS, Glantz PO, Randow K, Watson RM (2002) The effects of fixed and removable implant-stabilised prostheses on posterior mandibular residual ridge resorption. Clin Oral Implants Res 13:169–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Masticatory Function Rehabilitation (Removable Partial Prosthodontics), Graduate School of Medical and Dental SciencesTokyo Medical and Dental UniversityTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Department of Bio-Matrix (Pharmacology), Graduate School of Medical and Dental SciencesTokyo Medical and Dental UniversityTokyoJapan
  3. 3.Institute of Solid Mechanics, Mechatronics and Biomechanics, Faculty of Mechanical EngineeringBrno University of TechnologyBrnoCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations