Current Osteoporosis Reports

, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp 46–51

Regulation of bone mass by mechanical loading: Microarchitecture and genetics

  • Larry J. Suva
  • Dana Gaddy
  • Daniel S. Perrien
  • Ruth L. Thomas
  • David M. Findlay


For decades, the processes that couple bone architecture and mass to function have been investigated and characterized. It is well known, and now well accepted, that increases in exercise and loading of bone are associated with increased bone mass, and that disuse induces osteopenia. However, the mechanisms by which disuse leads to bone loss remain poorly understood, even in the 21st century. Clearly, the skeleton is able to perceive and respond to some general input(s) generated, or lost, as a consequence of mechanical unloading of bone that are distinct from habitual activity, so called functional adaptation. It is the focus of this paper to evaluate the evidence underlying roles for genetics, osteocytes, and interstitial fluid flow in mediating disuse osteopenia.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Lanyon L, Armstrong V, Ong D, et al.: Is estrogen receptor alpha key to controlling bones’ resistance to fracture? J Endocrinol 2004, 182:183–191.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Skerry TM, Suva LJ: Investigation of the regulation of bone mass by mechanical loading: from quantitative cytochemistry to gene array. Cell Biochem Funct 2003, 21:223–229.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wolff J: Das Gesetz der Transformation der Knochen. Berlin: A Hirschwald. [translated Maquet P, Furlong R: The Law of Bone Remodelling. Berlin: Springer, 1986], 1892.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Frost HM: A 2003 update of bone physiology and Wolff’s Law for clinicians. Angle Orthod 2004, 74:3–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    NIH Consensus Development Panel on Osteoporosis Prevention, Diagnosis, and Therapy: Osteoporosis prevention, diagnosis, and therapy. JAMA 2001, 285:785–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Christiansen C: Osteoporosis: diagnosis and management today and tomorrow. Bone 1995, 17(Suppl 5):513S-516S.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Christiansen C, Riis BJ: [The osteoporosis profile]. Ugeskr Laeger 1995, 157:2866–2888.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Giangregorio L, Blimkie CJ: Skeletal adaptations to alterations in weight-bearing activity: a comparison of models of disuse osteoporosis. Sports Med 2002, 32:459–476. An important reference examining common human and animal models of disuse osteoporosis. Makes important observations regarding the various manifestations of disuse osteoporosis, particularly when extrapolating knowledge gained from one model and applying it to another.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Turner CH: Biomechanics of bone: determinants of skeletal fragility and bone quality. Osteoporos Int 2002, 13:97–104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bikle DD, Sakata T, Halloran BP: The impact of skeletal unloading on bone formation. Gravit Space Biol Bull 2003, 16:45–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Morey-Holton ER, Globus RK: Hindlimb unloading rodent model: technical aspects. J Appl Physiol 2002, 92:1367–1377.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee KC, Jessop H, Suswillo R, et al.: The adaptive response of bone to mechanical loading in female transgenic mice is deficient in the absence of oestrogen receptor-alpha and -beta. J Endocrinol 2004, 182:193–201.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lanyon LE: Functional strain in bone tissue as an objective, and controlling stimulus for adaptive bone remodelling. J Biomech 1987, 20:1083–1093.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Frost HM: Bone "mass" and the "mechanostat": a proposal. Anat Rec 1987, 219:1–9. One of the first reports of the mechanostat. The theory explains the observation that the fit of bone mass to a healthy animal’s typical mechanical usage indicates some mechanism(s) to monitor that usage and control longitudinal growth, bone modeling, and basic multicellular unit-based remodeling activities.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ferretti JL, Cointry GR, Capozza RF, et al.: Bone mass, bone strength, muscle-bone interactions, osteopenias and osteoporoses. Mech Ageing Dev 2003, 124:269–279.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Parfitt AM, Mundy GR, Roodman GD, et al.: A new model for the regulation of bone resorption, with particular reference to the effects of bisphosphonates. J Bone Miner Res 1996, 11:150–159.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Burr DB: Targeted and nontargeted remodeling. Bone 2002, 30:2–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lanyon LE: Using functional loading to influence bone mass and architecture: objectives, mechanisms, and relationship with estrogen of the mechanically adaptive process in bone. Bone 1996, 18(Suppl 1):37S-43S.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fazzalari NL, Crisp DJ, Vernon-Roberts B: Mathematical modelling of trabecular bone structure: the evaluation of analytical and quantified surface to volume relationships in the femoral head and iliac crest. J Biomech 1989, 22:901–910.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Huiskes R, Ruimerman R, van Lenthe GH, et al.: Effects of mechanical forces on maintenance and adaptation of form in trabecular bone. Nature 2000, 405:704–706. Since it is unlikely that bone architecture is fully pre-programmed genetically, this model describes the relationship between bone architecture and mechanical usage.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cowin SC, He QC: Tensile and compressive stress yield criteria for cancellous bone. J Biomech 2005, 38:141–144.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rubin CT, Lanyon LE: Kappa Delta Award paper. Osteoregulatory nature of mechanical stimuli: function as a determinant for adaptive remodeling in bone. J Orthop Res 1987, 5:300–310.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Skerry TM, Bitensky L, Chayen J, et al.: Loading-related reorientation of bone proteoglycan in vivo. Strain memory in bone tissue? J Orthop Res 1988, 6:547–551.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    You LD, Weinbaum S, Cowin SC, et al.: Ultrastructure of the osteocyte process and its pericellular matrix. Anat Rec A Discov Mol Cell Evol Biol 2004, 278:505–513.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Han Y, Cowin SC, Schaffler MB, et al.: Mechanotransduction and strain amplification in osteocyte cell processes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2004, 101:16689–16694. The refinement of a model that resolves the paradox in bone tissue that tissue-level strains because of animal and human locomotion are too small to initiate intracellular chemical responses directly.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Doty SB: Morphological evidence of gap junctions between bone cells. Calcif Tissue Int 1981, 33:509–512.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Turner CH, Robling AG, Duncan RL, et al.: Do bone cells behave like a neuronal network? Calcif Tissue Int 2002, 70:435–442.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Noble BS, Reeve J: Osteocyte function, osteocyte death and bone fracture resistance. Mol Cell Endocrinol 2000, 159:7–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mullender M, El Haj AJ, Yang Y, et al.: Mechanotransduction of bone cells in vitro: mechanobiology of bone tissue. Med Biol Eng Comput 2004, 42:14–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Burger EH, Klein-Nulend J: Mechanotransduction in bone-role of the lacuno-canalicular network. FASEB J 1999, 13(Suppl):S101-S112.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ralston SH: Genetic control of susceptibility to osteoporosis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2002, 87:2460–2466.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Arden NK, Baker J, Hogg C, et al.: The heritability of bone mineral density, ultrasound of the calcaneus and hip axis length: a study of postmenopausal twins. J Bone Miner Res 1996, 11:530–534.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pocock NA, Eisman JA, Hopper JL, et al.: Genetic determinants of bone mass in adults. A twin study. J Clin Invest 1987, 80:706–710.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gueguen R, Jouanny P, Guillemin F, et al.: Segregation analysis and variance components analysis of bone mineral density in healthy families. J Bone Miner Res 1995, 10:2017–2022.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Snieder H, MacGregor AJ, Spector TD: Genes control the cessation of a woman’s reproductive life: a twin study of hysterectomy and age at menopause. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1998, 83:1875–1880.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kaprio J, Rimpela A, Winter T, et al.: Common genetic influences on BMI and age at menarche. Hum Biol 1995, 67:739–753.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Slemenda CW, Turner CH, Peacock M, et al.: The genetics of proximal femur geometry, distribution of bone mass and bone mineral density. Osteoporos Int 1996, 6:178–182.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hunter D, De Lange M, Snieder H, et al.: Genetic contribution to bone metabolism, calcium excretion, and vitamin D and parathyroid hormone regulation. J Bone Miner Res 2001, 16:371–378.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Raisz LG, Seeman E: Causes of age-related bone loss and bone fragility: an alternative view. J Bone Miner Res 2001, 16:1948–1952.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Duncan EL, Cardon LR, Sinsheimer JS, et al.: Site and gender specificity of inheritance of bone mineral density. J Bone Miner Res 2003, 18:1531–1538.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Squire M, Donahue LR, Rubin C, et al.: Genetic variations that regulate bone morphology in the male mouse skeleton do not define its susceptibility to mechanical unloading. Bone 2004, 35:1353–1360. Critical paper that genetically defines the interactions that suggest that gender, genotype, and anatomic location define the response of the skeleton to the removal of weight bearing.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Leblanc AD, Schneider VS, Evans HJ, et al.: Bone mineral loss and recovery after 17 weeks of bed rest. J Bone Miner Res 1990, 5:843–850.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    LeBlanc AD, Schneider VS, Evans HJ, et al.: Regional changes in muscle mass following 17 weeks of bed rest. J Appl Physiol 1992, 73:2172–2178. One of the first reports of the muscle loss and recovery after 17 weeks of continuous bed rest and 8 weeks of reambulation in normal male volunteers.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    LeBlanc A, Schneider V: Countermeasures against space flight related bone loss. Acta Astronaut 1992, 27:89–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Vico L, Collet P, Guignandon A, et al.: Effects of long-term microgravity exposure on cancellous and cortical weightbearing bones of cosmonauts. Lancet 2000, 355:1607–1611. A critical paper that proposes the idea that targeted treatment or prevention strategies are needed not only for astronauts, but also for the increasing number of osteoporotic patients.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Lang T, LeBlanc A, Evans H, et al.: Cortical and trabecular bone mineral loss from the spine and hip in long-duration spaceflight. J Bone Miner Res 2004, 19:1006–1012.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Oganov VS, Cann C, Rakhmanov AS, et al.: [Study of the musculoskeletal system of the spine in humans after long-term space flights by the method of computerized tomography]. Kosm Biol Aviakosm Med 1990, 24:20–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Tesch PA, Berg HE, Bring D, et al.: Effects of 17-day spaceflight on knee extensor muscle function and size. Eur J Appl Physiol 2005, 93:463–468.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Burr DB, Robling AG, Turner CH: Effects of biomechanical stress on bones in animals. Bone 2002, 30:781–786.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Lee KC, Lanyon LE: Mechanical loading influences bone mass through estrogen receptor alpha. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 2004, 32:64–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Rubin CT, Lanyon LE: Regulation of bone mass by mechanical strain magnitude. Calcif Tissue Int 1985, 37:411–417.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Aarden EM, Burger EH, Nijweide PJ: Function of osteocytes in bone. J Cell Biochem 1994, 55:287–299.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    You J, Yellowley CE, Donahue HJ, et al.: Substrate deformation levels associated with routine physical activity are less stimulatory to bone cells relative to loading-induced oscillatory fluid flow. J Biomech Eng 2000, 122:387–393.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Burger EH, Klein-Nulend J, Smit TH: Strain-derived canalicular fluid flow regulates osteoclast activity in a remodelling osteon-a proposal. J Biomech 2003, 36:1453–1459.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Parfitt AM: The bone remodeling compartment: a circulatory function for bone lining cells. J Bone Miner Res 2001, 16:1583–1585.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Noble BS, Peet N, Stevens HY, et al.: Mechanical loading: biphasic osteocyte survival and targeting of osteoclasts for bone destruction in rat cortical bone. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 2003, 284:C934-C943.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Dodd JS, Raleigh JA, Gross TS: Osteocyte hypoxia: a novel mechanotransduction pathway. Am J Physiol 1999, 277:C598-C602.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Schaffler MB: Role of bone turnover in microdamage. Osteoporos Int 2003, 14(Suppl 5):73–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Hsieh AS, Winet H, Bao JY, et al.: Evidence for reperfusion injury in cortical bone as a function of crush injury ischemia duration: a rabbit bone chamber study. Bone 2001, 28:94–103.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Bakker A, Klein-Nulend J, Burger E: Shear stress inhibits while disuse promotes osteocyte apoptosis. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2004, 320:1163–1168.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Baum O, Da Silva-Azevedo L, Willerding G, et al.: Endothelial NOS is main mediator for shear stress-dependent angiogenesis in skeletal muscle after prazosin administration. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 2004, 287:H2300-H2308.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Steck R, Niederer P, Knothe Tate ML: A finite element analysis for the prediction of load-induced fluid flow and mechanochemical transduction in bone. J Theor Biol 2003, 220:249–259.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    James J, Steijn-Myagkaya GL: Death of osteocytes. Electron microscopy after in vitro ischaemia. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1986, 68:620–624.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Catto M: Ischaemia of bone. J Clin Pathol Suppl (R Coll Pathol) 1977, 11:78–93.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Wronski TJ, Dann LM, Horner SL: Time course of vertebral osteopenia in ovariectomized rats. Bone 1989, 10:295–301.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Wronski TJ, Dann LM, Scott KS, et al.: Long-term effects of ovariectomy and aging on the rat skeleton. Calcif Tissue Int 1989, 45:360–366.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Laib A, Kumer JL, Majumdar S, et al.: The temporal changes of trabecular architecture in ovariectomized rats assessed by MicroCT. Osteoporos Int 2001, 12:936–941.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Bikle DD, Halloran BP: The response of bone to unloading. J Bone Miner Metab 1999, 17:233–244.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Frost HM: On the estrogen-bone relationship and postmenopausal bone loss: a new model. J Bone Miner Res 1999, 9:1473–1477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Zaman G, Cheng MZ, Jessop HL, et al.: Mechanical strain activates estrogen response elements in bone cells. Bone 2000, 27:233–239.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Lee K, Jessop H, Suswillo R, et al.: Endocrinology: bone adaptation requires oestrogen receptor-alpha. Nature 2003, 424:389. Important observations providing experimental proof that the bone loss because of disuse or estrogen withdrawal are related.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Kalantaridou SN, Naka KK, Papanikolaou E, et al.: Impaired endothelial function in young women with premature ovarian failure: normalization with hormone therapy. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2004, 89:3907–3913.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Hashimoto M, Miyamoto Y, Matsuda Y, et al.: New methods to evaluate endothelial function: non-invasive method of evaluating endothelial function in humans. J Pharmacol Sci 2003, 93:405–408.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Allen DL, Linderman JK, Roy RR, et al.: Apoptosis: a mechanism contributing to remodeling of skeletal muscle in response to hindlimb unweighting. Am J Physiol 1997, 273:C579-C587.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Dupont-Versteegden EE, Murphy RJ, Houle JD, et al.: Activated satellite cells fail to restore myonuclear number in spinal cord transected and exercised rats. Am J Physiol 1999, 277:C589-C597.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Kerr JF, Wyllie AH, Currie AR: Apoptosis: a basic biological phenomenon with wide-ranging implications in tissue kinetics. Br J Cancer 1972, 26:239–257.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Chesnut CH, 3rd, Rosen CJ: Reconsidering the effects of antiresorptive therapies in reducing osteoporotic fracture. J Bone Miner Res 2001, 16:2163–2172.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Judex S, Garman R, Squire M, et al.: Genetically linked site-specificity of disuse osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res 2004, 19:607–613.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Current Science Inc 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Larry J. Suva
    • 1
  • Dana Gaddy
  • Daniel S. Perrien
  • Ruth L. Thomas
  • David M. Findlay
  1. 1.Departments of Orthopaedic Surgery, Physiology, and BiophysicsUniversity of Arkansas for Medical SciencesLittle RockUSA

Personalised recommendations