Current Osteoporosis Reports

, Volume 5, Issue 2, pp 62–66 | Cite as

The role of the collagen matrix in skeletal fragility

  • Deepak VashishthEmail author


The collagen network in bone provides resistance against fracture and may be susceptible to changes with aging and disease. This review identifies the changes in quality of collagen matrix as contributors to bone fragility. With aging and in diabetes, cross-links accumulate in bone collagen as a result of nonenzymatic glycation and consequently impair matrix properties, increasing bone fragility. Cell-culture and animal studies suggest that the accumulation of cross-links induced by nonenzymatic glycation may be related to a reduction in bone turnover resulting from the altered responses of osteoblasts and osteoclasts to advanced glycation end products.


Cancellous Bone Bone Fragility Osteoclastic Bone Resorption Bone Collagen Pentosidine 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Johnell O, Kanis JA: An estimate of the worldwide prevalence and disability associated with osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporosis Int 2006, 12:1726–1733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burr DB, Forwood MR, Fyhrie DP, et al.: Bone microdamage and skeletal fragility in osteoporosis and stress fracture. J Bone Miner Res 1997, 12:6–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hui S, Slemenda CW, Johnston CC: Age and bone mass as predictors of fracture in a prospective study. J Clin Invest 1988, 81:1804–1809.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kanis JA, Melton LJ, Christiansen C, et al.: The diagnosis of osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res 1994, 9:1137–1141.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cummings SR, Black DM, Nevitt MC, et al.: Appendicular bone density and age predict hip fracture in women. The Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. JAMA 1990, 263:665–668.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vashishth D: Age-dependent biomechanical modifications in bone. Crit Rev Eukaryot Gene Expr 2005, 15:343–358.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hayes WC, Myers ER, Robinovitch SN, et al.: Etiology and prevention of age-related hip fractures. Bone 1996, 18:77S–86S.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bailey AJ, Sims TJ, Ebbesen EN, et al.: Age-related changes in the biochemical properties of human cancellous bone collagen: relationship to bone strength. Calcif Tissue Int 1999, 65:203–210.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Simmons ED, Pritzker KPH, Grynpas MD: Age-related changes in the human femoral cortex. J Orthop Res 1991, 9:155–167.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yerramshetty JS, Lind C, Akkus O: The compositional and physiochemical homogeneity of male femoral cortex increases after the sixth decade. Bone 2006, 39:1236–1243.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tang SY, Zeenath U, Vashishth D: Effects of non-enzymatic glycation on cancellous bone fragility. Bone 2007, 40:1144–1151.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yeni YN, Brown CU, Wang Z, Norman TL: The influence of bone morphology on fracture toughness of the human femur and tibia. Bone 1997, 21:453–459.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ural A, Vashishth D: Interaction between morphological and geometrical adaptation in human cortical bone. J Orthop Res 2006, 24:1489–1498.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vashishth D, Verborgt O, Divine G, et al.: Decline in osteocyte lacunar density in human cortical bone is associated with accumulation of microcracks with age. Bone 2000, 26:375–380.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Waldorff E, Goldstein SA, McCreadie BR: Age-dependent microdamage removal following mechanically induced microdamage in trabecular bone in vivo. Bone 2007, 40:425–432.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Currey JD, Brear K, Zioupos P: The effects of ageing and changes in mineral content in degrading the toughness of human femora. J Biomech 1996, 29:257–260.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wang XD, Masilamani NS, Mabrey JD, et al.: Changes in the fracture toughness of bone may not be reflected in its mineral density, porosity and tensile properties. Bone 1998, 23, 67–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jepsen KJ, Goldstein SA, Kuhn JL, et al.: Type I collagen mutation compromises the post-yield behavior of Mov13 long bone. J Orthop Res 1996, 14:493–499.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Viguet-Carrin S, Garnero P, Delmas PD: The role of collagen in bone strength. Osteoporos Int 2006, 17:319–336.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Knott L, Bailey AJ: Collagen crosslinks in mineralizing tissues: a review of their chemistry, function, and clinical relevance. Bone 1998, 22:181–187.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Robins SP, Bailey AJ: Age related changes in collagen: the identification of reducible lysine-carbohydrate condensation products. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1972, 48:76–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sell DR, Monnier VM: Isolation, purification and partial characterization of novel fluorophores from aging human insoluble collagen-rich tissue. Connect Tissue Res 1989, 19:77–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nakamura K, Nakazawa Y, Ienaga K: Acid-stable fluorescent advanced glycation end products: vesperlysines A, B, and C are formed as crosslinked products in the Maillard reaction between lysine or proteins with glucose. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1997, 232:227–230.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bailey AJ, Paul RG, Knott L: Mechanisms of maturation and ageing of collagen. Mech Ageing Dev 1998, 106:1–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tessier F, Obrenovich M, Monnier VM: Structure and mechanism of formation of human lens fluorophore LM-1. Relationship for vesperlysine A and the advanced Maillard reaction in aging, diabetes, and cataractogenesis. J Biol Chem 1999, 274:20796–20804.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Knott L, Whitehead CC, Fleming RH, Bailey AJ: Biochemical changes in the collagenous matrix of osteoporotic avian bone. Biochem J 1995, 310:1045–1051.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Paschalis EP, Shane E, Lyritis G, et al.: Bone fragility and collagen crosslinks. J Bone Miner Res 2004, 19:2000–2004.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Saito M, Fujii K, Mori Y, Marumo K: Role of collagen enzymatic and glycation induced cross-links as a determinant of bone quality in spontaneously diabetic WBN/Kob rats. Osteoporos Int 2006, 17:1514–1523.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Saito M, Marumo K, Fujii K, Ishioka N: Single-column high-performance liquid chromatographic-fluorescence detection of immature, mature, and senescent cross-links of collagen. Anal Biochem 1997, 253:26–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wang X, Shen X, Li X, Agrawal CM: Age-related changes in the collagen network and toughness of bone. Bone 2002, 31:1–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vashishth D, Gibson GJ, Khoury JI, et al.: Influence of nonenzymatic glycation on biomechanical properties of cortical bone. Bone 2001, 28:195–201.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wu P, Koharski C, Nonnenmann H, Vashishth D: Loading of nonenzymatically glycated and damaged bone results in an instantaneous fracture. Presented at the 50th Annual Meeting of the Orthopedic Research Society, New Orleans, LA; February 2003.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Thompson JB, Kindt JH, Drake B, et al.: Bone indentation recovery time correlates with bond reforming time. Nature 2001, 414:773–776.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Vashishth D, Behiri JC, Bonfield W: Crack growth resistance in cortical bone: concept of microcrack toughening. J Biomech 1997, 30:763–769.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Vashishth D: Hierarchy of bone microdamage at multiple length scales. Int J Fatigue 2007, 29:1024–1033.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Vashishth D: Rising crack growth resistance behavior in cortical bone: implications for toughness measurements. J Biomech 2004, 37:943–946.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Akkus O, Rimnac CM: Cortical bone tissue resists fatigue fracture by deceleration and arrest of microcrack growth. J Biomech 2001, 34:757–764.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Vashishth D, Tanner KE, Bonfield W: Contribution, development and morphology of microcracking in cortical bone during crack propagation. J Biomech 2000, 33:1169–1174.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mosekilde L, Danielsen CC: Biomechanical competence of vertebral trabecular bone in relation to ash density and age in normal individuals. Bone 1987, 8:79–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Keaveny TM, Wachtel EF, Guo XE, Hayes WC: Mechanical behavior of damaged trabecular bone. J Biomech 1994, 27:1309–1318.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Fondrk M, Bahniuk E, Davy DT, Michaels C: Some viscoplastic characteristics of bovine and human cortical bone. J Biomech 1998, 21:623–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Yeh OC, Keaveny TM: Relative roles of microdamage and microfracture in the mechanical behavior of trabecular bone. J Orthop Res 2001, 19:1001–1007.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hernandez CJ, Tang SY, Baumbach BM, et al.: Trabecular microfracture and the influence of pyridinium and nonenzymatic glycation-mediated collagen cross-links. Bone 2005, 37:825–832.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Viguet-Carrin S, Roux JP, Arlot ME, et al.: Contribution of the advanced glycation end product pentosidine and of maturation of type I collagen to compressive biomechanical properties of human lumbar vertebrae. Bone 2006, 39:1073–1079.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Santana R, Xu L, Chase H, et al.: A role for advanced glycation end products in diminished bone healing in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes 2003, 52:1502–1510.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    McCarthy A, Etcheverry S, Cortizo A: Advanced glycation endproduct-specific receptors in rat and mouse osteoblast-like cells: regulation with stages of differentiation. Acta Diabetol 1999, 36:45–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Miyata T, Notoya K, Yoshida K, et al.: Advanced glycation end products enhance osteoclast-induced bone resorption in cultured mouse unfractionated bone cells and in rats implanted subcutaneously with devitalized bone particles. J Am Soc Nephrol 1997, 8:260–270.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Valcourt U, Merle B, Gineyts E, et al.: Non-enzymatic glycation of bone collagen modifies osteoclastic activity and differentiation. J Biol Chem 2007, 282:5691–5703.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Tang S, Bernard G, Allen M, et al.: Contributions of non-enzymatic glycation on the mechanical behavior of canine bone following 1-year bisphosphonates treatment. Presented at the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Orthopaedic Research Society, San Diego, CA; February 11–14, 2007.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center of Biotechnology and Interdisciplinary Studies, Room 3137Rensselaer Polytechnic InstituteTroyUSA

Personalised recommendations