Journal of Bone and Mineral Metabolism

, Volume 34, Issue 2, pp 179–192 | Cite as

Investigating histomorphometric relationships at the human femoral midshaft in a biomechanical context

  • Justyna J. MiszkiewiczEmail author
Original Article


Cortical bone histomorphometry utilised in human and animal bone biology studies has demonstrated that osteon densities and their geometric properties may be in a relationship with biomechanical load application. Further research is required to investigate mutual links between bone histological variables to elucidate their usefulness in future biomechanical studies. Here, a series of correlations exploring bone biology relationships at the human midshaft femur were performed using a large sample. Mean intact, fragmentary and total osteon population densities, Haversian canal diameter and area, osteon area, as well as osteocyte lacunae density were measured along the sub-periosteal cortex in sections removed from the posterior midshaft aspect of modern human male (n = 233) and female (n = 217) femora (total n = 450). Parametric and non-parametric correlations between the histology variables were sought in the entire sample, as well as within age and sex sub-groups. Several significant positive and negative correlations explaining a large proportion of data variation were found. Haversian canal area, diameter, and osteon area were positively correlated. As the density of osteocyte lacunae increased, Haversian canals and osteons became smaller. As osteons increased in density, so did osteocyte lacunae, but Haversian canal and osteon area became smaller. Results were consistent across age and sex groups. Findings suggest that an increased rate of bone remodelling is associated with a decrease in geometrical properties of osteons. An increased density of osteocyte lacunae and osteons indicates the involvement of bone maintenance cells in remodelling potentially induced by mechanical stimuli. Future histomorphometry studies will benefit from examining multiple bone histology variables due to many mutual bone biology relationships that exist at the human midshaft femur.


Histomorphometry Osteon Femur Biomechanics 





Young adult


Middle-aged adult







I thank Dr. Patrick Mahoney for PhD research guidance and supervision, Prof. Kate Robson Brown and Dr. David Roberts for their helpful comments, Dr. Simon Tollington for assistance with R, and the School of Anthropology and Conservation (University of Kent, UK) for PhD funding and facilitating access to the skeletal collection. My thanks are extended to the Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editor, and an anonymous reviewer whose invaluable comments and suggestions improved this paper.

Conflict of interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

774_2015_652_MOESM1_ESM.tif (3 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (TIFF 3028 kb) Scattergrams illustrating the distribution of data by age categories in females. Each scattergram features three regression lines, two of which correspond to specified sub-groups, whereas the central black line represents the entire sample
774_2015_652_MOESM2_ESM.tif (3.1 mb)
Supplementary material 2 (TIFF 3189 kb) Scattergrams illustrating the distribution of data by age categories in males. Each scattergram features three regression lines, two of which correspond to specified sub-groups, whereas the central black line represents the entire sample
774_2015_652_MOESM3_ESM.tif (1 mb)
Supplementary material 3 (TIFF 1036 kb) Scattergrams illustrating the distribution of data for correlations where percent of explained data variation was not consistently large across the different age and sex sub-groups. a: N.On & On.Ar in males (r 2 = 0.212), b: N.On & On.Ar in middle-aged males (r 2 = 0.212), c: N.On & On.Ar middle-aged males (r 2 = 0.263), d: N.On.Fg & Ot.Dn in young males (r 2 = 0.200), e: OPD & Ot.Dn in young males (r 2 = 0.444), f: N.On. & H·Ar middle-aged males (r 2 =0 .254)
774_2015_652_MOESM4_ESM.docx (17 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (DOCX 17 kb)


  1. 1.
    van Oers RF, Ruimerman R, Tanck E, Hilbers PA, Huiskes R (2008) A unified theory for osteonal and hemi-osteonal remodeling. Bone 42:250–259CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Robling AG, Castillo AB, Turner CH (2006) Biomechanical and molecular regulation of bone remodeling. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 8:455–498CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bourrin S, Ghaemmaghami F, Vico L, Chappard D, Gharib C, Alexandre C (1992) Effect of a five-week swimming program on rat bone: a histomorphometric study. Calcif Tissue Int 51:137–142CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Skedros JG, Su SC, Bloebaum RD (1997) Biomechanical implications of mineral content and microstructural variations in cortical bone of horse, elk, and sheep calcanei. Anat Rec 249:297–316CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Skedros JG, Sybrowsky CL, Parry TR, Bloebaum RD (2003) Regional differences in cortical bone organization and microdamage prevalence in Rocky Mountain mule deer. Anat Rec 274:837–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Britz HM, Thomas CDL, Clement JG, Cooper DML (2009) The relation of femoral osteon geometry to age, sex, height and weight. Bone 45:77–83CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schlecht SH, Pinto DC, Agnew AM, Stout SD (2012) Brief communication: the effects of disuse on the mechanical properties of bone: What unloading tells us about the adaptive nature of skeletal tissue. Am J Phys Anth 149:599–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Robling AG, Stout SD (2003) Histomorphology, geometry, and mechanical loading in past populations. In: Agarwal SC, Stout SD (eds) Bone loss and osteoporosis: an anthropological perspective. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, pp 189–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stout S, Crowder C (2011) Bone remodeling, histomorphology, and histomorphometry. In: Crowder C, Stout SD (eds) Bone histology: an anthropological perspective. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wachter NJ, Krischak GD, Mentzel M, Sarkar MR, Ebinger T, Kinzl L, Claes L, Augat P (2002) Correlation of bone mineral density with strength and microstructural parameters of cortical bone in vitro. Bone 31:90–95CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lanyon LE, Goodship AE, Pye CJ, MacFie JH (1982) Mechanically adaptive bone remodeling. J Biomech 15:141–154CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lanyon LE, Rubin CT (1984) Static vs dynamic loads as an influence on bone remodeling. J Biomech 17:897–905CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Raab DM, Crenshaw TD, Kimmel DB, Smith EL (1991) A histomorphometric study of cortical bone activity during increased weight-bearing exercise. J Bone Miner Res 6:741–749CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wojda SJ, Weyland DR, Gray SK, Mcgee-Lawrence ME, Drummer TD, Donahue SW (2013) Black bears with longer disuse (hibernation) periods have lower femoral osteon population density and greater mineralization and intracortical porosity. Anat Rec 296:1148–1153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yamada S, Tadano S, Fujisaki K (2011) Residual stress distribution in rabbit limb bones. J Biomech 44:1285–1290CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bromage TG, Lacruz RS, Hogg R, Goldman HM, McFarlin SC, Warshaw J, Dirks W, Perez Ochoa A, Smolyar I, Enlow DH, Boyde A (2009) Lamellar bone is an incremental tissue reconciling enamel rhythms, body size, and organismal life history. Calcif Tiss Int 84:388–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Klein-Nulend J, Bakker AD, Bacabac RG, Vatsa A, Weinbaum S (2012) Mechanosensation and transduction in osteocytes. Bone 54:182–190CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Totland GK, Fjelldal PG, Kryvi H, Løkka G, Wargelius A, Sagstad A, Hansen T, Grotmol S (2011) Sustained swimming increases the mineral content and osteocyte density of salmon vertebral bone. J Anat 219:490–501CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sugawara Y, Kamioka H, Ishihara Y, Fujisawa N, Kawanabe N, Yamashiro T (2013) The early mouse 3D osteocyte network in the presence and absence of mechanical loading. Bone 52:189–196CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nicolella DP, Moravits DE, Gale AM, Bonewald LF, Lankford J (2006) Osteocyte lacunae tissue strain in cortical bone. J Biomech 39:1735–1743CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Skedros JG, Mason MW, Bloebaum RD (1994) Differences in osteonal micromorphology between tensile and compressive cortices of a bending skeletal system: indications of potential strain-specific differences in bone microstructure. Anat Rec 239:405–413CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Young DR, Niklowitz WJ, Brown RJ, Jee WSS (1986) Immobilization-associated osteoporosis in primates. Bone 7:109–117CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Van Oers RFM, Ruimerman R, Van Rietbergen B, Hilbers PAJ, Huiskes R (2008) Relating osteon diameter to strain. Bone 43:476–482CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Martin RB (2002) Is all cortical bone remodeling initiated by microdamage? Bone 30:8–13CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hicks M, Hicks A (2001) St. Gregory’s Priory, Northgate, Canterbury Excavations 1988–1991 (Volume II). Canterbury: Canterbury Archaeological Trust LtdGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Code of Ethics of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists (2003)
  27. 27.
    British Association for Biological Anthropology and Osteoarchaeology Code of Practice (2010)
  28. 28.
    Mays S, Elders J, Humphrey L, White W, and Marshall P (2013) Science and the dead: guidelines for the destructive sampling of archaeological human remains for scientific analysis. Advisory Panel on the Archaeology of Burials in England. English HeritageGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Miszkiewicz JJ (2014). Ancient human bone histology and behaviour. PhD Thesis. University of Kent, UKGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Buikstra JE, Ubelaker DH (1994) Standards for data collection from human skeletal remains. Arkansas Archaeology Survey, FayettevilleGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Thomas CDL, Stein MS, Feik SA, Wark JD, Clement JG (2000) Determination of age at death using combined morphology and histology of the femur. J Anat 196:463–471CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Meindl RS, Lovejoy CO (1985) Ectocranial suture closure: a revised method for the determination of skeletal age at death based on the lateral-anterior sutures. Am J Phys Anth 68:57–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Miles AEW (1962) Assessment of the ages of a population of Anglo-Saxons from their dentitions. Proc R Soc Med 55:881–886PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Meindl RS, Lovejoy CO, Mensforth RP, Walker RA (1985) A revised method of age determination using the os pubis, with a review and tests of accuracy of other current methods of pubic symphyseal aging. Am J Phys Anth 68:29–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Miszkiewicz JJ, Mahoney P (2012) Bone microstructure and behaviour in “gracile” and “robust” adult males from the Medieval Period, Canterbury, UK. Am J Phys Anth 147: 215–216Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bancroft JD, Gamble M (2008) Theory and practice of histological techniques. Elsevier Health SciencesGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Villa C, Lynnerup N (2010) Technical note: a stereological analysis of the cross-sectional variability of the femoral osteon population. Am J Phys Anth 142:491–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Parfitt AM (1983) Steriologic basis of bone histomorphometry; theory of quantitative microscopy and reconstruction of the third dimension. In: Recker RR (ed) Bone histomorphometry: techniques and interpretation. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 53–87Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bell KL, Loveridge N, Power J, Garrahan N, Meggitt BF, Reeve J (1999) Regional differences in cortical porosity in the fractured femoral neck. Bone 24:57–64CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lynnerup N, Thomsen JL, Frohlich B (1998) Intra- and inter-observer variation in histological criteria used in age at death determination based on femoral cortical bone. Forensic Sci Int 91:219–230CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Taylor R (1990) Interpretation of the correlation coefficient: a basic review. J Diagn Med Sonogr 6:35–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Skedros JG, Knight AN, Clark GC, Crowder CM, Dominguez VM, Qiu S, Mulhern DM, Donahue SW, Busse B, Hulsey BI, Zedda M, Sorenson SM (2013) Scaling of Haversian canal surface area to secondary osteon bone volume in ribs and limb bones. Am J Phys Anth 151:230–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Britz HM, Jokihaara J, Leppänen OV, Järvinen TL, Cooper DM (2012) The effects of immobilization on vascular canal orientation in rat cortical bone. J Anat 220:67–76CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Smit TH, Burger EH, Huyghe JM (2002) A case for strain-induced fluid flow as a regulator of BMU-coupling and osteonal alignment. J Bone Miner Res 17:2021–2029CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Metz LN, Martin RB, Turner AS (2003) Histomorphometric analysis of the effects of osteocyte density on osteonal morphology and remodelling. Bone 33:753–759CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Franz-Odendaal TA, Hall BK, Witten PE (2006) Buried alive: how osteoblasts become osteocytes. Dev Dynam 235:176–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Dai R, Ma Y, Sheng Z, Jin Y, Zhang Y, Fang L, Fan H, Liao E (2008) Effects of genistein on vertebral trabecular bone microstructure, bone mineral density, microcracks, osteocyte density, and bone strength in ovariectomized rats. J Bone Miner Metabol 26:342–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Mullender MG, Tan SD, Vico L, Alexandre C, Klein-Nulend J (2005) Differences in osteocyte density and bone histomorphometry between men and women and between healthy and osteoporotic subjects. Calcif Tissue Int 77:291–296CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Turner CH, Hsieh Y, 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 16:206–213CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Brandao-Burch A, Utting JC, Orriss IR, Arnett TR (2005) Acidosis inhibits bone formation by osteoblasts in vitro by preventing mineralization. Calcif Tiss Int 77:167–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Society for Bone and Mineral Research and Springer Japan 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Human Osteology Research Laboratory, School of Anthropology and ConservationUniversity of KentCanterburyUK

Personalised recommendations