Advertisement

In Vivo Axial Loading of the Mouse Tibia

  • Katherine M. Melville
  • Alexander G. Robling
  • Marjolein C. H. van der Meulen
Protocol
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 1226)

Abstract

Noninvasive methods to apply controlled, cyclic loads to the living skeleton are used as anabolic procedures to stimulate new bone formation in adults and enhance bone mass accrual in growing animals. These methods are also invaluable for understanding bone signaling pathways. Our focus here is on a particular loading model: in vivo axial compression of the mouse tibia. An advantage of loading the tibia is that changes are present in both the cancellous envelope of the proximal tibia and the cortical bone of the tibial diaphysis. To load the tibia of the mouse axially in vivo, a cyclic compressive load is applied up to five times a week to a single tibia per mouse for a duration lasting from 1 day to 6 weeks. With the contralateral limb as an internal control, the anabolic response of the skeleton to mechanical stimuli can be studied in a pairwise experimental design. Here, we describe the key parameters that must be considered before beginning an in vivo mouse tibial loading experiment, including methods for in vivo strain gauging of the tibial midshaft, and then we describe general methods for loading the mouse tibia for an experiment lasting multiple days.

Key words

Bone Mechanical loading Tibia Mouse Anabolic bone formation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge our funding sources: NIH R01-AG028664 (MCHM), R01-AR53237 (AGR) and I01-BX001478 (AGR), and NSF GRFP (KMM). We would also like to thank the following individuals who have been involved in the development of these methods: Dr. J. Christopher Fritton, Dr. Maureen E. Lynch, and Dr. Russell P. Main.

References

  1. 1.
    Turner CH, Akhter MP, Raab DM et al (1991) A noninvasive, in vivo model for studying strain adaptive bone modeling. Bone 12: 73–79PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lee KC, Maxwell A, Lanyon LE (2002) Validation of a technique for studying functional adaptation of the mouse ulna in response to mechanical loading. Bone 31:407–412PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fritton JC, Myers ER, Wright TM et al (2005) Loading induces site-specific increases in mineral content assessed by microcomputed tomography of the mouse tibia. Bone 36:1030–1038PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wallace JM, Rajachar RM, Allen MR et al (2007) Exercise-induced changes in the cortical bone of growing mice are bone- and gender-specific. Bone 40:1120–1127PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Prisby RD, Lafage-Proust MH, Malaval L et al (2008) Effects of whole body vibration on the skeleton and other organ systems in man and animal models: What we know and what we need to know. Ageing Res Rev 7:319–329PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Iwamoto J, Takeda T, Sato Y (2005) Effect of treadmill exercise on bone mass in female rats. Exp Anim 54:1–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    De Souza RL, Matsuura M, Eckstein F et al (2005) Non-invasive axial loading of mouse tibiae increases cortical bone formation and modifies trabecular organization: a new model to study cortical and cancellous compartments in a single loaded element. Bone 37:810–818PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lynch ME, Main RP, Xu Q et al (2010) Cancellous bone adaptation to tibial compression is not sex dependent in growing mice. J Appl Physiol 109:685–691PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brodt MD, Silva MJ (2010) Aged mice have enhanced endocortical response and normal periosteal response compared with young-adult mice following 1 week of axial tibial compression. J Bone Miner Res 25:2006–2015PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sheng MH, Baylink DJ, Beamer WG et al (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
  11. 11.
    Klein RF, Shea M, Gunness ME et al (2001) Phenotypic characterization of mice bred for high and low peak bone mass. J Bone Miner Res 16:63–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wergedal JE, Sheng MH, Ackert-Bicknell CL et al (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 36:11–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sabsovich I, Clark JD, Liao G et al (2008) Bone microstructure and its associated genetic variability in 12 inbred mouse strains: microCT study and in silico genome scan. Bone 42: 439–451PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Beamer WG, Donahue LR, Rosen CJ et al (1996) Genetic variability in adult bone density among inbred strains of mice. Bone 18: 397–403PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Robling AG, Turner CH (2002) Mechanotransduction in bone: genetic effects on mechanosensitivity in mice. Bone 31: 562–569PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Saxon LK, Robling AG, Castillo AB et al (2007) The skeletal responsiveness to mechanical loading is enhanced in mice with a null mutation in estrogen receptor-beta. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 293:484–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nielsen RH, Christiansen C, Stolina M et al (2008) Oestrogen exhibits type II collagen protective effects and attenuates collagen-induced arthritis in rats. Clin Exp Immunol 152:21–27PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Glatt V, Canalis E, Stadmeyer L et al (2007) Age-related changes in trabecular architecture differ in female and male C57BL/6J mice. J Bone Miner Res 22:1197–1207PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sample SJ, Collins RJ, Wilson AP et al (2010) Systemic effects of ulna loading in male rats during functional adaptation. J Bone Miner Res 25:2016–2028PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sugiyama T, Price JS, Lanyon LE (2010) Functional adaptation to mechanical loading in both cortical and cancellous bone is controlled locally and is confined to the loaded bones. Bone 46:314–321PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Srinivasan S, Ausk BJ, Poliachik SL et al (2007) Rest-inserted loading rapidly amplifies the response of bone to small increases in strain and load cycles. J Appl Physiol 102: 1945–1952PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rubin CT, Lanyon LE (1984) Dynamic strain similarity in vertebrates; an alternative to allometric limb bone scaling. J Theor Biol 107: 321–327PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Christiansen BA, Bayly PV, Silva MJ (2008) Constrained tibial vibration in mice: a method for studying the effects of vibrational loading of bone. J Biomech Eng 130:044502PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media. New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katherine M. Melville
    • 1
    • 2
  • Alexander G. Robling
    • 3
    • 4
  • Marjolein C. H. van der Meulen
    • 1
    • 5
    • 6
  1. 1.Sibley School of Mechanical and Aerospace EngineeringCornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biomedical EngineeringCornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  3. 3.Department of Anatomy & Cell BiologyIndiana University School of MedicineIndianapolisUSA
  4. 4.Department of Biomedical EngineeringIndiana University School of MedicineIndianapolisUSA
  5. 5.Department of Biomedical EngineeringCornell UniversityNew YorkUSA
  6. 6.Research DivisionHospital for Special SurgeryNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations