Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T03:47:09.499Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Osteopontin Deficiency and Aging on Nanomechanics of Mouse Bone

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

B. Kavukcuoglu ,
C. West ,
D. T. Denhardt  and
A. B. Mann
B. Kavukcuoglu
Affiliation:
Department of Ceramic and Materials Engineering, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ
C. West
Affiliation:
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ
D. T. Denhardt
Affiliation:
Department of Cell Biology and Neuroscience, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ
A. B. Mann
Affiliation:
Department of Ceramic and Materials Engineering, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ Department of Biomedical Engineering, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ
Get access

Abstract

Osteopontin (OPN), a phosphorylated glycoprotein, is among the most abundant non-collageneous bone matrix proteins produced by osteoblasts and osteoclasts. OPN has been implicated in bone formation, resorption and remodeling. However, previous studies have presented contradictory results regarding the effect of OPN on the mechanics and microstructure of bone. This study has used nanoindentation to identify local variations in elastic modulus and hardness of OPN deficient (OPN -/-) and wild-type control (OPN+/+) mouse bones. Specifically, the study has looked at changes in the mechanical properties of OPN-/- and OPN+/+ mouse bones with the mouse's age. Cortical sections of femurs from different age groups ranging from 3 weeks to 58 weeks were tested and compared. The results suggest that there are large, abrupt variations in mechanical properties across the femur's radial section for 3-week-old mouse bone. The hardness (H) drops significantly towards the inner and outer sections so the cortical bone has a mean H=3.66 GPa with a standard deviation of 2.44 GPa. In contrast, the hardness of the 58-week-old mouse bone had a standard deviation of 0.35 GPa and a mean H=1.45 GPa. The hardness across the radial axis of the 58-week-old bone was found to be quite uniform. The elastic modulus showed similar variations to the hardness with respect to age and position on the bone. We conclude that the mechanical properties of the mouse bones decrease substantially with maturity, and statistically the hardness and elastic modulus are more uniform in mature bones than young ones. Surprisingly we found a similar variation in both OPN-/- and OPN+/+ bones, with no statistically significant difference in the mechanical properties of the OPN -/- and OPN+/+ bones. The results for OPN-/- and OPN+/+ mouse bones are particularly important as control of OPN activity has been postulated as a potential treatment for bone pathologies that exhibit a change in the bone mineralization, such as osteoporosis, osteopetrosis and Paget's disease. Understanding the effects of OPN on bone mechanics is a vital step in the development of these new treatments.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 841: Symposium R – Fundamentals of Nanoindentation and Nanotribology III , 2004 , R3.5/Y3.5
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Ammann, P., Rizolli, R., Osteoporosis Int. 14 (Suppl 3), 13 (2003).Google Scholar
2. Ishijima, M., Rittling, S., Yamashita, T., Tsuji, K., Kurusawa, H., Nifuji, A., Denhardt, D., Noda, M., Exp, J.. Med. 193(3), 399 (2001).Google Scholar
3. Shapes, S.A., Clifuentes, M., Spevak, L., Chowdhury, H., Brittingham, J., Boskey, A.L., Denhardt, D.T., Calcif. Tissue Int. 73, 86 (2003).Google Scholar
4. Yoshitake, H., Rittling, S.R., Denhardt, D.T., Noda, M., Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 96, 8156 (1999).Google Scholar
5. Boskey, A.L., Spevak, L., Pashalis, E., Doty, S.B., McKee, M.D., Calcif. Tissue Int. 71, 145 (2002).Google Scholar
6. Rittling, S.R., Matsumoto, H.N., McKee, M.D., Nanci, A., An, X.R., Novick, K.E. et al., J. Bone Min. Res. 13(7), 1101 (1998).Google Scholar
7. Soriano, P., Montgomery, C., Geske, R., Bradley, A., Cell 64(4), 693 (1991).Google Scholar
8. Oliver, W.C., Pharr, G.M., J. Mater. Res. 7, 1564 (1992)Google Scholar
9. Boskey, A.L., Musculoskel, J.. Neuron Interact. 2(6), 532 (2002).Google Scholar
10. Goldman, H.M., Bromage, T.G., Boyde, A., Thomas, C.D.L., Clement, L.G., J. Anat. 203, 243 (2003).Google Scholar
11. Frantzl, P., Gupta, H.S., Paschalls, E.P., Roschger, R., J. Mater. Chem. 14, 2115 (2004).Google Scholar