F1000ResearchF1000Research2046-1402F1000 Research LimitedLondon, UK10.12688/f1000research.18239.1ReviewArticlesMaterial properties and osteoporosis
[version 1; peer review: 2 approved]
PaschalisEleftherios P.Project AdministrationWriting – Original Draft PreparationWriting – Review & Editinghttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-2079-435Xa1KlaushoferKlausWriting – Original Draft PreparationWriting – Review & Editing1HartmannMarkus A.Writing – Original Draft PreparationWriting – Review & Editinghttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-6046-03651
Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Osteology at the Hanusch Hospital of WGKK and AUVA Trauma Centre Meidling, 1st Medical Department Hanusch Hospital, Heinrich Collin Strasse 30, Vienna, 1140, Austriaeleftherios.paschalis@osteologie.at
The main clinical tool for the diagnosis and treatment of skeletal diseases such as osteoporosis is the determination of bone mineral density by dual x-ray absorptiometry. Although this outcome contributes to the determination of bone strength, the clinical evidence to date suggests that it does not correlate strongly with fracture incidence. The main reason for this discrepancy is the fact that several other bone properties, such as material properties, are not taken into account. This short review summarizes the reasons why material properties are important in the determination of bone strength and briefly discusses some of them as well as their influence on bone’s mechanical performance.
bone fragilitymaterial propertiesosteoporosisThe author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.Editorial Note on the Review Process
F1000 Faculty Reviews are commissioned from members of the prestigious
F1000 Faculty and are edited as a service to readers. In order to make these reviews as comprehensive and accessible as possible, the referees provide input before publication and only the final, revised version is published. The referees who approved the final version are listed with their names and affiliations but without their reports on earlier versions (any comments will already have been addressed in the published version).
The referees who approved this article are:
Kok-Yong Chin, Department of Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
No competing interests were disclosed.
Stavros C Manolagas, Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Center for Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences and the Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System, Little Rock, AR, USA
No competing interests were disclosed.
Bone strength is determined by both the amount and the quality of its material (mineral, organic matrix, and water). However, in the clinical setting, the prediction of bone strength, and thus the identification of patients at high risk for fragility fracture, relies exclusively on the measurement of the amount of mineral present. This is accomplished by bone mineral density (BMD) measurements using dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) or BMD-dependent algorithms, such as FRAX
®. Both tools have enjoyed widespread use in the field of osteoporosis. The original definition of osteoporosis was formulated by Albright and Reifenstein as a disease in which there is “too little bone, but what there is, is normal”
1. For several decades afterwards, osteoporosis was viewed as a disease of low bone mass. In 2001, the National Institutes of Health changed the definition of osteoporosis to “a skeletal disorder characterized by compromised bone strength predisposing a person to an increased risk of fractures”
2. It is now widely appreciated that non-BMD factors that determine susceptibility to fractures include small bone size, disrupted bone architecture, excessive rate of bone remodeling, loss of osteocyte viability with age, increased cortical porosity, and falls as well as changes in the quality of the bone matrix and the maturity of its mineral and delayed repair of fatigue micro-damage. In spite of this advanced understanding, estimates of bone strength and hence fracture risk still rely exclusively on mineral quantity measurements. The fact that BMD is only one of many other determinants of an individual’s fracture risk
3,
4 is highlighted by the significant overlap in BMD between patients who do sustain fragility fractures and those who do not
5–
7. Moreover, for a given bone mass, an individual’s risk to fracture increases exponentially with age
8,
9. Many investigators have shown that mechanical variables directly related to fracture risk are either independent
10 or not totally accounted for by bone mass
11–
15. Epidemiological evidence also demonstrates considerable overlap of BMD values between fracture and non-fracture groups, strengthening the notion that low bone quantity alone is an insufficient cause of fragility fractures
16–
18. This holds true even in the case of algorithms such as FRAX
® which rely heavily on BMD measurements
9,
19,
20. A similar discrepancy is evident when osteoporosis therapies are evaluated on the basis of BMD gains. In fact, when actual reduction in fractures is considered instead of fracture risk, only a very small portion of the observed fracture reduction is accounted for by this metric
21–
23. Based on these observations, the necessity for a better understanding of what alterations result in fragility fractures becomes self-evident, all the while keeping in mind that BMD does contribute to the mechanical properties of bone and is the only clinically approved measure to date.
The first step in reassessing an improving fracture risk estimation would be to appreciate what properties contribute to the determination of bone strength. As stated earlier, the three main constituents of bone are mineral, organic matrix, and water. It is logical then to postulate that, at the material level, fragility fracture is the result of alterations in the quantity or quality (or both) of one or more of these three components. Bone mechanical competence is determined by three often inversely related attributes: stiffness, toughness, and strength
24,
25. Load-bearing materials have to reconcile several sometimes opposing mechanical properties. Stiffness measures the ability of the material to withstand deformation, and strength is defined as the highest stress the material can bear before the onset of permanent deformation and damage. Toughness quantifies how much energy has to be put into the system before it fails. More exactly, it measures the energy needed to propagate a crack through the system. It is clear that a (natural) load-bearing material like bone should combine all three parameters: large stiffness and strength are necessary to give stability to the body and allow efficient locomotion, while high toughness is needed to maintain the integrity of the bone as otherwise cracks could easily propagate and bones would break at the slightest impact. Unfortunately, it is one of the main conundrums of materials science that it is not easy to fabricate a material that is strong, stiff, and tough at the same time
26. Most homogeneous materials are either stiff and strong or tough, but they rarely combine all three properties
27. Typical examples from materials science are ceramics and metals. Ceramics are very strong and stiff but break easily. This is explained by the nature of covalent bonds that form these materials. These bonds are strong and highly directed, but they are non-reversible and cannot be re-distributed. Metals, on the other hand, are much softer and less strong but show a higher toughness than ceramic structures. This is due to the non-directed and reversible metallic bond that allows efficient stress relaxation via movement of dislocations
28.
To overcome these limitations, nature has developed several strategies to fabricate materials that combine high stiffness, strength, and toughness. One main strategy is to build highly anisotropic composite materials that are hierarchically structured over many length scales combining materials with opposing properties
29. All different levels mutually interact with each other and possess certain strengthening and toughening mechanisms. In the following, we will briefly discuss these mechanisms on the lowest level of hierarchy (the molecular level) in the example of bone. On the nanoscale, bone is a composite made of the organic protein collagen and the inorganic mineral hydroxyapatite that is a calcium phosphate. Whereas collagen is not very stiff and strong but is very tough, hydroxyapatite is hard to deform and is very strong; but as a ceramic, hydroxyapatite does not have a very pronounced toughness.
Nature has developed efficient ways to arrange collagen and hydroxyapatite so that the resulting composite bone has high stiffness and toughness
30. This is achieved through a hierarchical structuring of bone over many length scales while special mechanisms of strengthening and toughening apply on each single level
31. Roughly, the different levels of hierarchy are, first, the macroscopic level of trabecular or osteonal bone characterized by geometry and topology; second, the level of bone material with mechanical properties that differ because of different values of mineralization
32,
33; third, the lamellar structure of mineralized collagen fibrils that is very efficient in crack deflection
34,
35. Finally, the level of the organic-inorganic composite of triple-helical collagen fibrils and hydroxyapatite crystals is arranged in a staggered manner
36,
37. In particular, the distribution of loads in bone is such that the deformation is not homogeneously distributed in the material and its hierarchical layers. The deformation of the composite on the macroscopic scale is always larger than the deformation of the molecular bonds
37,
38. All of these levels are strongly interrelated and depend on each other.
In this review, we will focus on the lowest level of hierarchy and the toughening mechanisms on this length scale. On this scale, bone is a nano-composite of soft but tough collagen molecules and stiff but brittle plate-like crystals of hydroxyapatite. One part of the toughening comes from the geometric arrangement of constituents. The triple-helical collagen molecules of length of about 300 nm self-assemble in a staggered manner with an axial period of about 67 nm
39. The different triple helices are strongly cross-linked
40,
41. Because the length of the molecule and the period are not integer multiples of each other, the staggering leads to the emergence of tight overlap and less-dense gap regions, where mineralization is believed to start
42. From a mechanical point of view, this particular spatial arrangement of soft organic matrix and stiff mineral phase leads to the formation of shear stresses in the matrix (amount of force per unit area perpendicular to the collagen fibers), while the mineral particles are loaded in tension. The geometric arrangement of mineral particles, especially their lateral distance and length, is critical for their mechanical behavior
36. Furthermore, the small size of crystallites effectively prevents the occurrence of cracks and flaws, helping the material to gain its theoretical strength
43.
Another component that provides the bone material with remarkable properties consists of sacrificial bonds. The soft matrix in bone (and in many other biological materials) consists mainly of proteins. Proteins are heteropolymers consisting of amino acids. The bonds along the backbone of a protein are covalent in nature, but proteins also often contain cross-links that are additional bonds connecting distant parts of the same or different molecules. These cross-links are used to carefully tailor the mechanical properties of the structures. In biological materials, these cross-links are often weaker than the covalent bonds that hold the structure together. Thus, upon loading, these bonds rupture before the covalent backbone fails; it can be said that these bonds sacrifice themselves
44. When the cross-links open, they reveal what is called the hidden length: that is, the part of the polymer that was previously shielded from being loaded by the cross-links. After cross-link opening, the hidden length is allowed to expand, dissipating large amounts of energy. This process considerably enhances the toughness of the material. Furthermore, typical sacrificial bonds are reversible. This means that they may reform once the load is released and the material shows self-healing capabilities
45. Consequently, although irreversible deformation takes place when the soft glue layer between mineral platelets is sheared, the material can heal and regain its original mechanical properties when the load is released. In bone, sacrificial bonds are coulombic in nature
46. Divalent ions, like calcium, might cross-link negatively charged proteins like osteopontin
44,
47. Computational studies have shown that disorder in the arrangement of sacrificial bonds needs to be introduced in order to obtain a tough material but that perfectly ordered structures lead to a stiff and strong but very brittle material
48 (
Figure 1).
Microscopic toughening mechanisms of sacrificial bonds in bone.
(
A) Schematic of possible kinds of sacrificial bonds in the glue layer between mineralized collagen fibrils: connecting different parts of the same protein (1), connecting different polymers (2), and connecting a protein and a mineral plate (3). Reproduced with permission from the Nature Publishing Group
60. (
B) These cross-links are probably coulombic in nature. Divalent ions (calcium) may form coulombic bridges between negatively charged proteins. Reproduced with permission from the Royal Society
46. (
C) Mineral particles are arranged in such a way that the glue layer mostly experiences shear. Computer simulation studies indicate that the arrangement of sacrificial bonds in this layer has a large impact on mechanical behavior. Whereas an ordered arrangement results in an elastic but brittle material (unrealistic high values of the elastic modulus of up to 2800 GPa and low toughness of 5 MJ/m
3 for cross-link densities (ρ) of 4.62 e/nm
2), the same number of cross-links but randomly arranged leads to a less stiff but highly ductile material (elastic modulus of 5 GPa and toughness of 275 MJ/m
3). Note the different scaling of the stress and strain axis for the different arrangements. Modified with permission from the American Chemistry Society (
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/nl901816s)
48. Further permissions related to the material excerpted should be directed to the ACS.
Evaluating the health status or efficacy (or both) of drugs on the basis of BMD values exclusively also raises the following conundrum. Bone strength depends on both the amount and quality of bone
49. Under physiologic conditions, resorption removes poor-quality bone which then is replaced with new and good-quality bone. But if the quality of the new bone made to replace the one removed during bone remodeling (turnover) is poor, decreasing the resorption rate with a drug may in and of itself have no benefit. Bone turnover rates change as a function of subject age, health status, and treatment. This results in a change of the number of the bone-relevant cells such as osteoblasts, osteocytes, and osteoclasts. Yet changes in cell numbers are not the only variation. Output/cell also may change. For example, osteoblastic output diminishes as a function of aging because of factors such as oxidative stress. Thus, with aging or disease (or both), bone material properties may vary because of turnover changes or changes in cellular output (or both). The former are routinely established by histomorphometry. The latter require utilization of either molecular biology techniques or techniques that can normalize for tissue age, such as microspectroscopic ones
50. It should be kept in mind, especially when evaluating osteoporosis therapies, that, in addition to the therapies’ direct effects on cells, there may be indirect ones as well. For example, teriparatide acts on the Wnt signaling pathway and is likely to have direct effects on the cells and their output
51,
52. On the other hand, bisphosphonates not only induce increased osteoclast apoptosis but also adsorb onto the apatite mineral surfaces, altering the zeta potential of these surfaces
53. Cells, including osteoblasts, recognize and react to such changes
54–
56. Similarly, strontium (part of strontium ranelate therapy) incorporates into the apatite crystals, substituting for calcium ions, thus rendering nutritional calcium intake as well as serum calcium levels as important regulators of any strontium treatment
57. Moreover, since strontium is incorporated into the crystals at forming surfaces, there is no indication for a change in human bone tissue quality at the nanoscale after a 36-month treatment for postmenopausal osteoporotic women with strontium ranelate
58,
59.
It becomes abundantly clear from the previous discussion that mineral content is but one of the many contributing parameters in the determination of bone strength. Below, we list some of the bone properties that are known to affect bone mechanical performance but that are not measured by everyday clinical techniques.
Although the determination of BMD is a routine procedure, it ignores the amount of organic matrix present within the bone volume analyzed, yet the organic matrix plays an important role in alleviating impact damage from peak stresses to mineral crystallites and to matrix/mineral interfaces by behaving like a soft padding and homogenizing stress distribution within the bone composite
36,
43. As a matter of fact, in a rodent model, the commonly reported spectroscopically determined mineral/matrix ratio correlates better with bending stiffness as compared with BMD alone
61. To the best of our knowledge, the two techniques that simultaneously and directly measure both mineral and organic matrix quantity are thermogravimetric analysis and vibrational spectroscopic techniques. The former is a rather destructive approach, as the bone needs to be ashed. The latter requires a biopsy, although recent advances may make the
in vivo analysis of bone feasible in the not-too-distant future
50.
Bone water content has recently attracted renewed interest as it has been shown to contribute to the overall toughness of bone, acting like a plasticizer
62–
65. This indirectly emphasizes the importance of proteoglycans in the determination of bone strength
66. Proteoglycans are non-collagenous components of the bone extracellular matrix and are characterized by the presence of one or more glycosaminoglycan polymers attached to a protein core
67. They play multiple roles in bone tissue, contributing to the organic matrix assembly and the negative modulation of both organic matrix mineralization and remodeling rates
68–
71. In older (in terms of tissue age) bone tissue, glycosaminoglycans are responsible for preventing mineralization of the perilacunar matrix around the osteocyte lacunae and the canaliculi in compact lamellar bone
72. Finally, an important chemical property of proteoglycans is their capacity to swell by binding large amounts of water (through their GAG chains) and fill in spaces
73.
Bone mineral crystallites are poorly crystalline and highly substituted apatite crystals
74. These crystal lattice substitutions impact the crystal solubility and its size and shape. Healthy bone consists of crystallites whose size and shape fall within a definite range. Values outside this range have been associated with clinical conditions associated with bone fragility, such as osteoporosis and fluorosis
49,
75–
77, in agreement with theoretical studies
36,
43.
Bone enzymatic intermolecular collagen cross-links are paramount to fibril organization. Mineralizing type I collagen undergoes extensive post-translational modifications
41. Covalent enzymatic intermolecular cross-links are tissue type– rather than collagen type–specific
41. Elevated trivalent cross-link density is associated with more brittle-like performance by collagen fibrils
78. Alterations in collagen cross-links are enough to impact the mechanical proficiency of bone even if restricted at microanatomical locations, without simultaneous alteration in either mineral quantity or quality
79,
80. The type and amount of enzymatic collagen cross-links are inversely correlated with stiffness, maximum force to failure, maximum energy to failure, and fracture toughness
79,
80. In humans, collagen cross-links at actively bone-forming trabecular surfaces strongly correlate with fracture incidence, even in cases where incidence is divergent from the predicted fracture risk based on BMD and biochemical markers
81–
84.
In summary, bone material properties are important determinants of bone strength yet are not accounted for by any of the clinically available diagnosis tools. Developing tools that will measure bone material properties in the clinical setting is of great importance in complementing existing ones such as BMD by DXA. Such new tools will improve the calculation of fracture risk.
AlbrightFReifensteinE:
The Parathyroid Glands and Metabolic Bone Disease.Williams & Wilkins: Baltimore, MD.1948;393.NIH Consensus Development Panel on Osteoporosis Prevention, Diagnosis, and Therapy.Osteoporosis Prevention, Diagnosis, and Therapy.JAMA.2001;285(6):785–795.
1117691710.1001/jama.285.6.785BoyceTMBloebaumRD:
Cortical aging differences and fracture implications for the human femoral neck.Bone.1993;14(5):769–78.
826805110.1016/8756-3282(93)90209-SMarshallDJohnellOWedelH:
Meta-analysis of how well measures of bone mineral density predict occurrence of osteoporotic fractures.BMJ.1996;312(7041):1254–9.
863461310.1136/bmj.312.7041.12542351094CummingsSR:
Are patients with hip fractures more osteoporotic? Review of the evidence.Am J Med.1985;78(3):487–94.
397670710.1016/0002-9343(85)90343-2McCreadieBRGoldsteinSA:
Biomechanics of fracture: Is bone mineral density sufficient to assess risk?J Bone Miner Res.2000;15(12):2305–8.
1112719510.1359/jbmr.2000.15.12.2305ManolagasSC:
Corticosteroids and fractures: a close encounter of the third cell kind.J Bone Miner Res.2000;15(6):1001–5.
1084116810.1359/jbmr.2000.15.6.1001HuiSLSlemendaCWJohnstonCCJr:
Age and bone mass as predictors of fracture in a prospective study.J Clin Invest.1988;81(6):1804–9.
338495210.1172/JCI113523442628CrandallCJLarsonJMansonJE:
A Comparison of US and Canadian Osteoporosis Screening and Treatment Strategies in Postmenopausal Women.J Bone Miner Res.2019;34(4):607–615.
3053662810.1002/jbmr.3636
F1000 Recommendation
JepsenKJSchafflerMB:
Bone mass does not adequately predict variations in bone fragility: a genetic approach.Trans Orthop Res Soc.47th Annual Meeting.2001;114.
Reference SourceParfittAM:
Bone remodeling and bone loss: understanding the pathophysiology of osteoporosis.Clin Obstet Gynecol.1987;30(4):789–811.
331931310.1097/00003081-198712000-00004MosekildeLMosekildeLDanielsenCC:
Biomechanical competence of vertebral trabecular bone in relation to ash density and age in normal individuals.Bone.1987;8(2):79–85.
359361110.1016/8756-3282(87)90074-3McCabeFZhouLJSteeleCR:
Noninvasive assessment of ulnar bending stiffness in women.J Bone Miner Res.1991;6(1):53–9.
204843210.1002/jbmr.5650060110KanisJAMeltonLJ3rdChristiansenC:
The diagnosis of osteoporosis.J Bone Miner Res.1994;9(8):1137–41.
797649510.1002/jbmr.5650090802KannPGraebenSBeyerJ:
Age-dependence of bone material quality shown by the measurement of frequency of resonance in the ulna.Calcif Tissue Int.1994;54(2):96–100.
801287810.1007/BF00296058SchnitzlerCM:
Bone quality: a determinant for certain risk factors for bone fragility.Calcif Tissue Int.1993;53 Suppl 1:S27–S31.
827537610.1007/BF01673398OttSM:
When bone mass fails to predict bone failure.Calcif Tissue Int.1993;53 Suppl 1:S7–S13.
827538310.1007/BF01673395CummingsSRBlackDMNevittMC:
Appendicular bone density and age predict hip fracture in women. The Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group.JAMA.1990;263(5):665–8.
240414610.1001/jama.1990.03440050059033DimaiHP:
Use of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) for diagnosis and fracture risk assessment; WHO-criteria, T- and Z-score, and reference databases.Bone.2017;104:39–43.
2804187210.1016/j.bone.2016.12.016
F1000 Recommendation
CrandallCJLarsonJLacroixA:
Predicting Fracture Risk in Younger Postmenopausal Women: Comparison of the Garvan and FRAX Risk Calculators in the Women's Health Initiative Study.J Gen Intern Med.2019;34(2):235–42.
3033418210.1007/s11606-018-4696-z6374270
F1000 Recommendation
CummingsSRKarpfDBHarrisF:
Improvement in spine bone density and reduction in risk of vertebral fractures during treatment with antiresorptive drugs.Am J Med.2002;112(4):281–9.
1189336710.1016/s0002-9343(01)01124-xSarkarSMitlakBHWongM:
Relationships between bone mineral density and incident vertebral fracture risk with raloxifene therapy.J Bone Miner Res.2002;17(1):1–10.
1177165410.1359/jbmr.2002.17.1.1WattsNBCooperCLindsayR:
Relationship between changes in bone mineral density and vertebral fracture risk associated with risedronate: greater increases in bone mineral density do not relate to greater decreases in fracture risk.J Clin Densitom.2004;7(3):255–61.
1531949410.1385/JCD:7:3:255HernandezCJvan der MeulenMC:
Understanding Bone Strength Is Not Enough.J Bone Miner Res.2017;32(6):1157–62.
2806741110.1002/jbmr.30785466476
F1000 Recommendation
WagermaierWKlaushoferKFratzlP:
Fragility of Bone Material Controlled by Internal Interfaces.Calcif Tissue Int.2015;97(3):201–12.
2577280710.1007/s00223-015-9978-44525333BarthelatFYinZBuehlerMJ:
Structure and mechanics of interfaces in biological materials.Nat Rev Mater.2016;1: 16007.
10.1038/natrevmats.2016.7
F1000 Recommendation
RitchieRO:
The conflicts between strength and toughness.Nat Mater.2011;10(11):817–22.
2202000510.1038/nmat3115AshbyM:
Materials Selection in Mechanical Design. 2011; Butterworth-Heinemann.
10.1016/C2009-0-25539-5DunlopJWCFratzlP:
Biological Composites.Annu Rev Mater Res.2010;40:1–24.
10.1146/annurev-matsci-070909-104421EspinosaHDRimJEBarthelatF:
Merger of structure and material in nacre and bone – Perspectives on
de novo biomimetic materials.Progress in Materials Science.2009;54(8):1059–100.
10.1016/j.pmatsci.2009.05.001FratzlPWeinkamerR:
Nature’s hierarchical materials.Progress in Materials Science.2007;52(8):1263–334.
10.1016/j.pmatsci.2007.06.001RoschgerPGuptaHSBerzlanovichA:
Constant mineralization density distribution in cancellous human bone.Bone.2003;32(3):316–23.
1266756010.1016/S8756-3282(02)00973-0RoschgerPPaschalisEPFratzlP:
Bone mineralization density distribution in health and disease.Bone.2008;42(3):456–66.
1809645710.1016/j.bone.2007.10.021PeterlikHRoschgerPKlaushoferK:
From brittle to ductile fracture of bone.Nat Mater.2006;5(1):52–5.
1634121810.1038/nmat1545RitchieROBuehlerMJHansmaP:
Plasticity and toughness in bone.Physics Today.2009;62(6):41–7.
10.1063/1.3156332JägerIFratzlP:
Mineralized collagen fibrils: a mechanical model with a staggered arrangement of mineral particles.Biophys J.2000;79(4):1737–46.
1102388210.1016/S0006-3495(00)76426-51301068GuptaHSWagermaierWZicklerGA:
Nanoscale deformation mechanisms in bone.Nano Lett.2005;5(10):2108–11.
1621874710.1021/nl051584bGuptaHSSetoJWagermaierW:
Cooperative deformation of mineral and collagen in bone at the nanoscale.Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.2006;103(47):17741–6.
1709560810.1073/pnas.06042371031635545HodgeAPetruskaJ:
Recent studies with the electron microscope on ordered aggregates of the tropocollagen macromolecule.Academic Press,1963.
Reference SourceBuehlerMJ:
Nanomechanics of collagen fibrils under varying cross-link densities: atomistic and continuum studies.J Mech Behav Biomed Mater.2008;1(1):59–67.
1962777210.1016/j.jmbbm.2007.04.001RobinsSP:
Biochemistry and functional significance of collagen cross-linking.Biochem Soc Trans.2007;35(Pt 5):849–52.
1795623010.1042/BST0350849FratzlPFratzl-ZelmanNKlaushoferK:
Nucleation and growth of mineral crystals in bone studied by small-angle X-ray scattering.Calcif Tissue Int.1991;48(6):407–13.
207027510.1007/BF02556454GaoHJiBJagerIL:
Materials become insensitive to flaws at nanoscale: lessons from nature.Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.2003;100(10):5597–600.
1273273510.1073/pnas.0631609100156246FantnerGEOroudjevESchitterG:
Sacrificial bonds and hidden length: unraveling molecular mesostructures in tough materials.Biophys J.2006;90(4):1411–8.
1632690710.1529/biophysj.105.0693441367291ThompsonJBKindtJHDrakeB:
Bone indentation recovery time correlates with bond reforming time.Nature.2001;414(6865):773–6.
1174240510.1038/414773aGuptaHSFratzlPKerschnitzkiM:
Evidence for an elementary process in bone plasticity with an activation enthalpy of 1 eV.J R Soc Interface.2007;4(13):277–82.
1725115410.1098/rsif.2006.01722220070FantnerGEAdamsJTurnerP:
Nanoscale ion mediated networks in bone: osteopontin can repeatedly dissipate large amounts of energy.Nano Lett.2007;7(8):2491–8.
1764536610.1021/nl0712769HartmannMAFratzlP:
Sacrificial ionic bonds need to be randomly distributed to provide shear deformability.Nano Lett.2009;9(10):3603–7.
1972555210.1021/nl901816s2762307FratzlPGuptaHSPaschalisEP:
Structure and mechanical quality of the collagen–mineral nano-composite in bone.J Mater Chem.2004;14(14):2115–23.
10.1039/B402005GPaschalisEPGamsjaegerSKlaushoferK:
Vibrational spectroscopic techniques to assess bone quality.Osteoporos Int.2017;28(8):2275–91.
2837829110.1007/s00198-017-4019-yTianYXuYFuQ:
Parathyroid hormone regulates osteoblast differentiation in a Wnt/β-catenin-dependent manner.Mol Cell Biochem.2011;355(1–2):211–6.
2153376310.1007/s11010-011-0856-8KrishnanVBryantHUMacDougaldOA:
Regulation of bone mass by Wnt signaling.J Clin Invest.2006;116(5):1202–9.
1667076110.1172/JCI285511451219NancollasGHTangRPhippsRJ:
Novel insights into actions of bisphosphonates on bone: Differences in interactions with hydroxyapatite.Bone.2006;38(5):617–27.
1604620610.1016/j.bone.2005.05.003
F1000 Recommendation
CaiKFrantMBossertJ:
Surface functionalized titanium thin films: Zeta-potential, protein adsorption and cell proliferation.Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces.2006;50(1):1–8.
1667900810.1016/j.colsurfb.2006.03.016ChenLMccrateJMLeeJC-M:
The role of surface charge on the uptake and biocompatibility of hydroxyapatite nanoparticles with osteoblast cells.Nanotechnology.2011;22(10):105708.
2128940810.1088/0957-4484/22/10/1057083144725SmeetsRKolkAGerressenM:
A new biphasic osteoinductive calcium composite material with a negative Zeta potential for bone augmentation.Head Face Med.2009;5:13.
1952323910.1186/1746-160X-5-132706807PemmerBHofstaetterJGMeirerF:
Increased strontium uptake in trabecular bone of ovariectomized calcium-deficient rats treated with strontium ranelate or strontium chloride.J Synchrotron Rad.2011;18(pt 6):835–41.
2199790710.1107/S090904951103038XLiCParisOSiegelS:
Strontium is Incorporated Into Mineral Crystals Only in Newly Formed Bone During Strontium Ranelate Treatment.J Bone Miner Res.2010;25(5):968–75.
1987419510.1359/jbmr.091038RoschgerPManjubalaIZoegerN:
Bone material quality in transiliac bone biopsies of postmenopausal osteoporotic women after 3 years of strontium ranelate treatment.J Bone Miner Res.2010;25(4):891–900.
2043760910.1359/jbmr.091028FantnerGEHassenkamTKindtJH:
Sacrificial bonds and hidden length dissipate energy as mineralized fibrils separate during bone fracture.Nat Mater.2005;4(8):612–6.
1602512310.1038/nmat1428DonnellyEChenDXBoskeyAL:
Contribution of mineral to bone structural behavior and tissue mechanical properties.Calcif Tissue Int.2010;87(5):450–60.
2073058210.1007/s00223-010-9404-x2965269GuptaHSSetoJKraussS:
In situ multi-level analysis of viscoelastic deformation mechanisms in tendon collagen.J Struct Biol.2010;169(2):183–91.
1982221310.1016/j.jsb.2009.10.002AllenMRNewmanCLChenN:
Changes in skeletal collagen cross-links and matrix hydration in high- and low-turnover chronic kidney disease.Osteoporos Int.2015;26(3):977–85.
2546653010.1007/s00198-014-2978-94512757
F1000 Recommendation
GrankeMDoesMDNymanJS:
The Role of Water Compartments in the Material Properties of Cortical Bone.Calcif Tissue Int.2015;97(3):292–307.
2578301110.1007/s00223-015-9977-54526331
F1000 Recommendation
NymanJSGrankeMSingletonRC:
Tissue-Level Mechanical Properties of Bone Contributing to Fracture Risk.Curr Osteoporos Rep.2016;14(4):138–50.
2726310810.1007/s11914-016-0314-34927361
F1000 Recommendation
WangXHuaRAhsanA:
Age-Related Deterioration of Bone Toughness Is Related to Diminishing Amount of Matrix Glycosaminoglycans (GAGs).JBMR Plus.2018;2(3):164–73.
3000927810.1002/jbm4.100306042860
F1000 Recommendation
ScottJE:
Proteoglycan-fibrillar collagen interactions.Biochem J.1988;252(2):313–23.
304660610.1042/bj25203131149146GualeniBde VernejoulM-CMarty-MorieuxC:
Alteration of proteoglycan sulfation affects bone growth and remodeling.Bone.2013;54(1):83–91.
2336998910.1016/j.bone.2013.01.0363607217BiYNielsenKLKiltsTM:
Biglycan deficiency increases osteoclast differentiation and activity due to defective osteoblasts.Bone.2006;38(6):778–86.
1636470910.1016/j.bone.2005.11.005XuTBiancoPFisherLW:
Targeted disruption of the biglycan gene leads to an osteoporosis-like phenotype in mice.Nat Genet.1998;20(1):78–82.
973153710.1038/1746MochidaYDuarteWRTanzawaH:
Decorin modulates matrix mineralization in vitro.Biochem Biophys Res Commun.2003;305(1):6–9.
1273218810.1016/s0006-291x(03)00693-4ThompsonWRModlaSGrindelBJ:
Perlecan/Hspg2 deficiency alters the pericellular space of the lacunocanalicular system surrounding osteocytic processes in cortical bone.J Bone Miner Res.2011;26(3):618–29.
2081496910.1002/jbmr.2363179294
F1000 Recommendation
WangQYangY-YNiuH-J:
An ultrasound study of altered hydration behaviour of proteoglycan-degraded articular cartilage.BMC Musculoskelet Disord.2013;14:289.
2411905110.1186/1471-2474-14-2893819513ReyCRenugopalakrishnanVShimizuM:
A resolution-enhanced Fourier Transform Infrared spectroscopic study of the environment of the CO3 2− ion in the mineral phase of enamel during its formation and maturation.Calcif Tissue Int.1991;49(4):259–68.
1760770FratzlPRoschgerPEschbergerJ:
Abnormal bone mineralization after fluoride treatment in osteoporosis: A small-angle x-ray-scattering study.J Bone Miner Res.1994;9(10):1541–9.
781779910.1002/jbmr.5650091006BoskeyALDiCarloEPaschalisE:
Comparison of mineral quality and quantity in iliac crest biopsies from high- and low-turnover osteoporosis: An FT-IR microspectroscopic investigation.Osteoporos Int.2005;16(12):2031–8.
1608836010.1007/s00198-005-1992-31457020PaschalisEPBettsFDiCarloE:
FTIR Microspectroscopic Analysis of Human Iliac Crest Biopsies from Untreated Osteoporotic Bone.Calcif Tissue Int.1997;61(6):487–92.
938327610.1007/s002239900372DepalleBQinZShefelbineSJ:
Influence of cross-link structure, density and mechanical properties in the mesoscale deformation mechanisms of collagen fibrils.J Mech Behav Biomed Mater.2015;52:1–13.
2515361410.1016/j.jmbbm.2014.07.0084653952
F1000 Recommendation
McNernyEMBGongBMorrisMD:
Bone fracture toughness and strength correlate with collagen cross-link maturity in a dose-controlled lathyrism mouse model.J Bone Miner Res.2015;30(3):455–64.
2521347510.1002/jbmr.23564333018
F1000 Recommendation
PaschalisEPTatakisDNRobinsS:
Lathyrism-induced alterations in collagen cross-links influence the mechanical properties of bone material without affecting the mineral.Bone.2011;49(6):1232–41.
2192048510.1016/j.bone.2011.08.0273229977MisofBMGamsjaegerSCohenA:
Bone material properties in premenopausal women with idiopathic osteoporosis.J Bone Miner Res.2012;27(12):2551–61.
2277791910.1002/jbmr.16993502637Gourion-ArsiquaudSFaibishDMyersE:
Use of FTIR Spectroscopic Imaging to Identify Parameters Associated With Fragility Fracture.J Bone Miner Res.2009;24(9):1565–71.
1941930310.1359/jbmr.0904142730929
F1000 Recommendation
MallucheHHPorterDSMawadH:
Low-energy fractures without low T-scores characteristic of osteoporosis: A possible bone matrix disorder.J Bone Joint Surg Am.2013;95(19):e1391–6.
2408897410.2106/JBJS.L.012813779899PaschalisEPShaneELyritisG:
Bone Fragility and Collagen Cross-Links.J Bone Miner Res.2004;19(12):2000–4.
1553744310.1359/JBMR.0408201456071