bioRxiv ScienceSearch

Biology subjects

Butler, T. A.

Publications and source records attributed to Butler, T. A..

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Do mechanical strain magnitude and rate drive bone adaptation in adult women? A 12-month prospective study.

Although there is strong evidence that certain activities can increase bone density and structure in some individuals, it is unclear what specific mechanical factors govern the response. This is important because understanding the effect of mechanical signals on bone could contribute to more effective osteoporosis prevention methods and efficient clinical trial design. The degree to which strain rate and magnitude govern bone adaptation in humans has never been prospectively tested. Here, we studied the effects of a voluntary upper extremity compressive loading task in healthy adult women during a twelve month prospective period. One hundred and two women age 21-40 participated in one of two experiments. (1): low (n=21) and high (n=24) strain magnitude. (2): low (n=21) and high (n=20) strain rate. Control: (n=16): no intervention. Strains were assigned using subject-specific finite element models. Load cycles were recorded digitally. The primary outcome was change in ultradistal integral bone mineral content (iBMC), assessed with QCT. Interim timepoints and secondary outcomes were assessed with high resolution pQCT (HRpQCT). Sixty-six subjects completed the intervention, and interim data were analyzed for 77 subjects. Both the low and high strain rate groups had significant 12-month increases to ultradistal iBMC (change in control: -1.3{+/-}2.7%, low strain rate: 2.7{+/-}2.1%, high strain rate: 3.4{+/-}2.2%), total iBMC, and other measures. \"Loading dose\" was positively related to 12-month change in ultradistal iBMC, and interim changes to total BMD, cortical thickness and inner trabecular BMD. Subjects who gained the most bone completed, on average, 130 loading bouts of (mean strain) 550 {varepsilon} at 1805 {varepsilon}/s. Those with the greatest gains had the highest loading dose. We conclude that signals related to strain magnitude, rate, and number of loading bouts contribute to bone adaptation in healthy adult women, but only explain a small amount of variance in bone changes.

physiology

Intrinsic and Modifiable Contributors to Distal Radius Microstructure, Macrostructure and Strength in Premenopausal Women

While weight-bearing and resistive exercise modestly increases aBMD, the precise relationship between physical activity and bone microstructure, and strain in humans is not known. Previously, we established a voluntary upper-extremity loading model that assigns a persons target force based on their subject-specific, continuum FE-estimated radius bone strain. Here, our purpose was to quantify the inter-individual variability in radius microstructure and FE-estimated strain explained by site-specific mechanical loading history, and to determine whether variability in strain is captured by aBMD, a clinically relevant measure of bone density and fracture risk. Seventy-two women aged 21-40 were included in this cross-sectional analysis. High resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HRpQCT) was used to measure macro- and micro-structure in the distal radius. Mean energy equivalent strain in the distal radius was calculated from continuum finite element models generated from clinical resolution CT images of the forearm. Areal BMD was used in a nonlinear regression model to predict FE strain. Hierarchical linear regression models were used to assess the predictive capability of intrinsic (age, height) and modifiable (body mass, grip strength, physical activity) predictors. Fifty-one percent of the variability in FE bone strain was explained by its relationship with aBMD, with higher density predicting lower strains. Age and height explained up to 31.6% of the variance in microstructural parameters. Body mass explained 9.1% and 10.0% of the variance in aBMD and bone strain, respectively, with higher body mass indicative of greater density. Overall, results suggest that meaningful differences in bone structure and strain can be predicted by subject characteristics.\n\nHighlightsO_LIAreal bone mineral density (aBMD) explains 51% of the variability in bone strain.\nC_LIO_LIAdult bone loading predicts greater cortical porosity and trabecular density.\nC_LIO_LIGreater body mass predicts greater aBMD and lower bone strain.\nC_LI

physiology