We used a model whereby mechanical stimulation induces bone formation in rat caudal vertebrae, to test the effect of estrogen on this osteogenic response. Unexpectedly, estrogen administered daily throughout the experiments (8-11 d) suppressed, and ovariectomy enhanced, mechanically induced osteogenesis. Osteogenesis was unaffected by the resorption-inhibitor pamidronate, suggesting that the suppression of bone formation caused by estrogen was not due to suppression of resorption. We found that estrogen did not significantly reduce the proportion of osteocytes that were induced by mechanical stimulation to express c-fos and IGF-I mRNA; and estrogen suppressed mechanically induced osteogenesis whether administration was started 24 h before or 24 h after loading. This suggests that estrogen acts primarily not on the strain-sensing mechanism itself, but on the osteogenic response to signals generated by strain-sensitive cells. We also found that when estrogen administration was started 3 d after mechanical stimulation, by which time osteogenesis is established, estrogen augmented the osteogenic response. This data is consistent with in vitro evidence for estrogen responsiveness in two phenotypically distinct bone cell types: stromal cells, whose functional activities are suppressed, and osteoblasts, which are stimulated, by estrogen.
C J Jagger, J W Chow, T J Chambers
Usage data is cumulative from May 2024 through May 2025.
Usage | JCI | PMC |
---|---|---|
Text version | 123 | 16 |
50 | 14 | |
Citation downloads | 55 | 0 |
Totals | 228 | 30 |
Total Views | 258 |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.