Evidence for Ongoing Modeling-Based Bone Formation in Human Femoral Head Trabeculae via Forming Minimodeling Structures: A Study in Patients with Fractures and Arthritis.

Bone modeling is a biological process of bone formation that adapts bone size and shape to mechanical loads, especially during childhood and adolescence. Bone modeling in cortical bone can be easily detected using sequential radiographic images, while its assessment in trabecular bone is challenging. Here, we performed histomorphometric analysis in 21 bone specimens from biopsies collected during hip arthroplasty, and we proposed the criteria for histologically identifying an active modeling-based bone formation, which we call a "forming minimodeling structure" (FMiS). Evidence of FMiSs was found in 9 of 20 specimens (45%). In histomorphometric analysis, bone volume was significant higher in specimens displaying FMiSs compared with the specimens without these structures (BV/TV, 31.7 ± 10.2 vs. 23.1 ± 3.9%; p < 0.05). Osteoid parameters were raised in FMiS-containing bone specimens (OV/BV, 2.1 ± 1.6 vs. 0.6 ± 0.3%; p < 0.001, OS/BS, 23.6 ± 15.5 vs. 7.6 ± 4.2%; p < 0.001, and O.Th, 7.4 µm ± 2.0 vs. 5.2 ± 1.0; p < 0.05). Our results showed that the modeling-based bone formation on trabecular bone surfaces occurs even during adulthood. As FMiSs can represent histological evidence of modeling-based bone formation, understanding of this physiology in relation to bone homeostasis is crucial

Evidence for Ongoing Modeling-Based Bone Formation in Human Femoral Head Trabeculae via Forming Minimodeling Structures: A Study in Patients with Fractures and Arthritis

Bone modeling is a biological process of bone formation that adapts bone size and shape to mechanical loads, especially during childhood and adolescence. Bone modeling in cortical bone can be easily detected using sequential radiographic images, while its assessment in trabecular bone is challenging. Here, we performed histomorphometric analysis in 21 bone specimens from biopsies collected during hip arthroplasty, and we proposed the criteria for histologically identifying an active modeling-based bone formation, which we call a “forming minimodeling structure” (FMiS). Evidence of FMiSs was found in 9 of 20 specimens (45%). In histomorphometric analysis, bone volume was significant higher in specimens displaying FMiSs compared with the specimens without these structures (BV/TV, 31.7 ± 10.2 vs. 23.1 ± 3.9%; p &lt; 0.05). Osteoid parameters were raised in FMiS-containing bone specimens (OV/BV, 2.1 ± 1.6 vs. 0.6 ± 0.3%; p &lt; 0.001, OS/BS, 23.6 ± 15.5 vs. 7.6 ± 4.2%; p &lt; 0.001, and O.Th, 7.4 µm ± 2.0 vs. 5.2 ± 1.0; p &lt; 0.05). Our results showed that the modeling-based bone formation on trabecular bone surfaces occurs even during adulthood. As FMiSs can represent histological evidence of modeling-based bone formation, understanding of this physiology in relation to bone homeostasis is crucial

video_1.mp4

<p>Bone modeling is a biological process of bone formation that adapts bone size and shape to mechanical loads, especially during childhood and adolescence. Bone modeling in cortical bone can be easily detected using sequential radiographic images, while its assessment in trabecular bone is challenging. Here, we performed histomorphometric analysis in 21 bone specimens from biopsies collected during hip arthroplasty, and we proposed the criteria for histologically identifying an active modeling-based bone formation, which we call a “forming minimodeling structure” (FMiS). Evidence of FMiSs was found in 9 of 20 specimens (45%). In histomorphometric analysis, bone volume was significant higher in specimens displaying FMiSs compared with the specimens without these structures (BV/TV, 31.7 ± 10.2 vs. 23.1 ± 3.9%; p < 0.05). Osteoid parameters were raised in FMiS-containing bone specimens (OV/BV, 2.1 ± 1.6 vs. 0.6 ± 0.3%; p < 0.001, OS/BS, 23.6 ± 15.5 vs. 7.6 ± 4.2%; p < 0.001, and O.Th, 7.4 µm ± 2.0 vs. 5.2 ± 1.0; p < 0.05). Our results showed that the modeling-based bone formation on trabecular bone surfaces occurs even during adulthood. As FMiSs can represent histological evidence of modeling-based bone formation, understanding of this physiology in relation to bone homeostasis is crucial.</p

image_1.tif

<p>Bone modeling is a biological process of bone formation that adapts bone size and shape to mechanical loads, especially during childhood and adolescence. Bone modeling in cortical bone can be easily detected using sequential radiographic images, while its assessment in trabecular bone is challenging. Here, we performed histomorphometric analysis in 21 bone specimens from biopsies collected during hip arthroplasty, and we proposed the criteria for histologically identifying an active modeling-based bone formation, which we call a “forming minimodeling structure” (FMiS). Evidence of FMiSs was found in 9 of 20 specimens (45%). In histomorphometric analysis, bone volume was significant higher in specimens displaying FMiSs compared with the specimens without these structures (BV/TV, 31.7 ± 10.2 vs. 23.1 ± 3.9%; p < 0.05). Osteoid parameters were raised in FMiS-containing bone specimens (OV/BV, 2.1 ± 1.6 vs. 0.6 ± 0.3%; p < 0.001, OS/BS, 23.6 ± 15.5 vs. 7.6 ± 4.2%; p < 0.001, and O.Th, 7.4 µm ± 2.0 vs. 5.2 ± 1.0; p < 0.05). Our results showed that the modeling-based bone formation on trabecular bone surfaces occurs even during adulthood. As FMiSs can represent histological evidence of modeling-based bone formation, understanding of this physiology in relation to bone homeostasis is crucial.</p

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field