Bone biomechanical performance is a complex trait or, more properly, an ensemble of complex traits. Biomechanical performance incorporates flexibility under loading, yield and failure load, and energy to failure; all are important measures of bone function. To date, the vast majority of work has focused on yield and failure load and its surrogate, bone mineral density. We performed a reciprocal intercross of the mouse strains HcB-8 and HcB-23 to map and ultimately identify genes that contribute to differences in biomechanical performance. Mechanical testing was performed by 3-point bending of the femora. We measured femoral diaphysis cross-sectional anatomy from photographs of the fracture surfaces. We used beam equations to calculate material level mechanical properties. We performed a principal component (PC) analysis of normalized whole bone phenotypes (17 input traits). We measured distances separating mandibular landmarks from calibrated digital photographs and performed linkage analysis. Experiment-wide α = 0.05 significance thresholds were established by permutation testing. Three quantitative trait loci (QTLs) identified in these studies illustrate the advantages of the comprehensive phenotyping approach. A pleiotropic QTL on chromosome 4 affected multiple whole bone phenotypes with LOD scores as large as 17.5, encompassing size, cross-sectional ellipticity, stiffness, yield and failure load, and bone mineral density. This locus was linked to 3 of the PCs but unlinked to any of the tissue level phenotypes. From this pattern, we infer that the QTL operates by modulating the proliferative response to mechanical loading. On this basis, we successfully predicted that this locus also affects the length of a specific region of the mandible. A pleiotropic locus on chromosome 10 with LOD scores displays opposite effects on failure load and toughness with LOD scores of 4.5 and 5.5, respectively, so that the allele that increases failure load decreases toughness. A chromosome 19 QTL for PC2 with an LOD score of 4.8 was not detected with either the whole bone or tissue level phenotypes. We conclude that first, comprehensive, system-oriented phenotyping provides much information that could not be obtained by focusing on bone mineral density alone. Second, mechanical performance includes inherent trade-offs between strength and brittleness. Third, considering the aggregate phenotypic data allows prediction of novel QTLs.

1.
Allison, D.B., et al. (1998) Multiple phenotype modeling in gene-mapping studies of quantitative traits: power advantages. Am J Hum Genet 63: 1190–1201.
2.
Blank, R.D., et al. (2003) Spectroscopically determined collagen Pyr/deH-DHLNL cross-link ratio and crystallinity indices differ markedly in recombinant congenic mice with divergent calculated bone tissue strength. Connect Tissue Res 44: 134–142.
3.
Demant, P., A.A. Hart (1986) Recombinant congenic strains – a new tool for analyzing genetic traits determined by more than one gene. Immunogenetics 24: 416–422.
4.
Groot, P.C., et al. (1992) The recombinant congenic strains for analysis of multigenic traits: genetic composition. FASEB J 6: 2826–2835.
5.
Jepsen, K.J., et al. (2007) Genetic randomization reveals functional relationships among morphologic and tissue-quality traits that contribute to bone strength and fragility. Mamm Genome 18: 492–507.
6.
Jepsen, K.J., et al. (2009) Phenotypic integration of skeletal traits during growth buffers genetic variants affecting the slenderness of femora in inbred mouse strains. Mamm Genome 20: 21–33.
7.
Leppanen, O.V., H. Sievanen, T.L. Jarvinen (2008) Biomechanical testing in experimental bone interventions – may the power be with you. J Biomech 41: 1623–1631.
8.
Reddy, S., et al. (1998) Isolation and characterization of a cDNA clone encoding a novel peptide (OSF) that enhances osteoclast formation and bone resorption. J Cell Physiol 177: 636–45.
9.
Ritchie, R.O., et al. (2008) Measurement of the toughness of bone: a tutorial with special reference to small animal studies. Bone 43: 798–812.
10.
Robling, A.G., et al. (2003) Evidence for a skeletal mechanosensitivity gene on mouse chromosome 4. FASEB J 17: 324–326.
11.
Saless, N., et al. (2009) Quantitative trait loci for biomechanical performance and femoral geometry in an intercross of recombinant congenic mice: restriction of the Bmd7 candidate interval. FASEB J 23: 2142–2154.
12.
Saless, N., et al. (2010a) Linkage mapping of principal components for femoral biomechanical performance in a reciprocal HCB-8xHCB-23 intercross. Bone 48: 647–653.
13.
Saless, N., et al. (2010b) Linkage mapping of femoral material properties in a reciprocal intercross of HcB-8 and HcB-23 recombinant mouse strains. Bone 46: 1251–1259.
14.
Sparks, A.B., et al. (1996) Cloning of ligand targets: systematic isolation of SH3 domain-containing proteins. Nat Biotechnol 14: 741–744.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.