Skip to main content
. 2008 May 12;205(5):1145–1153. doi: 10.1084/jem.20071294

Table II.

Static and dynamic trabecular bone parameters in long bones of control and unloaded WT (WT) and BSP−/− mice

Genotype
WT
BSP−/−

Treatment Control Unloaded Control Unloaded Sex
Static parametersa
SMI 2.3 ± 0.1 3.0 ± 0.1bc 1.7 ± 0.1d 2.0 ± 0.1e Male
Tb.N
(/mm)
3.6 ± 0.2 2.3 ± 0.2e 6.1 ± 0.3f 5.4 ± 0.3e
Tb.Th
(μm)
51 ± 1.8 46 ± 0.8e 53 ± 1.6 48 ± 1.1e
Tb.Sp
(μm)
30 ± 2.6 39 ± 3.2e 16 ± 0.8g 18 ± 1.1e
n 9 12 6 6
SMI 2.1 ± 0.1 2.4 ± 0.04e 2.2 ± 0.1 2.6 ± 0.1h Female
Tb.N
(/mm)
2.1 ± 0.1 2.4 ± 0.2 3.7 ± 0.3g 3.2 ± 0.3i
Tb.Th
(μm)
67 ± 1.4 53 ± 2.0i 47±1.6f 46 ± 2.1
Tb.Sp
(μm)
50 ± 3.0 44 ± 3.3 28 ± 2.5g 34 ± 4.2
n 7 8 6 8
Dynamic parametersj
N.Oc/B.Ar
(/μm2)
379 ± 50 383±42 346 ± 39 354 ± 65 Male
MS/BS
(%)
13.04 ± 2.69 6.14 ± 1.41e 4.93 ± 1.68k 1.18 ± 0.27h
MAR
(μm/day)
2.38 ± 0.36 1.31 ± 0.10h 1.49 ± 0.19k 1.55 ± 0.88
n 9 9 7 9
N.Oc/B.Ar
(/μm2)
288 ± 50 384 ± 63 277 ± 38 386 ± 37 Female
MS/BS
(%)
21.51 ± 3.19 6.38 ± 1.53i 4.93 ± 1.34g 5.28 ± 1.12
MAR
(μm/day)
2.98 ± 0.18 1.18 ± 0.22i 1.11 ± 0.14g 1.17 ± 0.13
n 9 10 7 7

See Materials and methods for details.

a

μCT analysis on excised tibias.

b

P < 0.0001 versus loaded control.

c

Results are the mean ± the SEM.

d

P < 0.01 versus matched WT.

e

P < 0.05 versus loaded control.

f

P < 0.0001 versus matched WT.

g

P < 0.001 versus matched WT.

h

P < 0.01 versus loaded control.

i

P < 0.001 versus loaded control.

j

Histomorphometry on excised femurs.

k

P < 0.05 versus matched WT.