Bone Tissue Density

Bone tissue density, often referred to as Bone Mineral Density (BMD), is a crucial measure of bone health, reflecting the amount of bone mineral present in bone tissue. As a complex trait, BMD is influenced by a combination of genetic and environmental factors. It is highly heritable, with studies showing heritability estimates ranging from approximately 30% to 90% across various populations and age groups^[1].

Biological Basis

The architecture and strength of bone are maintained through a dynamic process of remodeling, involving bone formation and resorption. Genetic factors play a substantial role in regulating this process, influencing peak bone mass achieved during early adulthood and the rate of bone loss later in life^[2]. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified numerous genetic loci significantly associated with BMD. For instance, large-scale meta-analyses have uncovered over twenty loci reaching genome-wide significance, with many mapping to new genomic regions ^[3]. These include genes such as GPR177, SPTBN1, CTNNB1, MEPE, MEF2C, STARD3NL, FLJ42280, LRP4, ARHGAP1, F2, DCDC5, SOX6, FOXL1, HDAC5, and CRHR1. Additionally, known BMD loci like ZBTB40, ESR1, TNFRSF11B, LRP5, SP7, TNFSF11, and TNFRSF11A have been confirmed at genome-wide significant levels ^[3]. Research indicates that the specific genes influencing BMD can vary by skeletal site and between genders ^[2].

Clinical Relevance

BMD measurement is a cornerstone in the clinical diagnosis of osteoporosis and the assessment of fracture risk^[4]. Lower bone tissue density is strongly correlated with decreased bone strength and an increased susceptibility to fractures, particularly osteoporotic fractures, which can occur from minimal trauma. Understanding the genetic determinants of BMD is critical, as many genes associated with BMD have also been linked directly to fracture risk, supporting BMD’s role as an intermediate phenotype in identifying fracture-related genes^[5].

Social Importance

Osteoporotic fractures represent a significant public health challenge, impacting quality of life and imposing a substantial burden on healthcare systems. The burden of disease from osteoporotic fractures is comparable to that of colorectal cancer and exceeds that of hypertension and breast cancer^[4]. By elucidating the genetic underpinnings of bone tissue density, researchers aim to develop more effective strategies for the prevention, early diagnosis, and targeted treatment of bone-related diseases, ultimately reducing the incidence of debilitating fractures and improving population health.

Limitations

Research into bone tissue density, while advancing our understanding, faces several inherent limitations that warrant careful consideration when interpreting findings. These limitations span statistical power, the complex nature of the trait itself, and the challenges of generalizing results across diverse populations.

Statistical Power and Replication Challenges

Many genetic studies on bone tissue density are constrained by statistical power, which impacts the ability to reliably identify and replicate genetic associations. The effect sizes of individual genetic variants on bone tissue density are often very small, making them susceptible to false positive associations from multiple hypothesis testing and difficult to replicate consistently across different studies^[6]. Current sample sizes may lack the power to detect these small effects, especially when examining specific subgroups defined by sex or age, or when attempting to identify the influence of rare alleles that are not adequately captured by standard genome-wide association study (GWAS) approaches ^[7]. Consequently, many findings require independent replication in larger cohorts and further functional studies to establish their validity and biological mechanism ^[7].

Phenotypic Heterogeneity and Measurement Considerations

Bone tissue density is a complex trait, and its measurement and interpretation are subject to significant heterogeneity. Genetic mechanisms influencing bone tissue density can differ substantially across various skeletal sites, such as the femoral neck compared to the lumbar spine, despite a relatively high phenotypic correlation between these sites^[7]. This site-specificity means that findings for one skeletal region may not directly translate to others. Furthermore, the accuracy of bone tissue density measurements can be influenced by intrinsic factors and artifacts, such as osteophytes in the lumbar spine or aortic calcifications, which can confound the true bone tissue density values^[7]. These measurement nuances necessitate careful consideration when comparing and synthesizing results from different studies or across different anatomical locations.

Complex Genetic Architecture and Environmental Influences

The genetic architecture underlying bone tissue density is intricate, involving numerous genes and pathways, which makes it challenging to fully elucidate its determinants. Beyond individual genetic variants, bone tissue density is influenced by complex gene-gene and gene-environment interactions that current studies often lack the power to fully address^[7]. Moreover, differences in linkage disequilibrium patterns and allele frequencies across diverse populations can significantly impact the generalizability of findings and the success of replication efforts, highlighting the need for studies in varied ancestral groups ^[8]. The interplay of these factors contributes to remaining knowledge gaps, particularly concerning the comprehensive etiology of bone tissue density and its direct relationship to fracture risk^[9].

Variants

Genetic variants play a crucial role in determining an individual’s bone tissue density, influencing the intricate processes of bone formation, resorption, and remodeling. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) within or near genes involved in these pathways can alter gene expression or protein function, leading to measurable differences in bone mineral density (BMD) and susceptibility to conditions like osteoporosis. The following variants highlight several genetic regions implicated in bone health.

Several non-coding RNA genes and pseudogenes, alongside protein-coding genes, contribute to the complex regulation of bone metabolism. Variants likers117909603 in the vicinity of LINC01734 and ATG3P1, and rs148081548 near LINC01705 and QRSL1P2, may influence bone density by affecting the expression of nearby functional genes or by altering the stability and function of non-coding RNA molecules themselves. WhileATG3P1 and QRSL1P2 are pseudogenes, they can still exert regulatory effects, for instance, by acting as microRNA sponges. Similarly, rs113502795 , associated with SMIM39 and ARHGEF4, is significant, as ARHGEF4encodes a Rho guanine nucleotide exchange factor, a protein critical for regulating the Rho GTPase signaling pathway, which is known to play a role in osteoblast differentiation and bone matrix organization. Such variants could modulate the activity of these pathways, thereby impacting bone strength and density.

Other genes involved in cell adhesion and transcriptional regulation also harbor variants with potential implications for bone density. The variantrs6965018 in SDK1(Sidekick Cell Adhesion Molecule 1) may affect cell-cell recognition and adhesion processes vital for the proper formation and maintenance of bone tissue, influencing how osteoblasts and osteoclasts interact within the bone microenvironment. Meanwhile,rs143869920 , associated with LDB2(LIM Domain Binding 2), could impact transcriptional regulation. LDB proteins are transcriptional co-regulators that interact with various transcription factors, and alterations here might affect the expression of genes essential for bone cell development and function. Furthermore, variants likers546017831 , rs113419700 , and rs142430172 , located near the pseudogene TUBAP15 and the small nuclear RNA RNU6-718P, could influence the intricate network of RNA processing and gene regulation, indirectly affecting bone health.

The Wnt signaling pathway is a well-established master regulator of bone mass, making variants in genes within this pathway particularly impactful. The geneWNT16(Wnt Family Member 16) is a key player in this pathway, influencing bone formation and preventing bone loss. Variants such asrs142005327 , rs3779381 , and rs10668066 in WNT16have been consistently associated with bone mineral density, particularly in the lumbar spine and femoral neck. These SNPs can modulateWNT16expression or activity, thereby affecting the proliferation and differentiation of osteoblasts and the overall balance of bone remodeling, which ultimately determines an individual’s bone strength and fracture risk.

E3 ubiquitin ligases and related proteins are crucial for regulating protein degradation, a process essential for controlling the lifespan and activity of many proteins involved in bone biology. Variantsrs140147160 and rs139825572 in TRIM69 (Tripartite Motif Containing 69) and rs62246467 in KLHL18(Kelch Like Family Member 18) are noteworthy in this context. TRIM proteins are known to participate in various cellular processes including inflammation and immunity, which can indirectly influence bone health, while KLHL proteins are substrate adaptors for Cullin-3-based E3 ubiquitin ligases. Changes induced by these SNPs could alter the ubiquitination and degradation of key regulatory proteins in osteoblasts or osteoclasts, leading to imbalances in bone turnover and affecting bone tissue density.

Finally, the Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC) region, which includes HLA-DQB1, is primarily known for its role in immune response, yet immune cells and inflammatory processes significantly impact bone metabolism. Variants likers115716393 , rs150651425 , and rs549365689 , located within the HLA-DQB1 gene or near the MTCO3P1pseudogene, could influence bone density through immune-mediated mechanisms.HLA-DQB1encodes a subunit of a class II MHC receptor, and its variants might modulate immune cell activation, cytokine production, or inflammatory responses that directly affect osteoclast activity and bone resorption. WhileMTCO3P1 is a pseudogene, its proximity to HLA genes suggests potential regulatory roles that could also contribute to the complex interplay between immunity and skeletal health.

Key Variants

RS ID	Gene	Related Traits
rs117909603	LINC01734 - ATG3P1	bone tissue density
rs148081548	LINC01705 - QRSL1P2	bone tissue density
rs113502795	SMIM39, ARHGEF4	bone tissue density
rs6965018	SDK1	bone tissue density
rs143869920	LDB2	bone tissue density
rs546017831 rs113419700 rs142430172	TUBAP15 - RNU6-718P	bone tissue density
rs142005327 rs3779381 rs10668066	WNT16	brain volume neuroimaging measurement osteoporosis rostrum of corpus callosum volume brain connectivity attribute
rs140147160 rs139825572	TRIM69	bone tissue density
rs62246467	KLHL18	bone tissue density
rs115716393 rs150651425 rs549365689	HLA-DQB1 - MTCO3P1	bone tissue density

Classification, Definition, and Terminology

Bone tissue density is a fundamental characteristic of the skeletal system, primarily understood through the concept of Bone Mineral Density.

Definition

Bone Mineral Density (BMD)serves as the primary indicator of bone tissue density in research. It is recognized as a crucial, though not exclusive, determinant of bone strength and is closely associated with the risk of bone fractures^[10]. Studies analyze BMD as a phenotypic characteristic to understand its relationship with bone strength and the likelihood of fractures^[10].

Terminology

• Bone Mineral Density (BMD): The most frequently studied measure of bone tissue density, evaluated for its role in maintaining bone strength and its connection to fracture risk^[10]. Its predictive capabilities for fractures, including those of the hip, have been a subject of analysis ^[11].
• Bone Strength: Refers to the mechanical integrity and resilience of bone. While BMD is a significant factor in determining bone strength^[10], bone geometry also plays an important and independent role^[12].
• Fracture Risk: The probability that an individual will experience a bone fracture. BMD is a key factor associated with this risk^[10].
• Osteoporosis: A medical condition characterized by weakened bones, leading to an increased susceptibility to fractures. BMD is considered an important determinant in the context of osteoporosis and related fractures^[10]. These osteoporotic fractures can result in prolonged disability or mortality^[11].
• Bone Geometry: Describes the structural dimensions and shape of bones. This includes parameters such as periosteal diameter, cross-sectional area, cortical thickness, buckling ratio, and section modulus ^[13]. These geometric parameters are vital for bone strength and are directly linked to osteoporotic fractures, sometimes independently of BMD^[12].

Causes of Bone Tissue Density

Bone tissue density is influenced by a complex interplay of genetic and environmental factors. Research, often utilizing twin studies and genome-wide analyses, indicates that both inherited predispositions and external influences contribute to an individual’s bone density.

Genetic Factors

Genetic factors play a substantial role in determining bone tissue density. Twin studies have consistently shown a significant heritable component for bone mineral density at various skeletal sites, including the spine, radius, and calcaneus^[14]. The inheritance of bone mineral density can be specific to different skeletal sites, age groups, and sexes^[15].

Genetic research has identified multiple quantitative trait loci (QTLs) for bone mineral density across most chromosomes, excluding the Y chromosome^[16]. A meta-analysis of genome-wide linkage searches for bone mineral density pinpointed several specific QTLs, including regions on chromosomes 1 (1p13.3-q23.3 and 1q32-q42.3), 3 (3p25.3-p22.1), 11 (11p12-q13.3), 12 (12q24.31-qter), and 18 (18p11-q12.3)^[16].

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have further advanced the understanding of genetic influences, identifying numerous genetic loci and new sequence variants associated with bone mineral density^[17]. Candidate genes such as ADAMTS18 and TGFBR3 have been identified in different ethnic groups ^[18], and alleles of the aromatase gene have also shown an association with bone mineral density^[19]. Polymorphisms in genes like collagen type I alpha 1 are also associated with bone phenotypes^[20].

Environmental Factors

Environmental factors also contribute to bone tissue density. Studies involving twins have indicated the presence of environmental correlations with bone mineral density and have explored whether bone mass, lean mass, and fat mass share common genetic or environmental influences^[21]. The influence of environmental factors can interact with genetic predispositions, affecting the heritability of bone mineral density and bone size, and these effects may vary by gender^[22].

Biological Background

Bone tissue density, often measured as areal bone mineral density (aBMD), is a crucial skeletal trait that helps predict fracture risk^[23]. The maintenance of bone tissue density is a dynamic process influenced by various biological factors, including cellular activities, molecular signaling pathways, and genetic predispositions.

Cellular and Molecular Pathways

Bone cells respond to mechanical forces and other stimuli through specific signaling mechanisms. For instance, osteoblasts, the cells responsible for bone formation, react to fluid flow by modulating their levels of prostaglandin E2 and inositol trisphosphate^[24]. This indicates a mechanosensory pathway where physical forces are transduced into biochemical signals.

Human mesenchymal stem cells, which can differentiate into bone-forming cells, also respond to fluid flow. This mechanical stimulation triggers their proliferation via MAP kinase and calcium signaling pathways^[25]. Intracellular calcium signaling is further modulated by inositol 1,4,5-trisphosphate-binding proteins, which play a role in propagating signals to the mitochondria^[26]. These pathways highlight the intricate cellular communication and energy regulation involved in bone maintenance and development.

Genetic Regulation

Bone tissue density is a highly heritable trait, meaning a significant portion of its variation within a population can be attributed to genetic factors^[14]. Studies have shown genetic and environmental correlations impacting both bone formation and overall bone tissue density^[21]. Furthermore, the genetic control of bone tissue density can be specific to different skeletal sites and may vary between sexes^[15].

Various genomic regions, known as quantitative trait loci (QTLs), have been identified as influencing bone density and geometry^[17]. These QTLs are also observed to be skeletal site-specific, age-group-specific, and sex-specific ^[17]. Candidate genes associated with bone mass include ADAMTS18 and TGFBR3^[18]. Common genetic variants in the region around Osterix are linked to bone tissue density and growth during childhood^[27]. Additionally, polymorphisms in genes such as CLCN7 have been associated with bone tissue density in women^[28], and mutations in genes like N-acetylgalactosaminyltransferase 3 (Galnt3) can lead to conditions affecting bone mineralization, as seen in models of familial tumoral calcinosis^[29].

Pathways and Mechanisms

Bone tissue density is regulated by a complex interplay of molecular and physiological mechanisms, involving various signaling pathways, genetic factors, mechanical stimuli, and metabolic processes. These mechanisms collectively influence bone formation and resorption, which are critical for maintaining bone strength and preventing conditions like osteoporosis.

Cellular Signaling PathwaysSeveral key signaling pathways are instrumental in regulating bone tissue density:

• Wnt Signaling Pathway:This pathway plays a crucial role in bone metabolism. For instance, sclerostin, a bone density ligand, directly interacts with LRP5 (low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 5) to modulate Wnt activity^[30]. Dysregulation of the Wnt pathway has been implicated in monogenic bone disorders such as Osteoporosis-Pseudoglioma syndrome, sclerosteosis, high bone mass syndrome, and Paget’s disease^[30].
• RANK/RANKL/Opg Pathway:This molecular triad is involved in orchestrating pathophysiological bone remodeling^[31]. It is also highlighted for its importance in the regulation of bone mass and turnover, particularly in monogenic bone disorders^[31].
• MAP Kinase and Calcium Signaling: Both MAP kinase and calcium signaling pathways mediate fluid flow-induced proliferation of human mesenchymal stem cells ^[25]. Fluid flow also influences prostaglandin E2 and inositol trisphosphate levels in osteoblasts^[24]. Inositol 1,4,5-trisphosphate-binding proteins are known to control the propagation of calcium signals to the mitochondria^[32].
• ESR1 and MAPK3 Network:Research suggests a novel network involving ESR1 (estrogen receptor 1) and MAPK3 (mitogen-activated protein kinase 3) that may be associated with postmenopausal osteoporosis^[17].

Genetic InfluencesGenetic factors significantly contribute to variations in bone tissue density:

• Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs):Numerous SNPs have been associated with bone tissue density, mapping to genes involved in signaling pathways relevant to bone metabolism. These genetic variations highlight the complex architecture underlying bone tissue density variation and osteoporosis^[17]. Specific genes identified in association studies include LRP5, SP7, TNFSF11, and TNFRSF11A ^[17].
• Quantitative Trait Loci (QTLs):Genome-wide scans have identified QTLs that underlie femoral neck cross-sectional geometry, which are considered risk factors for osteoporosis^[18]. Other genomic regions have been identified for bone tissue density, with evidence of epistatic interactions and gender-specific effects^[17]. Genome-wide scans have also explored QTLs underlying areal bone size variation^[33].
• Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS):These studies have been conducted to identify genetic loci associated with bone tissue density, osteoporosis, and osteoporotic fractures^[17].

Mechanical LoadingMechanical forces, such as fluid flow, exert influence on bone cells:

• Fluid flow can induce human mesenchymal stem cell proliferation, mediated by MAP kinase and calcium signaling ^[25].
• It also affects the levels of signaling molecules like prostaglandin E2 and inositol trisphosphate in osteoblasts^[24].

Metabolic FactorsMetabolic processes and nutritional status also impact bone tissue density:

• Glucose Metabolism:High glucose levels can inhibit in vitro bone mineralization^[34]. Reduced expression and impaired activity of hexokinase II, an enzyme crucial for glucose metabolism, have been observed in insulin-resistant diabetes and non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus patients, respectively^[35].
• Uromodulin:A novel missense mutation of uromodulin in mice has been shown to cause renal dysfunction alongside alterations in urea handling, energy metabolism, and bone metabolism^[36].
• Body Composition and Diet:Weight and body mass index are predictors of bone mineral density and fractures^[37]. Higher protein intake has been shown to preserve lean mass during weight loss, which indirectly supports overall body composition relevant to bone health^[38].

Clinical Relevance

Bone tissue density plays a critical role in clinical medicine, primarily due to its strong association with bone strength and fracture risk. Osteoporotic fractures are a major public health concern, leading to significant morbidity, mortality, and substantial healthcare costs^[39].

Low bone tissue density is recognized as one of the strongest risk factors for fractures^[11]. As such, assessing bone tissue density is considered the gold standard for evaluating an individual’s fracture risk^[11]. This assessment is crucial for predicting various types of fractures, including those of the hip and other osteoporotic fractures ^[11].

Beyond risk prediction, bone tissue density is also vital for monitoring the effectiveness of osteoporosis treatments^[40]. Its utility in predicting fractures can be further enhanced when combined with clinical risk factors ^[10], or with other skeletal parameters like bone geometry . Bone tissue density also serves as a reference standard for the diagnosis and description of osteoporosis^[10].

Frequently Asked Questions About Bone Tissue Density

These questions address the most important and specific aspects of bone tissue density based on current genetic research.

---

1. My mom has weak bones; will I get them too?

It’s possible, as bone density is highly heritable, with genetics playing a role in 30% to 90% of cases. You might inherit a genetic predisposition, but your lifestyle choices also significantly influence your bone health.

2. Why do some people just naturally have stronger bones than me?

Genetics play a substantial role in determining your peak bone mass achieved in early adulthood and how your bones remodel throughout life. Some individuals naturally inherit genetic variants that contribute to higher bone mineral density.

3. Can I really improve my bone density if it runs in my family?

Yes, absolutely! While genetics set a baseline, environmental factors like diet, exercise, and overall lifestyle are crucial. You can still work towards achieving your personal best bone density and slow down bone loss.

4. Does my bone density just get worse as I get older, no matter what?

Genetics influence the rate of bone loss later in life, so some people are predisposed to faster decline. While bone loss is a natural part of aging, maintaining a healthy lifestyle can help mitigate this process.

5. Do men and women have different risks for weaker bones?

Yes, research indicates that the specific genetic factors influencing bone density can vary between genders. This means men and women might have different genetic predispositions for bone strength.

6. Does my ethnic background affect my bone strength?

Yes, it can. Genetic factors and their frequencies can vary across different populations. This means that your ancestral background might influence your inherited risk factors for bone density.

7. Would a DNA test tell me my future bone health risk?

A DNA test could identify some genetic variants linked to bone density, like those in genes such asLRP5 or ESR1. However, bone health is complex, involving many genes and environmental factors, so it wouldn’t give a complete picture.

8. If my hip bones are strong, are all my other bones strong too?

Not necessarily. Genetic mechanisms influencing bone density can differ substantially across various skeletal sites, like your hip versus your spine. Strong bones in one area don’t guarantee the same for all others.

9. Does my daily diet really impact my bone density much if my genes are bad?

Yes, definitely! Even with a genetic predisposition to lower bone density, your diet and other environmental factors are critical. They influence the dynamic process of bone formation and resorption, helping to build and maintain bone.

10. My sibling and I eat the same; why are their bones stronger?

Even if you share similar lifestyles, individual genetic differences heavily influence bone density. Your genes determine factors like your peak bone mass and how efficiently your body maintains bone, leading to variations even between siblings.

---

This FAQ was automatically generated based on current genetic research and may be updated as new information becomes available.

Disclaimer: This information is for educational purposes only and should not be used as a substitute for professional medical advice. Always consult with a healthcare provider for personalized medical guidance.

References

[1] Kiel, D. P., et al. “Genome-wide association with bone mass and geometry in the Framingham Heart Study.”BMC Medical Genetics, vol. 8, no. S1, 2007, p. S14.

[2] Orwoll, E. S., J. K. Belknap, and R. F. Klein. “Gender specificity in the genetic determinants of peak bone mass.”Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, vol. 16, no. 11, 2001, pp. 1962–1971.

[3] Rivadeneira, F., et al. “Twenty bone-mineral-density loci identified by large-scale meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies.”Nat Genet, vol. 41, 2009, pp. 1199–1208.

[4] Henry, M. J., et al. “Prevalence of osteoporosis in Australian women: Geelong Osteoporosis Study.”Journal of Clinical Densitometry, vol. 3, no. 3, 2000, pp. 261–268.

[5] Duncan, E. L., and M. A. Brown. “Clinical review 2: Genetic determinants of bone density and fracture risk—state of the art and future directions.”Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, vol. 95, 2010, pp. 2576–2587.

[6] Ioannidis, John P. “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” PLoS Medicine, vol. 2, no. 8, 2005, p. e124.

[7] Styrkarsdottir, U. et al. “New Sequence Variants Associated with Bone Mineral Density.” Nature Genetics, vol. 41, no. 1, 2009, pp. 15-17.

[8] Price, Alkes L., et al. “Long-Range LD Can Confound Genome Scans in Admixed Populations.” The American Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 83, no. 1, 2008, pp. 132-35.

[9] Styrkarsdottir, U. et al. “Multiple Genetic Loci for Bone Mineral Density and Fractures.” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 358, no. 22, 2008, pp. 2355-65.

[10] Kanis, J. A., McCloskey, E. V., Johansson, H., Oden, A., Melton, L. J. 3rd, & Khaltaev, N. A reference standard for the description of osteoporosis.Bone, vol. 42, 2008, pp. 467–475.

[11] Johnell, O., et al. “Predictive value of BMD for hip and other fractures.” J Bone Miner Res, vol. 20, 2005, pp. 1185–1194.

[12] Peacock, M., et al. “Better discrimination of hip fracture using bone density, geometry and architecture.”Osteoporos Int, vol. 5, 1995, pp. 167–173.

[13] Pulkkinen, P., et al. “Combination of bone mineral density and upper femur geometry improves the prediction of hip fracture.”Osteoporos Int, vol. 15, 2004, pp. 274–280.

[14] Dequeker, J., et al. “Genetic determinants of bone mineral content at the spine and radius: a twin study.”Bone, vol. 8, 1987, pp. 207–209.

[15] Duncan, E., Cardon, L., Sinsheimer, J., Wass, J., Brown, M. (2003). Site and Gender Specificity of Inheritance of Bone Mineral Density. J Bone Miner Res 18: 1531–1538.

[16] Sigurdsson, G., et al. “Impact of genetics on low bone mass in adults.”J Bone Miner Res, vol. 23, 2008, pp. 1584–1590.

[17] Richards, J. B., et al. “Bone mineral density, osteoporosis, and osteoporotic fractures: a genome-wide association study.”Lancet, vol. 371, 2008, pp. 1505–1512.

[18] Xiong, D.H., et al. “Genome-wide association and follow-up replication studies identified ADAMTS18 and TGFBR3 as bone mass candidate genes in different ethnic groups.”Am J Hum Genet, vol. 84, 2009.

[19] Riancho, J.A., et al. “Association of the aromatase gene alleles with bone mineral density: epidemiological and functional evidence.”J Bone Miner Res, 2009.

[20] Lambrinoudaki, I., and Kung, A.W. “Absence of high-risk ‘‘s’’ allele associated with osteoporosis at the intronic SP1 binding-site of collagen Ialpha1 gene in Southern Chinese.”J. Endocrinol. Invest., vol. 24, 2001, pp. 499–502.

[21] Harris, M., et al. “Genetic and environmental correlations between bone formation and bone mineral density: a twin study.”Bone, vol. 22, 1998, pp. 141–145.

[22] Ng, M.Y., et al. “Effect of environmental factors and gender on the heritability of bone mineral density and bone size.”Ann. Hum. Genet., vol. 70, 2006, pp. 428–438.

[23] Uitterlinden, A.G., Ralston, S.H., Brandi, M.L., Carey, A.H., Grinberg, D., Langdahl, B.L., Lips, P., Lorenc, R. (2009). Genome-wide association study of Asian populations uncovers genetic factors influencing eight quantitative traits. Nat Genet 41: 527–534.

[24] Reich, K. M., and J. A. Frangos. “Effect of flow on prostaglandin E2 and inositol trisphosphate levels in osteoblasts.”American Journal of Physiology - Cell Physiology, vol. 261, 1991, pp. C428–C432.

[25] Riddle, R. C., et al. “MAP kinase and calcium signaling mediate fluid flow-induced human mesenchymal stem cell proliferation.” American Journal of Physiology - Cell Physiology, vol. 290, 2006, pp. C776–C784.

[26] Rizzo, M.A., Stotland, A., Vanacore, R., Pozzan, T., Pinton, P., et al. (2005). Regulation of inositol 1,4,5-trisphosphate-dependent Ca2+ signaling by the mitochondrial outer membrane. J Biol Chem 280: 12820–12832.

[27] Timpson, N.J., Tobias, J.H., Richards, J.B., Soranzo, N., Duncan, E.L., et al. (2009). Common variants in the region around Osterix are associated with bone mineral density and growth in childhood. Hum Mol Genet 18: 1510–1517.

[28] Pettersson, U., Albagha, O.M., Mirolo, M., Taranta, A., Frattini, A., et al. (2005). Polymorphisms of the CLCN7 gene are associated with BMD in women. J Bone Miner Res 20: 1960–1967.

[29] Esapa, C., Head, R., Chan, E., Crane, M., Cheeseman, M., et al. (2009). A mouse with a Trp589Arg mutation in N-acetylgalactosaminyltransferase 3 (Galnt3) provides a model for familial tumoural calcinosis. Endocrine Abstracts 19: OC31.

[30] Ellies, Douglas L., et al. “Bone density ligand, Sclerostin, directly interacts with LRP5 but not LRP5G171V to modulate Wnt activity.”Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, vol. 21, 2006, pp. 1738–49.

[31] Theoleyre, S., et al. “The molecular triad Opg/RANK/RANKL: involvement in the orchestration of pathophysiological bone remodeling.”Cytokine & Growth Factor Reviews, vol. 15, 2004, pp. 457–475.

[32] Lin, X., et al. “Control of calcium signal propagation to the mitochondria by inositol 1,4,5-trisphosphate-binding proteins.”Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 280, 2005, pp. 12820–12832.

[33] Shen, H., et al. “A genomewide scan for quantitative trait loci underlying areal bone size variation in 451 Caucasian families.”Journal of Medical Genetics, vol. 43, 2006, pp. 873–880.

[34] Balint, Edit, et al. “Glucose-induced inhibition of in vitro bone mineralization.”Bone, vol. 28, 2001, pp. 21-28.

[35] Braithwaite, S. S., et al. “Reduced expression of hexokinase II in insulin-resistant diabetes.”Diabetes, vol. 44, 1995, pp. 43-47.

[36] Kemter, E., et al. “Novel missense mutation of uromodulin in mice causes renal dysfunction with alterations in urea handling, energy, and bone metabolism.”American Journal of Physiology - Renal Physiology, vol. 297, 2009, pp. F1391–1398.

[37] Morin, S., et al. “Weight and body mass index predict bone mineral density and fractures in women aged 40 to 59 years.”Osteoporosis International, 2008.

[38] Leidy, Heather J., et al. “Higher protein intake preserves lean mass and satiety with weight loss in pre-obese and obese women.”Obesity (Silver Spring), vol. 15, 2007, pp. 421–429.

[39] Ray, N.F., et al. “Medical expenditures for the treatment of osteoporotic fractures in the United States in 1995: report from the National Osteoporosis Foundation.”J Bone Miner Res, vol. 12, 1997, pp. 24–35.

[40] Stone, K.L., et al. “BMD at multiple sites and risk of fracture of multiple types: long-term results from the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures.” J Bone Miner Res, vol. 18, 2003, pp. 1947–1954.