RACTITIONERS OF BONE HISTOMORPHOMETRY communicate P with each other in a variety of arcane languages, which in general are unintelligible to those outside the field. Many in the bone and mineral scientific community would like to keep abreast of the contributions of histology to their subject, but are dismayed by the semantic barriers they must overcome. The need for standardization has been recognized for many years,(') during which there has been much talk but no action. To meet the needs of ASBMR members, Dr. B.L. Riggs (President, 19851986) asked the senior author to convene a committee of the Society to develop a unified system of termnology, suitable for adoption by the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research as part of its Instructions to Authors. The committee includes members from Europe and Canada as well as the U.S., and represents most existing systems of nomenclature. A circular letter seeking suggestions and information on current usage was sent to several hundred persons, with names drawn from the Society membership roster and lists of attendees at various recent conferences, to which approximately 40 replies were obtained. These confirmed the magnitude of the semantic problem (for some measurements as many as nine different terms were in use) and suggested a range of solutions likely to be generally acceptable. In formulating the new system. the committee kept in mind certain agreed general principles. First, the primary reason for change was to help other scientists understand bone histomorphometry, not to help bone histomorphometrists undcntand each other. Second. names should be self-explanatory and dcscriptive, without implicit assumptions. Third. symbols should consist mainly of abbreviations that included the first letter of each word in the same order as in the name. without subscripts or superscripts. Fourth. each symbol component should have one and only one meaning, and so eliminate ambiguity. Fifth, primary measurements should be clearly distinguished from derived indices. Finally, the chosen system should be sufficiently flexible to apply to all surfaces and all types of bone, and to accommodate any new primary measurement or derived index. The recommended system shares common elements with. but also differs substantially from. all those in current usc. was tested in practice for several months before the final forniat was chosen, and is as complex and conceptually difficult ;I\\ the field with which it deals. For those within the field we hope that increased readership of their papers will be adequate conipensation for the inconvcnicncc of learning a new systcm. For those outside the field, mastering the new system will be hard work, but if we are able to secure its acceptance by all journals with an interest in bone and mineral metabolism, the effort will only have to be expended once rather than. as at present. rcpeated many times. To this end we give the reasons for our decisions in the areas of controversy and, as well as definitions, provide methods for calculation of derived indices and

Bone histomorphometry: Standardization of nomenclature, symbols, and units: Report of the asbmr histomorphometry nomenclature committee

Before publication of the original version of this report in 1987, practitioners of bone histomorphometry communicated with each other in a variety of arcane languages, which in general were unintelligible to those outside the field. The need for standardization of nomenclature had been recognized for many years,(1) during which there had been much talk but no action. To satisfy this need, B Lawrence Riggs (ASBMR President, 1985 to 1986) asked A Michael Parfitt to convene an ASBMR committee to develop a new and unified system of terminology, suitable for adoption by the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research (JBMR) as part of its Instructions to Authors. The resulting recommendations were published in 1987(2) and were quickly adopted not only by JBMR but also by all respected journals in the bone field. The recommendations improved markedly the ability of histomorphometrists to communicate with each other and with nonhistomorphometrists, leading to a broader understanding and appreciation of histomorphometric data.

In 2012, 25 years after the development of the standardized nomenclature system, Thomas L Clemens (Editor in Chief of JBMR) felt that it was time to revise and update the recommendations. The original committee was reconvened by David W Dempster, who appointed one new member, Juliet E Compston. The original document was circulated to the committee members and was extensively revised according to their current recommendations. The key revisions include omission of terminology used before 1987, recommendations regarding the parameters and technical information that should be included in all histomorphometry articles, recommendations on how to handle dynamic parameters of bone formation in settings of low bone turnover, and updating of references.

/pdf/standardized-nomenclature-symbols-and-units-for-bone-gah33fyb68.pdf

Standardized nomenclature, symbols, and units for bone histomorphometry: A 2012 update of the report of the ASBMR Histomorphometry Nomenclature Committee

Very little is known about the turnover of extracellular matrix in the human intervertebral disc. We measured concentrations of specific molecules reflecting matrix synthesis and degradation in predetermined regions of 121 human lumbar intervertebral discs and correlated them with ageing and Thompson grade of degeneration. Synthesis in intervertebral discs, measured by immunoassay of the content of a putative aggrecan biosynthesis marker (846) and the content of types I and II procollagen markers, is highest in the neonatal and 2-5-yr age groups. The contents of these epitopes/molecules progressively diminished with increasing age. However, in the oldest age group (60-80 yr) and in highly degenerated discs, the type I procollagen epitope level increased significantly. The percentage of denatured type II collagen, assessed by the presence of an epitope that is exposed with cleavage of type II collagen, increased twofold from the neonatal discs to the young 2-5-yr age group. Thereafter, the percentage progressively decreased with increasing age; however, it increased significantly in the oldest group and in highly degenerate discs. We identified three matrix turnover phases. Phase I (growth) is characterized by active synthesis of matrix molecules and active denaturation of type II collagen. Phase II (maturation and ageing) is distinguished by a progressive drop in synthetic activity and a progressive reduction in denaturation of type 11 collagen. Phase III (degeneration and fibrotic) is illustrated by evidence for a lack of increased synthesis of aggrecan and type II procollagen, but also by an increase in collagen type II denaturation and type I procollagen synthesis, both dependent on age and grade of tissue degeneration.

/pdf/the-human-lumbar-intervertebral-disc-evidence-for-changes-in-1kg4e10f20.pdf

The human lumbar intervertebral disc: evidence for changes in the biosynthesis and denaturation of the extracellular matrix with growth, maturation, ageing, and degeneration.

ATF4 Is a Substrate of RSK2 and an Essential Regulator of Osteoblast Biology: Implication for Coffin-Lowry Syndrome

A serotonin-dependent mechanism explains the leptin regulation of bone mass, appetite, and energy expenditure.

We measured iliac bone formation rates on all surfaces after double tetracycline labeling, serum levels of type 1 procollagen carboxy-terminal extension peptide (pColl-I-C), and serum levels of total alkaline phosphatase activity (TAP) in four normal subjects and in 44 patients with various forms of metabolic bone disease. In three patients with enzymatic evidence of liver disease both biochemical serum markers were disproportionately raised. In a patient with idiopathic axial osteosclerosis serum pColl-I-C was selectively increased by more than ten-fold. In the remaining 44 subjects pColl-I-C and TAP levels correlated significantly with each other (r = 0.70) and both showed the same directional changes and broadly similar correlations with iliac bone formation rate expressed in different ways. In general, pColl-I-C levels correlated better with cancellous bone formation rates and TAP levels cortical bone formation rates. There was a modest improvement in prediction of bone formation rate with multiple regression using both markers. In 15 patients with typical uncomplicated postmenopausal osteoporosis, neither biochemical marker, singly or jointly, correlated significantly with any expression of bone formation rate. Disadvantages to the use of pColl-I-C as a marker include a significant contribution to the serum level from type 1 collagen biosynthesis in tissues other than bone, and (probably) variable metabolic clearance. For both biochemical markers the most consistently high correlations (r = 0.77-0.79) were found with total bone formation rate for the entire biopsy core volume, which is the best estimate available from a biopsy of formation rate at the bone organ level of organization in vivo. The core volume as a referent also allows the amount of bone formed on cortical, endocortical, and cancellous surfaces to be compared. Measurement of serum pColl-I-C levels merits further study as a noninvasive index of bone metabolism. Differences between normal and abnormal subjects in the relationships between a variety of biochemical markers and a variety of histologic indices have the potential for providing insight into the pathogenesis of osteoporosis.

Procollagen type I carboxy-terminal extension peptide in serum as a marker of collagen biosynthesis in bone. Correlation with Iliac bone formation rates and comparison with total alkaline phosphatase.

S.M. Krane

Papers

Procollagen type I carboxy-terminal extension peptide in serum as a marker of collagen biosynthesis in bone. Correlation with Iliac bone formation rates and comparison with total alkaline phosphatase.