Bisphosphonates are generally considered to act on bone resorption by binding to bone mineral and subsequently inhibiting the activity of the osteoclasts which ingest them. This has been supported by the fact that bisphosphonates adsorbed on mineralized tissue inhibit the resorbing activity of isolated osteoclasts in vitro. However, the effectiveness of different bisphosphonates determined in this system does not reflect their relative potencies in vivo. Employing the well-described isolated osteoclast resorption pit assay, with ivory as the resorption substrate, we show here that this lack of correlation prevails only when the bisphosphonates are added to the mineral before addition of osteoclasts, but not when the cells are treated for a short time (5 min) before allowing them to adhere onto ivory. By using this approach with five different bisphosphonates, a stringent correlation of relative potencies was obtained with those found, both in the rat and in the human, in vivo. Furthermore, by using an osteoblastic cell line (CRP 10/30) which is a powerful promoter of osteoclastic resorption in vitro, we obtained evidence that the inhibitory effect of bisphosphonates was the result of an action on osteoblasts rather than on osteoclasts. Thus, in experiments in which the osteoblastic cells were pretreated for 5 min with bisphosphonates and then cocultured with osteoclasts, inhibition of osteoclastic resorbing activity was obtained. Moreover, it was found that this treatment resulted in a decrease of the stimulatory effect found in CRP 10/30-conditioned medium. In conclusion the present study shows that part of the osteoclast inhibiting action of the bisphosphonates is mediated through an action on osteoblasts.
M Sahni, H L Guenther, H Fleisch, P Collin, T J Martin
Usage data is cumulative from January 2024 through January 2025.
Usage | JCI | PMC |
---|---|---|
Text version | 216 | 6 |
67 | 87 | |
Figure | 0 | 1 |
Scanned page | 260 | 18 |
Citation downloads | 45 | 0 |
Totals | 588 | 112 |
Total Views | 700 |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.