PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 15758462

Oestrogen action on bone cells.

Abstract

Sex steroids have an important impact on bone physiology. Oestrogen (E) appears to be the most important sex steroid in preventing osteoporosis in women. Despite the overwhelming evidence that oestrogens modulate bone growth and turnover in vivo, oestrogen receptors (ER) were detected only recently. Two forms of ER have been discovered so far, ERalpha and ERbeta. Both have been detected in osteoblasts and osteoclasts as well. A number of growth factors and cytokines appear to modulate bone resorption in vitro and in vivo. Among others, interleukin-1 and -6 and tumor necrosis factor alpha and beta were found to be extremely potent stimulators of bone resorption. Binding of different cytokines to their receptors in osteoblasts result in the release of soluble factors that act directly on osteoclasts to modulate their recruitment or activity. Thus, E, apart from the direct regulation of osteoclasts, which it achieves through its receptors, can inhibit the release of osteoclast stimulatory factors or enhance the release of osteoclast inhibitory factors. In general, E is an inhibitor of bone resorption that decreases both osteoclast numbers and activity. Recently, it has also been shown that it promotes apoptosis. Moreover, it also has anabolic effects on osteoblasts. However, E action on osteoclasts is superior in comparison with that on osteoblasts. Recent data have shown that transforming growth factor beta (TGFbeta) mediates the actions of E in bone. Following the example of raloxifene it may be proved that the role of TGFbeta in the actions of E in bone is central and has not only academic interest. More data are needed to elucidate this issue. Finally, recent data suggest the importance of E for bone maturation and development of peak bone mass in men. It seems likely that both E and androgens are required for the growth and maintenance of the adult male skeleton.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

G E Krassas, P Papadopoulou. 2001. Oestrogen action on bone cells.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15758462/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗