The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Cellular basis for age-related changes in fracture repair
Open accessAbstract
The goal of this work was to define cellular and molecular changes that occur during fracture healing as animals age. We compared the molecular, cellular, and histological progression of skeletal repair in juvenile (4 weeks old), middle-aged (6 months old), and elderly (18 months old) mice at 3, 5, 7, 10, 14, 21, 28, and 35 days post-fracture, using a non-stabilized tibia fracture model. Our histological and molecular analyses demonstrated that there was a sharp decline in fracture healing potential between juvenile and middle-aged animals, while a more subtle decrease in healing potential was apparent between middle-aged and elderly mice. By three days after fracture, chondrocytes expressing Collagen type II, and osteoblasts expressing osteocalcin, were present in calluses of juvenile, but not middle-aged or elderly, mice. At day 5 immature chondrocytes and osteoblasts were observed in calluses of middle-aged and elderly mice. While at this time, chondrocytes in juvenile mice were expressing Collagen type X (ColX) indicating that chondrocyte maturation was already underway. At day 7, chondrocytes expressing ColX were abundant in middle-aged mice while a small domain of ColX-positive chondrocytes were observed in elderly mice. Further, in juvenile and middle-aged mice, but not elderly mice, vascular invasion of the cartilage was underway by day 7. Juvenile mice had replaced nearly all of the cartilage by day 14, while cartilage was still present in the callus of middle-aged mice at day 21 and in elderly mice at day 28. In addition to these delays, histomorphometry revealed that elderly and middle-aged mice formed less bone than juveniles (p<0.001), while cartilage production was unaffected (p>0.22). Collectively, these data suggest that enhancing cell differentiation, improving osteoblast function, and accelerating endochondral ossification may significantly benefit the elderly.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Cellular biology of fracture healing
Bahney, C. S., Zondervan, R. L., Allison, P., Theologis, A., Ashley, J. W., Ahn, J., Miclau, T., Marcucio, R. S., & Hankenson, K. D. (2019) · Journal of Orthopaedic Research · doi:10.1002/jor.24170 · Cited by 577
Self-citationPDGF in bone formation and regeneration: New insights into a novel mechanism involving MSCs
Caplan, A. I., & Correa, D. (2011) · Journal of Orthopaedic Research · doi:10.1002/jor.21462 · Cited by 312
Tomasi, C., Sanz, M., Cecchinato, D., Pjetursson, B., Ferrus, J., Lang, N. P., & Lindhe, J. (2010) · Clinical Oral Implants Research · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01848.x · Cited by 280
Heterochronic parabiosis for the study of the effects of aging on stem cells and their niches
Conboy, I. M., & Rando, T. A. (2012) · Cell Cycle · doi:10.4161/cc.20437 · Cited by 239
Behonick, D. J., Xing, Z., Lieu, S., Buckley, J. M., Lotz, J. C., Marcucio, R. S., Werb, Z., Miclau, T., & Colnot, C. (2007) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001150 · Cited by 189
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- LU, C., MICLAU, T., HU, D., HANSEN, E., TSUI, K., PUTTLITZ, C., & MARCUCIO, R.
- Venue
- Journal of Orthopaedic Research
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-11
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1300-1307
- ISSN
- 0736-0266 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2087125520
- Cited by
- 232
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cellular basis for age-related changes in fracture repair. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.orthres.2005.04.003
- The paper
- LU, C., MICLAU, T., HU, D., HANSEN, E., TSUI, K., PUTTLITZ, C., & MARCUCIO, R. (2005). Cellular basis for age-related changes in fracture repair. Journal of Orthopaedic Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orthres.2005.04.003
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.