Skerry T M
Academic Unit of Bone Biology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact. 2006 Apr-Jun;6(2):122-7.
The concept of the mechanostat was not new in 1983, when Harold Frost coined the term to describe a mechanism by which bone responded to habitual exercise and changes in loading with structurally appropriate alterations in bone architecture. However, the word "mechanostat" has a meaning that is immediately apparent, and its adoption has led to a much wider appreciation of the process of functional adaptation by other scientists than those whose primary research focus is in the biology of adaptation. One problem exists though: it is widely thought that in a single individual, there is a setting for the mechanostat, just as a single thermostat might set the temperature for a whole house, and this is reflected in the idea that bones throughout the skeleton require a specific strain magnitude for maintenance. Increases in loading above that threshold are expected to induce bone formation and a stiffer structure that then experiences again the habitual strain magnitude. Reductions in strain magnitude supposedly induce resorption to reduce tissue mass and architectural properties so that the lower loading restores habitual strain magnitude. That widely held belief of a single unifying number of strain is fundamentally flawed. The purpose of this article is to explain the real basis of the mechanostat; that the skeleton responds to a complex strain stimulus, made up of numerous different parameters, of which peak magnitude is only one, and that the strain stimulus is different in different parts of the skeleton, so there is no universal number to describe a tissue strain magnitude that underlies the mechanostat's setting. Furthermore, males and females have different responses to loading, and those responses change in response to many factors including genetic constitution, age, concomitant disease, nutrient availability, and exposure to drugs or biochemicals. In summary then, there is not a single mechanostat controlling the skeleton of each of us. At a fundamental tissue level, small functional units of bone each have their own multifactorial threshold target strain stimuli for a given set of dynamic modifying influences. Understanding the biology behind the way that each of these mechanostats functions independently is likely to have pervasive consequences on our ability to control bone mass by manipulation of loading, either directly through different exercise regimens, or in a targeted manner using tailored site and individual specific pharmaceuticals.
1983年,当哈罗德·弗罗斯特创造“机械调节器”这个术语来描述一种机制时,这个概念并非全新的。通过这种机制,骨骼会对习惯性运动以及负荷变化做出反应,使骨骼结构发生结构上适当的改变。然而,“机械调节器”这个词的含义一目了然,它的采用让其他科学家比那些主要研究重点在于适应生物学的科学家更广泛地认识到功能适应过程。不过存在一个问题:人们普遍认为,在一个个体中,机械调节器有一个设定值,就像一个单一的恒温器可能为整个房子设定温度一样,这体现在这样一种观点中,即整个骨骼的骨骼都需要特定的应变幅度来维持。超过该阈值的负荷增加预计会诱导骨形成和更坚硬的结构,然后再次经历习惯性应变幅度。应变幅度的降低据推测会诱导吸收以减少组织质量和结构特性,从而使较低的负荷恢复习惯性应变幅度。那种认为存在单一统一应变数值的广泛观点从根本上说是有缺陷的。本文的目的是解释机械调节器的真正基础;即骨骼对由众多不同参数组成的复杂应变刺激做出反应,其中峰值幅度只是其中之一,并且应变刺激在骨骼的不同部位是不同的,所以不存在一个通用的数值来描述作为机械调节器设定基础的组织应变幅度。此外,男性和女性对负荷有不同的反应,并且这些反应会因许多因素而改变,包括基因构成、年龄、伴随疾病、营养供应以及接触药物或生化物质。那么总而言之,不存在一个单一的机械调节器控制我们每个人的骨骼。在基本的组织层面,对于给定的一组动态调节影响,骨骼的小功能单位各自都有其自身多因素阈值目标应变刺激。理解这些机械调节器各自独立发挥作用方式背后的生物学原理,可能会对我们通过操纵负荷来控制骨量的能力产生广泛影响,无论是直接通过不同的运动方案,还是以有针对性的方式使用量身定制的部位和个体特异性药物。