Abstract

Evidence has been accumulating for the role of Sclerostin and Dickkopf-1 as the antagonists of Wnt/B-Catenin signaling pathway, which suppresses bone formation through inhibiting osteoblastic function. To get deep-inside information about the expression of the antagonists in patients with fluorine bone injury, a case-control study was conducted in two counties in Hubei Province. Urinary and serum fluoride were significantly higher in patients with fluorine bone injury than in healthy controls. Additionally, patients with fluorine bone injury had significantly lower serum Sclerostin and Dickkopf-1 levels compared with healthy controls (P<0.001). Serum Sclerostin and Dickkopf-1 levels were significantly correlated with serum fluoride in all studied subjects (n=186). Low Sclerostin and Dickkopf-1 levels were associated with a significantly increased risk of fluorine bone injury. In conclusion, serum Sclerostin and Dickkopf-1 might be used as important markers of bone metabolism change and potential therapeutic targets to treat fluorine bone injury.

• Related Studies :

  • Is the severity of osteosclerosis of fluorosis proportional to the dose of fluoride intake?

    Histomorphometric study was made on a series of sections of undecalcified epiphyseal femoral specimens from rats with experimental fluorosis. The results revealed osteosclerosis in Group A (5 ppm) being more severe than that in Group B (25 ppm). With the increase of fluoride dose, the parameters fell down instead of

  • Experimental fluorosis in rats: NaF induced changes of bone and bone marrow

    The results of our experiments suggest that increased doses of NaF cause more extensive osteosclerosis due to the decrease in number and/or activity of osteoclasts. Therefore oateosclerosis is caused primarily, not by increased bone formation but, by the inhibition of bone resorption. This view is supported by the fact that

  • miR-486-3p regulates CyclinD1 and promotes fluoride-induced osteoblast proliferation and activation.

    Fluoride is a persistent environmental pollutant, and its excessive intake contributes to skeletal and dental fluorosis. The mechanisms underlying fluoride-induced abnormal osteoblast proliferation and activation, which are related to skeletal fluorosis, have not yet been fully clarified. As important epigenetic regulators, microRNAs (miRNAs) participate in bone metabolism. On the basis

  • Aberrant methylation-induced dysfunction of p16 is associated with osteoblast activation caused by fluoride.

    Chronic exposure to fluoride continues to be a public health problem worldwide, affecting thousands of people. Fluoride can cause abnormal proliferation and activation of osteoblast and osteoclast, leading to skeletal fluorosis that can cause pain and harm to joints and bones and even lead to permanent disability. Nevertheless, there is

  • Effects of sodium fluoride treatment in vitro on cell proliferation, apoptosis and caspase-3 and caspase-9 mRNA expression by neonatal rat osteoblasts.

    Long-term excessive fluoride intake is linked to skeletal disease. Skeletal health is influenced by the balance between bone formation and resorption of which osteoblast function is critical. The objectives of this study were to determine the effect of fluoride treatment on osteoblast proliferation, apoptosis and caspase-3 and caspase-9 mRNA expression

• Related FAN Content :

  • Fluoride's Effect on Osteoblasts (Bone-Forming Cells)

    As noted by the National Research Council, "[p]erhaps the single clearest effect of fluoride on the skeleton is its stimulation of osteoblast proliferation." (NRC 2006). Osteoblasts are bone-forming cells. "Stimulatory effects of fluoride on osteoblasts result in formation of osteoid, which subsequently undergoes mineralization." (Fisher RL, et al. 1989). If the new

  • "Pre-Skeletal" Fluorosis

    As demonstrated by the studies below, skeletal fluorosis may produce adverse symptoms, including arthritic pains, clinical osteoarthritis, gastrointestinal disturbances, and bone fragility, before the classic bone change of fluorosis (i.e., osteosclerosis in the spine and pelvis) is detectable by x-ray. Relying on x-rays, therefore, to diagnosis skeletal fluorosis will invariably fail to protect those individuals who are suffering from the pre-skeletal phase of the disease. Moreover, some individuals with clinical skeletal fluorosis will not develop an increase in bone density, let alone osteosclerosis, of the spine. Thus, relying on unusual increases in spinal bone density will under-detect the rate of skeletal fluoride poisoning in a population.

  • Fluoride & Osteoarthritis

    While the osteoarthritic effects that occurred from fluoride exposure were once considered to be limited to those with skeletal fluorosis, recent research shows that fluoride can cause osteoarthritis in the absence of traditionally defined fluorosis. Conventional methods used for detecting skeletal fluorosis, therefore, will fail to detect the full range of people suffering from fluoride-induced osteoarthritis.

  • Skeletal Fluorosis: The Misdiagnosis Problem

    It is a virtual certainty that there are individuals in the general population unknowingly suffering from some form of skeletal fluorosis as a result of a doctor's failure to consider fluoride as a cause of their symptoms. Proof that this is the case can be found in the following case reports of skeletal fluorosis written by doctors in the U.S. and other western countries. As can be seen, a consistent feature of these reports is that fluorosis patients--even those with crippling skeletal fluorosis--are misdiagnosed for years by multiple teams of doctors who routinely fail to consider fluoride as a possible cause of their disease.

  • Skeletal Fluorosis & Individual Variability

    One of the common fallacies in the research on skeletal fluorosis is the notion that there is a uniform level of fluoride that is safe for everyone in the population. These "safety thresholds" have been expressed in terms of (a) bone fluoride content, (b) daily dose, (c) water fluoride level, (d) urinary fluoride level, and (e) blood fluoride level. The central fallacy with each of these alleged safety thresholds, however, is that they ignore the wide range of individual susceptibility in how people respond to toxic substances, including fluoride.