Experience in the Adaptive Immunity Impacts Bone Homeostasis, Remodeling, and Healing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bone formation as well as bone healing capacity is known to be impaired in the elderly. Although bone formation is outpaced by bone resorption in aged individuals, we hereby present a novel path that considerably impacts bone formation and organization: Bone formation is substantially reduced in aged individual owing to the experience of the adaptive immunity. Thus, immune-aging in addition to chronological aging is a potential risk factor, with an experienced immune system being recognized as more pro-inflammatory. The role of the aging immune system on bone homeostasis and on the bone healing cascade has so far not been considered. Within this study mice at different age and immunological experience were analyzed towards bone properties. Healing was assessed by introducing an osteotomy, immune cells were adoptively transferred to disclose the difference in biological versus chronological aging. In vitro studies were employed to test the interaction of immune cell products on cells of the musculoskeletal system. In metaphyseal bone, immune-aging affects bone homeostasis by impacting bone formation capacity and thereby influencing mass and microstructure of bone trabeculae leading to an overall reduced mechanical competence as found in bone torsional testing. Furthermore, bone formation is also impacted during bone regeneration in terms of a diminished healing capacity observed in young animals who have an experienced human immune system. We show the impact of an experienced immune system compared to a naïve immune system, demonstrating the substantial differences in the healing capacity and bone homeostasis due to the immune composition. We further showed that in vivo mechanical stimulation changed the immune system phenotype in young mice towards a more naïve composition. While this rescue was found to be significant in young individuals, aged mice only showed a trend towards the reconstitution of a more naïve immune phenotype. Considering the immune system’s experience level in an individual, will likely allow one to differentiate (stratify) and treat (immune-modulate) patients more effectively. This work illustrates the relevance of including immune diagnostics when discussing immunomodulatory therapeutic strategies for the progressively aging population of the industrial countries.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".