Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26453500›Full record

ReviewBone2015

Bone and muscle: Interactions beyond mechanical.

Marco Brotto, Lynda Bonewald

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Bone, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 187 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
187citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

187 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. The effect of exercise training on osteocalcin, adipocytokines, and insulin resistance: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Prevalence, risk factors and adverse health outcomes of osteosarcopenia in middle-aged and older adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus-a scoping review.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

127 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Marco BrottoMuscle Biology Research Group-MUBIG, UMKC School of Nursing & Health Studies, 2464 Charlotte, USA; UMKC School of Medicine, 2464 Charlotte, USA.
Lynda BonewaldBone Biology/Mineralized Tissue Research Program, Department of Oral and Craniofacial Sciences, UMKC School of Dentistry, 650 East 25th Street, Kansas City, MO 64108, USA.

Funding

Transgenic and Mechanical Loading CoreP01AG039355 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI KANSAS CITY · PI BONEWALD, LYNDA F · 2012 to 2024
$19.3M
NIA NIH HHS P01 AG039355NIA NIH HHS P01AG039355
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The musculoskeletal system is significantly more complex than portrayed by traditional reductionist approaches that have focused on and studied the components of this system separately. While bone and skeletal muscle are the two largest tissues within this system, this system also includes tendons, ligaments, cartilage, joints and other connective tissues along with vascular and nervous tissues. Because the main function of this system is locomotion, the mechanical interaction among the major players of this system is essential for the many shapes and forms observed in vertebrates and even in invertebrates. Thus, it is logical that the mechanical coupling theories of musculoskeletal development exert a dominant influence on our understanding of the biology of the musculoskeletal system, because these relationships are relatively easy to observe, measure, and perturb. Certainly much less recognized is the molecular and biochemical interaction among the individual players of the musculoskeletal system. In this brief review article, we first introduce some of the key reasons why the mechanical coupling theory has dominated our view of bone-muscle interactions followed by summarizing evidence for the secretory nature of bones and muscles. Finally, a number of highly physiological questions that cannot be answered by the mechanical theories alone will be raised along with different lines of evidence that support both a genetic and a biochemical communication between bones and muscles. It is hoped that these discussions will stimulate new insights into this fertile and promising new way of defining the relationships between these closely related tissues. Understanding the cellular and molecular mechanisms responsible for biochemical communication between bone and muscle is important not only from a basic research perspective but also as a means to identify potential new therapies for bone and muscle diseases, especially for when they co-exist. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled "Muscle Bone Interactions".

Indexed as

AnimalsBiomechanical PhenomenaBone and BonesHumansMuscle, SkeletalBoneBone–muscle crosstalkGene pleiotropyMuscleSecreted factors

Identifiers

PMID26453500
PMCPMC4600532

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.