ArticleScientific reports2025
Demonstration of an intrinsic circadian rhythm in bone resorption.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Circadian-Melatonin Axis in Bone Remodeling: Receptor-Dependent Signaling, Receptor-Independent Actions, and Translational Constraints.Biomolecules · 2026Review
- Bone turnover marker rhythmicity: implications for osteoporosis treatment and fracture healing.Endocrine connections · 2026Review
- Circadian biology and exercise: the time to move.Life metabolism · 2026Review
- Circadian regulation of osteoclast lysosomal-resorption machinery: implications for osteoporosis therapy.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Review
- Chronobiology of fracture repair: local molecular clocks, rhythm protection, and time-anchored translation.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Review
- Sympathetic regulation of bone homeostasis and remodeling: molecular mechanisms, pathophysiological roles, and therapeutic implications.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Daily 24 h rhythms in bone turnover have been demonstrated but whether these rhythms are intrinsically generated circadian rhythms is not known. We thus aimed to investigate this using the commonly used constant routine protocol where external factors such as meals, activity, sleep/wake and light/dark are kept constant. Serum procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (sPINP) (marker of bone formation) and C-terminal telopeptide of type 1 collagen (sCTX) (marker of bone resorption), were measured in 2 hourly blood samples taken sequentially across 26 h in healthy individuals (n = 22, aged 19-33 years, 50% female). Concentration of sCTX showed a cosine rhythm in all males (acrophase (peak) time (mean ± SEM) 02:48 ± 14 h:min, amplitude 0.15 ± 0.02 ng/mL). All of the females had a statistically significant cosine + linear fit (acrophase 03:24 ± 20 h:min, amplitude 0.05 ± 0.01 ng/mL). There was no sex difference in acrophase, but females had a significantly smaller amplitude (P < 0.001). For sP1NP, only 4 males (36%) and 1 female showed statistically significant rhythms for either cosine, or cosine + linear models. Overall, sCTX, but not sPINP, exhibited a robust circadian rhythm in both males and females. This finding suggests that the circadian clock regulation of bone resorption by osteoclasts is robust, whereas circadian clock regulation of bone formation by osteoblasts is minimal.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.