Abstract
The heritability of trabecular volumetric bone mineral density (BMD) determined by quantitative computed tomography (QCT) has not yet been reported. The purpose of this study was to investigate the heritability of BMD as determined by QCT and DXA in 124 women and 120 men (age 39–83 years, BMI 17–75, 84% type 2 diabetics) from 101 families (232 sibling pairs) in the Diabetes Heart Study. Volumetric BMD had a heritability (h2) estimate of 0.73 (SE = 0.15, P < 0.0001) at the lumbar spine and 0.71 (SE = 0.15, P < 0.0001) at the thoracic spine. Areal BMD heritability estimates were 0.56 for PA spine, 0.43 for total hip, 0.43 for femoral neck, 0.45 for distal radius, 0.42 for mid-radius, and 0.52 for whole body (all P < 0.01). After accounting for familial correlation using generalized estimating equations, volumetric BMD was inversely associated with age (r = −0.52, P < 0.0001) and duration of diabetes (r = −0.24, P < 0.01) and positively associated with body weight (r = 0.25, P < 0.01). In multivariate analysis, adjustment for age, sex, and race lowered the h2 estimates for volumetric BMD at the lumbar (h2 = 0.41, P < 0.01) and thoracic (h2 = 0.48, P < 0.001) spine, increased the h2 estimate for areal BMD at the mid radius (h2 = 0.58, P < 0.0001), and had little effect on the h2 estimate for areal BMD at other sites (h2 = 0.41–0.55, all P < 0.01). Additional adjustment for BMI, duration of diabetes, and physical activity had little effect on the h2 estimates for volumetric BMD or areal BMD except at the hip where they were lowered (h2 = 0.31–0.33, all P < 0.05). These data suggest that, like areal BMD, volumetric BMD is highly heritable and may be used in designing linkage studies to locate genes governing bone metabolism.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
In clinical practice, osteoporosis is commonly defined based on the presence of low bone mineral density (BMD), the presence (or history) of fragility fracture, or a combination of low BMD and fracture. This approach has been widely accepted mainly because low BMD is such a powerful risk factor for fracture [1, 2, 3, 4]. Defining osteoporosis using BMD criteria has, in turn, fueled interest in determining the environmental and genetic factors underlying the variation in BMD.
Despite more than three decades of research into the genetics of osteoporosis, many gaps exist in our understanding of the heritability of phenotypes related to bone mass. Current unknowns include the relative heritabilities of BMD at different skeletal sites, of cortical compared to trabecular bone, and the influence of gender on these heritabilities. Previous heritability studies have used twins [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10] or parent-offspring pairs [11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20], with other types of family studies being rare [21, 22, 23, 24]. The heritability (h2) estimates range from 0.3 to 0.9 [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24]. Many previous heritability studies [5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13] depended on determination of bone mass by single photon absorptiometry (SPA) or dual photon absorptiometry (DPA) which are now outdated technologies. Although, more recently, dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) has been used [9, 10, 14, 15], the measurement of BMD by DXA is not ideal, providing only an areal measurement of BMD which is influenced by bone size [25, 26]. While the heritability of a surrogate measure of volumetric BMD (mathematical adjustment of areal BMD obtained with DXA) has been reported [18, 19, 20], to date no studies have examined the heritability of volumetric trabecular BMD determined by quantitative computed tomography (QCT). Despite many known determinants of BMD, including age, sex, race, height, weight, and menopausal status, only a few studies [22, 23, 24] have adjusted the heritability estimates for these covariates. Adjustment for lifestyle factors such as diet and exercise has been even less consistent [22, 23, 24].
The aims of the current study were to determine heritability of volumetric BMD in a family study of type 2 diabetes (DM2), to compare heritability estimates across skeletal sites and across technologies (DXA and QCT), and to investigate how the heritability is modified by covariates. Better understanding of the heritability of volumetric BMD is essential for modern molecular genetic approaches such as linkage studies to be used successfully to locate genes governing bone metabolism.
Materials and Methods
Subjects for this study were from a random sample of the Diabetes Heart Study (DHS). DHS is a family study of sibling pairs concordant for DM2 as well as unaffected family members designed to locate and identify genes contributing to subclinical atherosclerosis. All DM2 affected participants must have had diabetes diagnosed after the age of 35, in the absence of history of ketoacidosis, and of at least 3 years duration. Subjects with renal insufficiency (serum creatinine ≥1.5 mg/dl or blood urea nitrogen ≥35 mg/dl) were excluded. Unaffected siblings, similar in age to siblings with DM2, were also recruited. Subjects were recruited from internal medicine clinics and through community advertising. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Wake Forest University School of Medicine. All participants gave informed consent.
The participant examinations were conducted in the General Clinical Research Center of Wake Forest University. The examination included interviews for medical history and health behaviors, anthropometric measures, fasting blood draws, spot urine collection, resting blood pressure, and 12-lead EKG. Body weight was recorded in lightly clothed, shoeless participants to the nearest 0.1 kg, height to the nearest 0.5 cm using a stadiometer. Waist and hip circumferences were measured in duplicate, to the nearest 0.1 cm, using a steel measuring tape. Laboratory assays included fasting glucose, hemoglobin A1C, lipids, and blood chemistries. Dietary intake (calories per day) was assessed using Block’s food frequency [27] and physical activity (calories per day) using Paffenbarger’s physical activity [28] questionnaires administered by trained interviewers.
DXA scans of posterior-anterior (PA) spine, proximal femur, forearm, and whole body were obtained using a fan-beam scanner (Delphi A™, Hologic, Waltham, MA). BMD was determined for all available regions of interest. Coefficients of variation (CV) were 1.2% for PA spine (L1-L4) BMD, 0.9% for total hip BMD, 0.4% for ultradistal radius BMD, and 0.9% for whole body BMD.
CT scans of the chest and abdomen were obtained on a 4-slice multi-detector CT system (GE Medical Systems, Milwaukee, WI) using a protocol validated for volumetric measurement of trabecular BMD in the thoracic and lumbar spine [29]. Volumetric data were acquired in the axial plane with 2.5 mm collimation. Volumetric BMD was measured in the thoracic spine (T8-T11) and lumbar spine (T12-L3) using QCT-5000 software (Image Analysis, Columbia, KY). CVs were <1% for thoracic and lumbar BMD.
Statistical Analyses
Associations between continuous covariates and BMD at various skeletal sites were determined using Spearman’s correlation. The continuous covariates included age, body weight, height, duration of diabetes, fasting glucose, hemoglobin A1C, dietary intake, and physical activity. Due to the correlated data structure, the significance of associations was not valid based on the correlation coefficient test. It was revaluated using the generalized estimating equation (GEE) procedure [30], which accounts for familial correlation via a sandwich estimator of the variance under exchangeable correlation. Although associations between the categorical covariates (e.g., race, diabetes, menopause, and smoking) and BMD cannot be determined by the correlation coefficients, the GEE procedure can still be used to evaluate the significance of associations. All statistical analyses were considered significant when P < 0.05. SAS software (Cary, NC) was used for the statistical analyses.
To determine the contribution of genetic factors to BMD, we analyzed BMD data in family members using the Sequential Oligogenic Linkage Analysis Routines (SOLAR) software package (Southwest Foundation for Medical Research) [31]. SOLAR performs a variance components analysis of family data where the total phenotypic (i.e., BMD) variation is partitioned into genetic and non-genetic sources of variation. To minimize the bias associated with shared environmental factors, the estimates of heritability (h2) were based on all available family data and were controlled for covariates related to BMD. The measurements of BMD were transformed to approximate the distributional assumptions of the analysis if necessary.
A series of models were developed that incorporated an increasing number of covariates to determine the extent of genetic factors contributing to the variation in BMD independent of the measured risk factors. In univariate analysis, each of the following covariates was examined independently: age, sex, race, height, weight, BMI, menopausal status, diabetes status, duration of diabetes, serum glucose, hemoglobin A1C, smoking, alcohol use, dietary intake, and physical activity. Multivariate analyses examined the combined effect of age, sex, and race (Model 1); age, sex, race, and BMI (Model 2); age, sex, race, BMI, and duration of diabetes (Model 3); age, sex, race, BMI, and physical activity (Model 4); as well as age, sex, race, BMI, duration of diabetes, and physical activity (Model 5). The significance of the heritability estimates was obtained by likelihood ratio tests, where the likelihood of the model in which heritability was estimated was compared with the likelihood of the model in which the heritability was constrained to zero. Twice the difference in the natural logarithmic likelihoods yielded a test statistic that was asymptotically distributed as 1/2:1/2 mixture of a chi-squared variable with 1 degree of freedom and a point mass at zero [32].
Results
Study Sample
Data for this study were obtained in a random sample of 244 participants from 101 families. Pedigree size ranged from 1 to 8, with 8 of 1 member, 65 of 2 members, 15 of 3 members, 9 of 4 members, 1 of 5 members, 2 of 6 members, and 1 of 8 members. There were 200 Caucasian and 32 African American sibling pairs. Among them, 121 sibling pairs were affected with DM2, 26 were not affected with DM2, and 85 were discordant for DM2.
Table 1 shows the characteristics of the study sample. There were 120 men and 124 women, ranging in age from 39 to 83 years. Forty-four participants (18%) were African American. Most of the women (91%) were postmenopausal. Two hundred and six participants (84%) had DM2 and 134 participants (55%) were obese (BMI >30). The average dietary intake was 1628 kilocalories per day and the average physical activity level was 690 kilocalories per week. Although the range of physical activity was broad (0-10272 kcal/week), a large proportion (17%) of participants had activity levels of 0 kcal/week. Most of the characteristics in Table 1 were comparable in men and women with the exception of smoking, dietary intake, and physical exercise which were higher in men (All P < 0.05).
Many participants were being treated with insulin (33%), oral hypoglycemic agents (59%), statins (40%), or thiazide diuretics (36%). Twenty-six percent of women were receiving estrogen therapy. The use of glucocorticoids was not common (7%). Fewer than 2% of participants were receiving other antiresorptive therapy (i.e., bisphosphonates, calcitonin, or raloxifene) and fewer than 5% were receiving calcium or vitamin D supplementation.
Table 2 shows BMD values for the study sample. At all measured sites the mean areal BMD (DXA) was lower in women than in men (all P < 0.0001), while volumetric BMD (QCT) was not significantly different (all P > 0.1).
Association of BMD with Potential Covariates
After accounting for familial correlation using generalized estimating equations, mean BMD was higher in African Americans compared to Caucasians. Volumetric BMD was not associated with diabetes status, menopausal status, smoking history, or alcohol use. As expected, due to the low number (n = 11) of premenopausal women, the study did not have sufficient power to detect the influence of menopausal status on BMD. Mean areal BMD was significantly higher in smokers and in diabetics at some skeletal sites.
Table 3 shows Spearman correlations of various possible covariates with BMD. Age was inversely associated with BMD at all measured sites with the strength of the association greatest for volumetric BMD (measured by QCT). Body weight was positively associated with BMD at all sites while height was significantly associated with areal but not with volumetric BMD. Conversely, duration of diabetes was inversely associated with volumetric BMD but was not significantly associated with areal BMD. Serum glucose, physical activity, and dietary intake did not show a consistent association with BMD. Hemoglobin A1C levels were not associated with BMD.
Heritability of BMD
Table 4 shows unadjusted heritability estimates for BMD. Volumetric BMD at the spine had heritability estimates ranging from 0.56 to 0.99. Areal BMD had heritability estimates ranging from 0.35 to 0.88. Although it appears that the heritability of volumetric BMD was higher than areal BMD and that men had higher heritability compared to women at some sites (volumetric BMD at the spine and areal BMD at mid-radius), the differences were not significant when considering the standard errors associated with the point estimates.
Heritability estimates remained significant in univariate analyses adjusting for potential covariates (i.e., age, sex, race, height, weight, BMI, menopausal status, diabetes status, duration of diabetes, serum glucose, hemoglobin A1C, dietary intake, alcohol use, smoking, and physical activity). Age adjustment had the greatest influence on volumetric BMD, lowering heritability estimates when compared to other covariates. In univariate analyses, other covariates had little impact on heritability of volumetric BMD. In contrast, heritability of areal BMD was influenced by sex, height, and weight adjustments. The proportions of phenotypic variance due to sex, height, and weight, respectively, were higher than those due to other covariates (data not shown). Sex adjustment increased heritability estimates. This adjustment reduced the remaining unexplained phenotypic variance, which allowed the genetic contribution to BMD to become more apparent.
Table 5 shows heritability estimates for BMD adjusted for covariates using two multivariate models. Adjustment for age, sex, and race (Model 1) lowered the heritability estimates for volumetric BMD at the spine (h2 = 0.41–0.48), increased the heritability estimate for areal BMD at the mid-radius (h2 = 0.58), and had little effect on areal BMD at other sites (h2 = 0.41–0.55). Additional adjustment for BMI and physical activity (Model 4) had little effect on the heritability estimates. Similarly, heritability estimates remained stable in three other multivariate models (data not shown).
Discussion
To our knowledge, this is the first report of heritability of volumetric BMD using QCT. In this family study of type 2 diabetes, after adjusting for age, sex, race, BMI, and physical activity, volumetric BMD had heritability (h2) estimates of 0.39 in the lumbar spine and 0.49 in the thoracic spine. Adjusted for the same covariates, h2 of areal BMD ranged from 0.39 to 0.60.
Although this is the first study to examine the familial aggregation of volumetric BMD, extensive research has been conducted on heritability of other measures of bone mass (i.e., BMC and areal BMD), with estimates ranging from 0.3 to 0.9 [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24]. Many of these studies [5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13] measured BMC (in g/cm) by single photon absorptiometry (SPA) or BMC and areal BMD (in g/cm2) by dual photon absorptiometry (DPA) which are now outdated technologies. In studies of twins using SPA and/or DPA, Pocock et al. [5] reported h2 of 0.92 for the spine, 0.57–0.73 for the proximal femur, and 0.42 for the radius, Dequeker et al. [6] reported h2 of 0.88 for the spine and 0.75 for the mid-radius, Hustmyer et al. [7] reported h2 of 0.70 for the spine, proximal femur, and distal radius and 0.40 for the proximal radius, and Smith et al. [8] reported h2 of 0.49–0.75 at the distal forearm. Heritability estimates in twins may be overestimated because the twin model assumes that environmental covariances are equal for monozygotic and dizygotic twins and that there are no gene interactions. In fact, there is evidence that monozygotic twins have higher environmental correlation and that gene interactions are present [10]. Familial resemblance studies using parent-offspring pairs have also been reported. Using SPA and/or DPA, correlations in bone mass between parents and their children have ranged from 0.22–0.58 [11, 12]. Since parents and offspring typically share many environmental factors, the reported associations in bone mass are a measure of familial resemblance that includes both genetic and environmental components.
With the advent of DXA, the heritability of BMD was reconfirmed in studies of twins and parent offspring pairs. In a study of 97 female twin pairs, Harris et al. [9] reported an h2 range of 0.71–0.77. In parent off-spring studies, Danielson et al. [14] reported an h2 range of 0.51 to 0.63 and Gueguen et al. [15] an h2 range of 0.34 to 0.84. Several large family studies [21, 22, 23, 24] have also used DXA to estimate heritability of BMD. In a study of 535 women from 137 pedigrees, Sowers et al. [21, 22, 23] reported an h2 range of 0.45 to 0.67. In the Creighton family study of osteoporosis, 40 pedigrees of 212 men and 351 women had an h2 range of 0.64 to 0.86 [23, 24]. In addition to heritability of areal BMD, two studies have reported heritability of volumetric BMD determined with DXA. In a study of 138 mothers and their prepubertal daughters, Ferrari et al. [18, 19] reported an h2 range of 0.27 to 0.38, which was similar to that of areal BMD. In a study of 50 families, Nordstrom et al. [20] reported h2 of 0.42 for volumetric BMD and 0.32 for areal BMD at the spine. Our study is the first to show that volumetric BMD measured directly with QCT is also highly heritable. Collectively, these data suggest that bone mass is heritable regardless of the phenotype (i.e., BMC, areal BMD, or volumetric BMD).
In addition to determining the h2 of volumetric BMD, we compared the h2 estimates across skeletal sites and across technologies (DXA and QCT). It is plausible that the h2 of volumetric BMD would be different than that of areal BMD measured at the same skeletal site because volumetric measurements contain more trabecular bone relative to cortical bone. Genetic determinants of cortical and trabecular bone may differ, and trabecular bone is more metabolically active and susceptible to change than cortical bone, particularly in peri- and post-menopausal women. In addition, volumetric and areal measurements may be differentially influenced by environmental covariates. Our data show that unadjusted h2 of the lumbar spine volumetric BMD was higher than areal BMD at the same skeletal site (0.73 versus 0.56). After adjustment for age, sex, race, BMI, and physical activity, the heritability of volumetric spine BMD was lower than areal BMD (0.49 versus 0.60). However, comparison of the h2 at two different sites in the radius results in a contradictory finding. In men, the predominantly cortical BMD in the mid-radius was more heritable than predominantly trabecular BMD in the distal radius (0.88 versus 0.44) whereas, in women, the cortical portion was less heritable than the trabecular portion (0.36 versus 0.68). Although it is tempting to conclude from these results that h2 of BMD varies according to proportion of trabecular bone, the large standard errors associated with point estimates do not support such conclusions. Furthermore, the h2 estimates were comparable for other DXA measured sites (i.e., whole body, PA spine, femoral neck, and total hip) despite the fact that they contain various proportions of cortical and trabecular bone. Due to its relatively small sample, our study may lack the power to determine whether genetic contributions to bone mass have any site specificity. Similarly, previous studies have not been consistent in showing differences in heritability of cortical versus trabecular bone or among different DXA measured sites [33].
Another aim of our study was to investigate how the h2 estimates are modified by covariates. The first step in this process was to determine what covariates are associated with volumetric BMD. After accounting for familial correlation using generalized estimating equations, volumetric BMD was inversely associated with age and duration of diabetes and positively associated with body weight. Although increasing age was inversely associated with BMD at all measured sites, the strength of the association was greatest for volumetric BMD (r = −0.42 to −0.55). These findings are not unexpected since QCT measures primarily trabecular bone and is thus more sensitive to the effects of aging than DXA which measures both trabecular bone and less metabolically active cortical bone. Although several prior studies [34, 35, 36] have shown a positive association between body weight and volumetric BMD determined from mathematical manipulation of DXA results, this is one of the first studies to show an association with directly measured volumetric BMD (QCT). This study lacks sufficient power to test whether the relationship between weight and volumetric BMD (by QCT) is significantly different from that between weight and areal BMD (by DXA). Certainly it is plausible that the relationship would be different given the fact that areal BMD is partly determined by body size. In this study, height, dietary intake, and physical activity were not significantly associated with volumetric BMD but were associated with areal BMD at some skeletal sites.
The h2 estimates for volumetric BMD were modified mainly by age and gender. Adjusting by age lowered the h2 estimates for volumetric BMD but had little effect on areal BMD. This finding is not unexpected since volumetric BMD is more sensitive to age (because it contains more trabecular bone and because it is less influenced by degenerative changes than areal BMD). In our study, men had higher h2 estimates than women in the mid-radius (DXA) and spine (QCT). In contrast, men had lower h2 estimates than women for BMD measured by DXA at the whole body, spine, and hip sites. However, the differences were not significant considering the large standard errors associated with the point estimates. Our results are consistent with the Creighton family study of osteoporosis [23], where after adjusting for covariates, h2 was higher in men (0.68 and 0.86) compared to women (0.64 and 0.67) but the differences were not considered significant.
In prior studies, BMD in DM2 has been reported as decreased, increased, or the same compared to controls [37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44]. In our study, duration of diabetes was inversely associated with volumetric BMD but not areal BMD. The association between BMD and fasting glucose and hemoglobin A1C were not significant. We did not measure serum insulin or insulin sensitivity. It should be noted, however, that the diabetes patients in this study are long-term diabetics and likely to be very insulin resistant and showing little variance in measures of insulin sensitivity. Adjusting for duration of diabetes slightly increased the h2 estimate for volumetric BMD but had an inconsistent effect on heritability of areal BMD. Adjusting for serum glucose or hemoglobin, A1C had no effect on heritability estimates.
There was little effect of adjusting our h2 estimates for other potential covariates (i.e., race, height, weight, BMI, menopausal status, smoking, alcohol use, dietary intake, or physical activity). In a multivariate model that adjusted the h2 for the combined effect of age, sex, and race (Model 1), and age, sex, race, BMI, and physical activity (Model 4), the h2 for volumetric BMD was somewhat lowered. Due to large standard errors these results should be interpreted with caution until they can be confirmed in a larger cohort.
In previous studies h2 estimates were obtained in either normal populations or in populations where some subjects had low BMD or fracture. Heritability of BMD in elderly populations affected by chronic disorders has not been studied. Many such populations are being used in genetic epidemiology research related to other disorders. In particular, DM2 is an increasingly prevalent condition that has a broad range of clinical consequences, and as such is of particular interest to geneticists. Our demonstration of substantial h2 of BMD in families with DM2 is quite valuable, providing a strong rationale to look into genetic influences on skeletal characteristics, particularly as this study continues with additional subject recruitment and future plans for genome wide scans across the whole subject population.
In summary, this is the first study to show that volumetric BMD measured by QCT is highly heritable. In addition, we explored how the heritability of volumetric BMD compared to areal BMD and how it was modified by covariates. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings and to provide heritability estimates for other osteoporosis-related phenotypes (i.e., body composition, bone loss, bone turnover, bone size and structure, fracture) in order to improve strategies for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis.
References
D Marshall O Johnell H Wedel (1996) ArticleTitleMeta-analysis of how well measures of bone mineral density predict occurrence of osteoporotic fractures BMJ 312 1254–1259 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:BymB38rjtVE%3D Occurrence Handle8634613
Q Rehman T Lang G Modin NE Lane (2002) ArticleTitleQuantitative computed tomography of the lumbar spine, not dual X-ray absorptiometry, is an independent predictor of prevalent vertebral fractures in postmenopausal women with osteopenia receiving long-term glucocorticoid and hormone-replacement therapy Arthritis Rheum 246 1292–1297 Occurrence Handle10.1002/art.10277
TF Lang G Guglielmi C Kuijk Particlevan A Serio ParticleDe M Cammisa HK Genant (2002) ArticleTitleMeasurement of bone mineral density at the spine and proximal femur by volumetric quantitative computed tomography and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in elderly women with and without vertebral fractures Bone 30 247–250 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S8756-3282(01)00647-0 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD38%2FmvVWmtQ%3D%3D Occurrence Handle11792593
C Bergot AM Laval-Jeantet K Hutchinson I Dautraix F Caulin HK Genant (2001) ArticleTitleA comparison of spinal quantitative computed tomography with dual energy X-ray absorptiometry in European women with vertebral and nonvertebral fractures Calcif Tissue Int 68 74–82 Occurrence Handle1:CAS:528:DC%2BD3MXkvFeku7Y%3D Occurrence Handle11310350
NA Pocock JA Eisman JL Hopper MG Yeates PN Sambrook S Eberl (1987) ArticleTitleGenetic determinants of bone mass in adults A twin study. J Clin Invest 80 706–710 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:BiiA3cfotVM%3D
J Dequeker J Nijs A Verstraeten P Geusens G Gevers (1987) ArticleTitleGenetic determinants of bone mineral content at the spine and radius: a twin study Bone 84 207–209 Occurrence Handle10.1016/8756-3282(87)90166-9
FG Hustmyer M Peacock S Hui CC Johnston J Christian (1994) ArticleTitleBone mineral density in relation to polymorphism at the vitamin D receptor gene locus J Clin Invest 94 2130–2134 Occurrence Handle1:CAS:528:DyaK2MXhvFKgs7k%3D Occurrence Handle7962559
DM Smith WE Nance KW Kang JC Christian CC Johnston SuffixJr (1973) ArticleTitleGenetic factors in determining bone mass J Clin Invest 52 2800–2808 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:CSuD387msVA%3D Occurrence Handle4795916
M Harris TV Nguyen GM Howard PJ Kelly JA Eisman (1998) ArticleTitleGenetic and environmental correlations between bone formation and bone mineral density: a twin study Bone 22 141–145 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S8756-3282(97)00252-4 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1c7js1Wjtg%3D%3D Occurrence Handle9477237
CW Slemenda JC Christian CJ Williams JA Norton CC Johnston SuffixJr (1991) ArticleTitleGenetic determinants of bone mass in adult women: a revaluation of the twin model and the potential importance of gene interaction on heritability estimates J Bone Miner Res 6 561–567 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:By6A287ovVI%3D Occurrence Handle1887818
FA Tylavsky AD Bortz RL Hancock JJ Anderson (1989) ArticleTitleFamilial resemblance of radial bone mass between premenopausal mothers and their college-age daughters Calcif Tissue Int 45 265–272 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:By%2BD38bms1U%3D Occurrence Handle2509013
J Lutz (1986) ArticleTitleBone mineral, serum calcium, and dietary intakes of mother/daughter pairs Am J Clin Nutr 44 99–106 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:BimB28rktFA%3D Occurrence Handle3728353
J Lutz R Tesar (1990) ArticleTitleMother-daughter pairs: spinal and femoral bone densities and dietary intakes Am J Clin Nutr 52 872–877 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:By6D2M7jtFc%3D Occurrence Handle2239764
ME Danielson JA Cauley CE Baker AB Newman JS Dorman JD Towers LH Kuller (1999) ArticleTitleFamilial resemblance of bone mineral density (BMD) and calcaneal ultrasound attenuation: the BMD in mothers and daughters study J Bone Miner Res 14 102–110 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1M7htFalug%3D%3D Occurrence Handle9893071
R Gueguen P Jouanny F Guillemin C Kuntz J Pourel G Siest (1995) ArticleTitleSegregation analysis and variance components analysis of bone mineral density in healthy families J Bone Miner Res 10 2017–2022 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:BymC1M3nt1A%3D Occurrence Handle8619384
E Seeman JL Hopper LA Bach ME Cooper E Parkinson J McKay G Jerums (1989) ArticleTitleReduced bone mass in daughters of women with osteoporosis N Engl J Med 320 554–558 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:BiaC38jksVY%3D Occurrence Handle2915666
E Seeman C Tsalamandris C Formica JL Hopper J McKay (1994) ArticleTitleReduced femoral neck bone density in the daughters of women with hip fractures: the role of low peak bone density in the pathogenesis of osteoporosis J Bone Miner Res 9 739–743 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByuA3s%2FktV0%3D Occurrence Handle8053404
S Ferrari R Rizzoli JP Bonjour (1998) ArticleTitleHeritable and nutritional influences on bone mineral mass Aging (Milano) 10 205–213 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1M%2FhvVGgug%3D%3D
S Ferrari R Rizzoli D Slosman JP Bonjour (1998) ArticleTitleFamilial resemblance for bone mineral mass is expressed before puberty J Clin Endocrinol Metab 83 358–361 Occurrence Handle10.1210/jc.83.2.358 Occurrence Handle1:CAS:528:DyaK1cXpvFantA%3D%3D Occurrence Handle9467541
P Nordstrom R Lorentzon (1999) ArticleTitleInfluence of heredity and environment on bone density in adolescent boys: a parent-offspring study Osteoporos Int 10 271–277 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s001980050226 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3c7lslelsQ%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10692974
MR Sowers M Boehnke ML Jannausch M Crutchfield G Corton TL Burns (1992) ArticleTitleFamiliality and partitioning the variability of femoral bone mineral density in women of child-bearing age Calcif Tissue Int 50 110–114 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:By2B2c%2FksFc%3D Occurrence Handle1571827
MR Sowers TL Burns RB Wallace (1986) ArticleTitleFamilial resemblance of bone mass in adult women Genet Epidemiol 3 85–93 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:BimB387msFM%3D Occurrence Handle3710140
HW Deng WM Chen T Conway Y Zhou KM Davies MR Stegman H Deng RR Recker (2000) ArticleTitleDetermination of bone mineral density of the hip and spine in human pedigrees by genetic and life-style factors Genet Epidemiol 19 160–177 Occurrence Handle10.1002/1098-2272(200009)19:2<160::AID-GEPI4>3.0.CO;2-H Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3cvpsFCgsQ%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10962476
HW Deng MR Stegman KM Davies T Conway RR Recker (1999) ArticleTitleGenetic determination of variation and covariation of peak bone mass at the hip and spine J Clin Densitom 2 251–263 Occurrence Handle10.1385/JCD:2:3:251 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3c%2FhvVCktQ%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10548821
GM Blake I Fogelman (1997) ArticleTitleTechnical principles of dual energy X-ray absorptiometry Semin Nucl Med 27 210–228 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByiA28jovFI%3D Occurrence Handle9224663
HK Genant K Engelke T Fuerst CC Gluer S Grampp ST Harris M Jergas T Lang Y Lu S Majumdar A Mathur M Takada (1996) ArticleTitleNoninvasive assessment of bone mineral and structure: state of the art J Bone Miner Res 11 707–730 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:BymA28zptlI%3D Occurrence Handle8725168
G Block M Woods A Potosky C Clifford (1990) ArticleTitleValidation of a self-administered diet history questionnaire using multiple diet records J Clin Epidemiol 43 1327–1335 Occurrence Handle10.1016/0895-4356(90)90099-B Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:By6D2szhsF0%3D Occurrence Handle2254769
RS Paffenbarger SuffixJr AL Wing RT Hyde (1995) ArticleTitlePhysical activity as an index of heart attack risk in college alumni Am J Epidemiol 142 889–903 Occurrence Handle7572969
L Lenchik R Shi TC Register SR Beck CD Langefeld JJ Carr (2004) ArticleTitleMeasurement of trabecular bone mineral density in the thoracic spine using cardiac gated quantitative computed tomography J Comput Assist Tomogr 28 134–139 Occurrence Handle10.1097/00004728-200401000-00023 Occurrence Handle14716247
KY Liang SL Zeger (1986) ArticleTitleLongitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models Biometrika 73 13–22
L Almasy J Blangero (1998) ArticleTitleMultipoint quantitative-trait linkage analysis in general pedigrees Am J Hum Genet 62 1198–1211 Occurrence Handle10.1086/301844 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1c3htlGrtg%3D%3D Occurrence Handle9545414
SG Self KY Liang (1987) ArticleTitleAsymptotic properties of maximum likelihood ratio tests under nonstandard conditions J Am Stat Assoc 82 605–610
JJ Anderson WS Pollitzer (1994) ArticleTitleEthnic and genetic differences in susceptibility to osteoporotic fractures Adv Nutr Res 9 129–149 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByqB28nltVI%3D Occurrence Handle7747663
M Kleerekoper DA Nelson EL Peterson MJ Flynn AS Pawluszka G Jacobsen P Wilson (1994) ArticleTitleReference data for bone mass, calciotropic hormones, and biochemical markers of bone remodeling in older (55–75) postmenopausal white and black women J Bone Miner Res 9 1267–1276 Occurrence Handle1:CAS:528:DyaK2MXns12jug%3D%3D Occurrence Handle7976509
L Vico B Prallet D Chappard B Pallot-Prades R Pupier C Alexandre (1992) ArticleTitleContributions of chronological age, age at menarche and menopause and of anthropometric parameters to axial and peripheral bone densities Osteoporos Int 2 53–158
M Wapniarz R Lehmann M Reincke E Schonau K Klein B Allolio (1997) ArticleTitleDeterminants of radial bone density as measured by pQCT in pre- and postmenopausal women—the role of bone size J Bone Miner Res 12 248–254 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByiC1Mzks1I%3D Occurrence Handle9041057
F Gregorio S Cristallini F Santeusanio P Filipponi P Fumelli (1994) ArticleTitleOsteopenia associated with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: What are the causes? Diabetes Res Clin Pract 23 43–54 Occurrence Handle10.1016/0168-8227(94)90126-0 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByuB1czhtVY%3D Occurrence Handle8013262
PL Daele Particlevan RP Stolk H Burger D Algra DE Grobbee A Hofman JC Birkenhager HA Pols (1995) ArticleTitleBone density in non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus The Rotterdam Study. Ann Intern Med 122 409–414
DJ Kwon JH Kim KW Chung JW Lee SP Kim HY Lee (1996) ArticleTitleBone mineral density of the spine using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus J Obstet Gynaecol Res 22 157–162 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:BymB1c%2FivFY%3D Occurrence Handle8697346
GC Isaia P Ardissone M Di Stefano et al. (1999) ArticleTitleBone metabolism in type 2 diabetes mellitus Acta Diabetol 36 35–38 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s005920050142 Occurrence Handle1:CAS:528:DyaK1MXls1KmsL4%3D Occurrence Handle10436250
M Sosa M Dominguez MC Navarro et al. (1996) ArticleTitleBone mineral metabolism is normal in non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus J Diabetes Complications 10 201–205 Occurrence Handle10.1016/1056-8727(95)00062-3 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:BymH3s3ovFU%3D Occurrence Handle8835919
K Suzuki C Sugimoto M Takizawa et al. (2000) ArticleTitleCorrelations between bone mineral density and circulating bone metabolic markers in diabetic patients Diabetes Res Clin Pract 48 185–191 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0168-8227(00)00119-4 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3c3mtlOjsw%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10802157
E Barrett-Connor TL Holbrook (1992) ArticleTitleSex differences in osteoporosis in older adults with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus JAMA 268 3333–3337 Occurrence Handle10.1001/jama.268.23.3333 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByyD1crot1M%3D Occurrence Handle1453525
E Barrett-Connor D Kritz-Silverstein (1996) ArticleTitleDoes hyperinsulinemia preserve bone? Diabetes Care 19 1388–1392 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByiD1MnltFw%3D Occurrence Handle8941469
DL Koller MJ Econs PA Morin et al. (2000) ArticleTitleGenome screen for QTLs contributing to normal variation in bone mineral density and osteoporosis J Clin Endocrinol Metab 85 3116–3120 Occurrence Handle10.1210/jc.85.9.3116 Occurrence Handle1:CAS:528:DC%2BD3cXmsVKru7o%3D Occurrence Handle10999795
MD Lonzer R Imrie D Rogers D Worley A Licata M Secic (1996) ArticleTitleEffects of heredity, age, weight, puberty, activity, and calcium intake on bone mineral density in children Clin Pediatr 35 185–189 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:BymB1c%2FisFw%3D
S Francois A Benmalek G Guaydier-Souquieres JP Sabatier C Marcelli (1999) ArticleTitleHeritability of bone mineral density Rev Rhum Engl Ed 66 146–151 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1M3lvFCktQ%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10327493
MA Hansen C Hassager SB Jensen C Christiansen (1992) ArticleTitleIs heritability a risk factor for postmenopausal osteoporosis? J Bone Miner Res 7 1037–1043 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByyD3svksVY%3D Occurrence Handle1414496
Acknowledgments
This study was supported in part by the General Clinical Research Center of the Wake Forest University School of Medicine grant M01 RR07122, and by NIH grants R01 HL67348 to DWB and R01 AR48797 to JJC. The investigators acknowledge the cooperation of our participants; study recruiters, Ms. Bonnie Dryman, Sue Ann Backus, and Ms. Jennie Locklear; CT analysts, Delilah Cook, Susan Pillsbury and Rong Shi; and CT and DXA technologists.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lenchik, L., Hsu, FC., Register, T.C. et al. Heritability of Spinal Trabecular Volumetric Bone Mineral Density Measured by QCT in the Diabetes Heart Study. Calcif Tissue Int 75, 305–312 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00223-004-0249-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00223-004-0249-z