Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
To clarify the differences in the action of 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 [1,25-(OH)2D3] and 24,25-(OH)2D3 in hypophosphatemic (Hyp) mice, a model for familial X-linked hypophosphatemic rickets in humans, we carried out histomorphometric examinations of the effects of these agents in the lumbar vertebra of these mice. The Hyp mice received 1-1000 micrograms/kg.day 24,25-(OH)2D3, 0.01-0.1 micrograms/kg.day 1,25.(OH)2D3, or vehicle alone given daily for 28 days by ip injection. Histomorphometrically, 1,25-(OH)2D3 and 24,25-(OH)2D3 showed similar effects on bone formation. The parameters of bone formation, mineralized bone volume/bone volume, mineral apposition rate, and bone formation rate/bone surface, were improved to a similar extent in a dose-dependent manner by 1,25-(OH)2D3 and 24,25-(OH)2D3, but there were remarkable differences in the indexes of the bone resorption between these two metabolites. In 24,25-(OH)2D3-treated Hyp mice, osteoclast number/bone perimeter and osteoclast surface/bone surface, the parameters of bone resorption, increased to control levels and did not change according to the dose of 24,25-(OH)2D3. However, in 1,25-(OH)2D3-treated Hyp mice, these values increased remarkably, exceeding the control level. That is, 24,25-(OH)2D3 normalized bone resorption in the rachitic mice, whereas 1,25-(OH)2D3 caused excessive stimulation of bone resorption. This qualitative difference between the two compounds contributes to the superior effects exerted by 24,25-(OH)2D3 in improving the bone lesion in Hyp mice. At doses from 1-1000 micrograms/kg.day, 24,25-(OH)2D3 had dose-dependent effects in increasing bone formation without promoting excessive bone resorption, as shown by histomorphometric analysis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ono et al. (1996) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: