This protocol describes a method to perform fractures on adult mice and monitor the healing process.
Fracture repair is an essential function of the skeleton that cannot be reliably modeled in vitro. A mouse injury model is an efficient approach to test whether a gene, gene product or drug influences bone repair because murine bones recapitulate the stages observed during human fracture healing. When a mouse or human breaks a bone, an inflammatory response is initiated, and the periosteum, a stem cell niche surrounding the bone itself, is activated and expands. Cells residing in the periosteum then differentiate to form a vascularized soft callus. The transition from the soft callus to a hard callus occurs as the recruited skeletal progenitor cells differentiate into mineralizing cells, and the bridging of the fractured ends results in the bone union. The mineralized callus then undergoes remodeling to restore the original shape and structure of the healed bone. Fracture healing has been studied in mice using various injury models. Still, the best way to recapitulate this entire biological process is to break through the cross-section of a long bone that encompasses both cortices. This protocol describes how a stabilized, transverse femur fracture can be safely performed to assess healing in adult mice. A surgical protocol including detailed harvesting and imaging techniques to characterize the different stages of fracture healing is also provided.
Fractures, breaks in the continuity of the bone surface, occur in all segments of the population. They become severe in people who have fragile bones due to aging or disease, and the health care costs of fragility fractures are expected to exceed $25 billion in 5 years1,2,3,4,5. Understanding the biological mechanisms involved in fracture repair would be a starting point in developing new therapies aimed at enhancing the healing process. Previous research has shown that, upon fracture, four significant steps occur that enable bone to heal: (1) formation of the hematoma; (2) formation of a fibrocartilaginous callus; (3) mineralization of the soft callus to form bone; and (4) remodeling of the healed bone6,7. Many biological processes are activated to heal the fracture successfully. First, an acute pro-inflammatory response is initiated immediately after a fracture6,7. Then, the periosteum becomes activated and expands, and periosteal cells differentiate into chondrocytes to form a cartilage callus that grows to fill the gap left by the disrupted bone segments6,7,8,9. Neural and vascular cells invade the newly formed callus to provide additional cells and signaling molecules needed to facilitate repair6,7,8,9,10. In addition to contributing to callus formation, periosteal cells also differentiate into osteoblasts that lay down woven bone in the bridging callus. Finally, osteoclasts remodel the newly formed bone to return to its original shape and lamellar structure7,8,9,10,11. Many groups developed mouse models of fracture repair. One of the earlier and most often used fracture models in mice is the Einhorn approach, where a weight is dropped on the leg from a specific height12. The lack of control over the angle and the force applied to induce the fracture creates a lot of variability in the location and size of the bone discontinuity. Subsequently, it results in variations in the specific fracture healing response observed. Other popular approaches are surgical intervention to produce a tibial monocortical defect or stress fractures, procedures that induce comparatively milder healing responses10,13. Variability in these models is primarily due to the person conducting the procedure14.
Here, a detailed mouse femur injury model allows for control over the break to provide a reproducible injury and allow for quantitative and qualitative assessment of femur fracture repair. Specifically, a complete breakthrough in the femurs of adult mice is introduced and stabilizes the fracture ends to account for the role physical loading plays in bone healing. The methods for harvesting tissues and imaging the different steps of the healing process using histology and microcomputed tomography (microCT) are also provided in detail.
All animal experiments described were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of the Harvard Medical Area. 12-week-old C57BL/6J mice (males and females) were used in this protocol. C57BL/6J male and female mice achieve peak bone mass around 12 weeks of age with femurs wide enough to fit a stabilizing pin, making them an appropriate strain to use for this protocol15.
1. Preparation for the surgery
2. Surgery
3. Tissue harvest
4. Histology – Alcian Blue / Eosin /Orange G staining
NOTE: Alcian Blue/Orange G/Eosin staining is routinely used to visualize cartilage (blue) and the bone (pink). The cartilage area can be quantified as a proportion of the total callus area (Figure 2A,B).
5. MicroCT
NOTE: In the later stages of healing, microCT can be performed to image and quantify the mineralization in the hard callus and the fracture gap. In C57BL/6J mice, the callus is usually mineralized and detectable by microCT after 10 days post-fracture (dpf) (Figure 2C).
In C57BL/6J mice, a successful surgery completes the healing steps mentioned earlier with little to no local inflammatory response or periosteal involvement in the sham-operated contralateral femur. A hematoma is formed a few hours after surgery, and the periosteum is activated to recruit skeletal progenitors for chondrogenesis. Various cell populations, such as Prx1+ mesenchymal progenitors, can be traced during the repair process using commercially available fluorescent reporter mouse models (Figure 3). At 5 days post fracture (dpf), Alcian Blue staining can be used to visualize the soft callus and subsequently quantify the cartilage area (Figure 2A,B). Mineralization is detectable by microCT at 28 dpf (Figure 2C). The volume of the mineralized callus, the distance of the fracture gap, and the bone strength measured by mechanical testing are commonly used as quantifiable outcomes of fracture repair. Genetic modification or drug intervention can change the course of recovery, so performing a time-course study to characterize fractures at different stages of repair is recommended. The whole callus can be dissected for molecular analysis and the contralateral bone shaft can be used as a control. If the fracture ends are not aligned or adequately secured with the pin, the resulting images will show a lack of callus formation on all or one side of the fracture site (Figure 4).
Figure 1: Fracture and insertion of the stabilizing pin. (A) A square is shaved on the right leg of a C57BL/6J mouse. (B) After an incision is made in the skin and fascia, curved forceps are secured underneath the femur to separate the muscle, skin, and bone. (C) After the cut is made, two fracture ends are created: the proximal section of the femur attached to the hip bone and the distal section attached to the knee. The guide needle (green) is inserted into the distal section and pushed through the knee joint. (D) The guide needle is removed from the distal section, inserted in the proximal section, and pushed through the hip joint. (E) The stabilizing pin (grey needle) is inserted into the guide needle protruding from the hip joint. (F) The stabilizing pin is pushed through the proximal section, into the distal section, and through the knee joint using the path made by the guide needle in C. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 2: Histology and microCT of femur fracture. (A) Formalin-fixed paraffin sections of femur fractures were collected at 5, 10, and 28 dpf and stained with Alcian Blue/Eosin/Orange G. Scale bar = 500 μm. (B) Cartilage area was quantified using ImageJ software at 5, 10, and 28 dpf. (C) At 28 dpf, mineralization was observed, and the callus volume and fracture gap could be measured by microCT. Scale bar = 1,000 μm. Data shown as Mean ± SEM. The mineralized callus volume was measured by contouring around the cortical bone at the fracture site. The dark grey area delineates the mineralized callus on the image, while the cortical bone (light grey) is not included in the measurement. Data shown as Mean ± SEM. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 3: Fluorescent reporter model used to visualize expansion of Prx1+ periosteal cells after fracture. Prx1CreER; Rosa26tdTomato mice were injected daily for five days with 80 mg/kg body weight of tamoxifen to induce tdTomato expression. Three days after the final injection, femur fracture was initiated, and mice were sacrificed at 7 or 14 dpf to track where Prx1-expressing cells and their progeny (Prx1+) are located within the fracture callus and expanded periosteum. Scale bar = 500 μm. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 4: Example of irregular healing due to surgical issues. Fracture ends were not aligned properly and the stabilizing pin pierced through the proximal section of the femur in this example. These errors resulted in callus formation where the femur was pierced (yellow box) rather than at the cut site. Scale bar = 500 μm. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Supplementary File 1: Composition of the solutions required for histology. Please click here to download this File.
The injury model detailed in this protocol encompasses all four significant steps observed during the healing of spontaneous fractures, including (1) pro-inflammatory response with the formation of the hematoma, (2) recruitment of skeletal progenitors from the periosteum to form the soft callus, (3) mineralization of the callus by osteoblasts and (4) remodeling of the bone by osteoclasts.
The surgical procedure described in this manuscript is optimized for adult mice at least 12 weeks old. A 27 G x 1 ¼ (0.4 mm x 30 mm) needle is used as the stabilizing pin because it is the ideal size for the width of the marrow cavity at this age. If needed, the protocol could be amended for younger animals if a thinner stabilizing pin is used. The stabilizing pin is an essential part of the surgery's success since instability is known to significantly affect fracture healing16. Other stabilization methods have been reviewed and all come with their advantages and limitations17,18,19. The ideal stabilization should be selected based on the research question and experimental goal. One limitation of the described stabilization here is that the pin goes through the growth plates and the joints. If the contribution from the articular or growth plate cartilage is of concern, we suggest considering another stabilizing method.
Variability in surgical technique and between animals is a concern when performing this surgery. Therefore, it is recommended to use ample numbers, especially for quantitative readouts, and to compare similar types of fractures across groups. It is critical to secure the femur sections close together to avoid gaps over 2 mm. Variability in gaps between sections can considerably affect the size of the callus and the timing of repair. The sections should also be properly aligned. Loose and misaligned fractures will cause more significant variability across samples and might impair healing.
Weight-bearing is also crucial for the timing of bone healing and can introduce variability between mice. Most mice put minimal weight on the injured leg a few hours after surgery but should walk normally by the next day. Verifying that the mouse moves normally and the load is distributed evenly on both legs is crucial, especially when using the contralateral femur as a sham-operated control. In addition, the surgery can trigger a systemic inflammation that affects the contralateral leg. It is therefore recommended to compare sham-operated femurs to non-operated mice when establishing this technique. Having non-operated controls could also be preferable for quantifiable outcomes such as effects on RNA or protein expression.
Consistency of the fracture geometry can be challenging with other methods20, but using a saw allows for more control for the surgeon and alleviates the variability in ensuing fractures. The saw approach has also been used to create metaphyseal fractures of the proximal mouse femurs successfully21.
Differences between male and female mice in their response to fracture healing are rarely observed. However, sex may become a factor with age and drug intervention, so comparing animals of the same sex or performing statistics to interrogate sex differences before combining samples is strongly recommended. Furthermore, this protocol was designed for C57BL6/J mice. Investigators using other mouse strains should compare healing in male and female mice to identify any sex differences.
We believe this femur fracture surgery is an efficient model to recapitulate the significant healing steps in mice and can be used to test the effects of genetic modifications or therapeutic interventions on fracture recovery in humans.
The authors have nothing to disclose.
We thank Dr. Vicki Rosen for financial support and guidance with the project. We would also like to thank the veterinary and IACUC staff at the Harvard School of Medicine for consultation regarding sterile technique, animal well-being, and the materials used to develop this protocol.
23 G x 1 TW IM (0.6 mm x 2 5mm) needle | BD precision | 305193 | Use as guide needle |
27 G x 1 ¼ (0.4 mm x 30 mm) | BD precision | 305136 | Use as stabilizing pin |
9 mm wound autoclip applier/remover/clips kit | Braintree Scientific, INC | ACS-KIT | |
Alcian Blue 8 GX | Electron Microscopy Sciences | 10350 | |
Ammonium hydroxide | Millipore Sigma | AX1303 | |
Circular blade X926.7 THIN-FLEX | Abrasive technologies | CELBTFSG633 | |
DREMEL 7700-1/15, 7.2 V Rotary Tool Kit | Dremel | 7700 1/15 | |
Eosin Y | ThermoScientific | 7111 | |
Fine curved dissecting forceps | VWR | 82027-406 | |
Hematoxulin Gill 2 | Sigma-Aldrich | GHS216 | |
Hydrochloric acid | Millipore Sigma | HX0603-4 | |
Isoflurane | Patterson Veterinary | 07-893-1389 | |
Microsurgical kit | VWR | 95042-540 | |
Orange G | Sigma-Aldrich | 1625 | |
Phloxine B | Sigma-Aldrich | P4030 | |
Povidone-Iodine Swabs | PDI | S23125 | |
SCANCO Medical µCT35 | Scanco | ||
Slow-release buprenorphine | Zoopharm |