Notched and unnotched femora were placed in a three-point bending rig such that the posterior side was in tension and the anterior was SP600125 order in compression. Femora were submerged in HBSS at 37°C for 1 min to acclimate, then tested in the same environment at a displacement rate of 0.001 mm/s until selleck products fracture (EnduraTec Elf 3200, BOSE). Broken halves were then dehydrated and the fracture surfaces

examined in an environmental SEM (JEOL JSM-6430 ESEM, Hitachi America). The femoral cross-sectional area and second moment of inertia were computed from fracture surface images. Notch half-crack angles were determined in the SEM from the fracture surface using techniques described in ref. [33]. Stresses and strains were computed in accordance with the methods described by Akhter et al. [34]. The yield strength (σ y ) was determined as the stress at 0.2% plastic strain, and maximum strength (σ u ) as the stress at peak load (P u ). Bending stiffness (E) was selleck chemical calculated as the slope of the linear region of the stress–strain curve. Fracture toughness (K c ) values were defined at the onset of unstable fracture, i.e., at the point of instability, using the procedures described in ref. [33] for the toughness evaluation of small animal bone. Scanning electron microscopy Scanning

electron microscopy (SEM) was performed to evaluate structural differences at the tissue level near the fracture surface on the medial and lateral sides of the femur. After mechanical testing, three samples each from the four study groups were mounted in Buehler Epoxycure Resin (Buehler) and the surface polished to 0.05 μm with a diamond polishing suspension, coated with carbon, then imaged in an SEM (Philips XL30 ESEM-FEG; FEI Company) operating at 10 kV in back-scattered mode as previously reported [19]. Statistical analysis Measured values are presented as mean ± standard deviation. Two-tailed independent sample Student’s T tests were executed (StatPlus:mac LE.2009) to determine differences

in measured variables between the LFD and HFD groups for each age Cobimetinib mw group. As the young and adult study groups were considered to be independent from each other, we did not test for changes among all groups, but rather investigated whether obesity in a particular age group had an effect on bone properties. Differences were considered to be significant at p<0.05. Correlation analysis was performed within each group (LFD and HFD) to identify trends that might be diet-independent. To mitigate the risk of type I errors, related measurements that were highly and positively correlated were grouped together and given a composite score (sum of Z-scores). For those measures which did not correlate to similar measurements (σ u , P u ) or were conceptually unique (K c , aBMD), the Z-score for that measurement was used in the analysis without any modification.