I am trying to find out the effects of organic arsenic exposure on long bones in rats. However, it still baffles me as to which anatomical site of bone is more useful for research. I have come across some similar studies using femur and tibia. Do people prefer to use tibia because it has less surrounding soft tissue therefore it is easier to get a clean bone? I also wondered if other types of bone are more preferable to see the effect of arsenic?
Its important to tell us what type of cells you are targeting? regarding your top question it come to my mind that you are looking for cells of bone marrow, if I was right, you would select two sites where the red marrow does not turn into yellow (fat) marrow with age. These sites are head of femur (long bone), body of sternum (flat bone). If you target the bone cells both tibia and femur are good samples.
I am targeting the bone cells, so I will consider tibia and femur then. Thank you for the advice!
This might be a bit off topic, but long bones would be preferred by archaeologists since they are usually the best preserved (sometimes along with the skull) in the archaeological record, primarily due to their size and their robustness.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Chemistry
- Pharmacology
- Medical Pharmacology
- Clinical Pharmacology