Lipopolysaccharide-binding protein and bone health: data from a population-based sample of men

Summary We aimed to investigate the association between serum lipopolysaccharide-binding protein (LBP) and bone health in men. LBP was associated with lower bone density at the mid-forearm and the quantitative heel ultrasound measure, broadband ultrasound attenuation, for heavier participants. Data do not support clear associations between serum LBP and bone health. Introduction The objective of this study was to investigate the association between serum lipopolysaccharide-binding protein (LBP) and potential downstream effects on skeletal density, quality, and turnover in a population-based sample of men. Methods This cross-sectional study utilised data from 1149 men (aged 20–96 year) enrolled in the Geelong Osteoporosis Study. Blood samples were obtained and lipopolysaccharide-binding protein (LBP), bone resorption marker, C-telopeptide (CTx), and formation marker, type 1 procollagen amino-terminal-propeptide (P1NP), were measured. Bone mineral density (BMD) was measured using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Stiffness Index (SI), broadband ultrasound attenuation (BUA), and speed of sound (SOS) were derived from quantitative heel ultrasound (QUS). Linear regression models were developed to test associations between log-transformed LBP (ln-LBP), BMD, QUS, and bone turnover, after adjusting for potential covariates. Results Serum LBP ranged from 1.07–208.53 ng/mL (median 16.53 ng/mL). Those with higher levels were older, less mobile, and had lower BMD at the mid-forearm, otherwise, groups were similar. Before and after adjustment for age, ln-LBP was associated with lower BMD at the spine, total body, and mid-forearm. Further adjustment for weight attenuated associations at the spine and total body, yet the relationship at the mid-forearm was sustained (β − 0.014 ± 0.004, p = 0.001). SOS and SI were not associated with ln-LBP either before or after adjustment for age; however, weight was identified as an effect modifier in the relationship between ln-LBP and BUA. An association was observed for those weighing greater than 82.7 kg (β 3.366 ± 0.929, p < 0.001), after adjustment for potential covariates. Neither bone turnover marker was associated with ln-LBP. Conclusion Our data do not support a clear association between serum LBP and measures of bone health in this sample of men.