| Literature DB >> 22567295 |
Jeremy J Baker1, Katherine J Searight, Madeliene Atzeva Stump, Matthew B Kehrer, Colleen Shanafelt, Eric Graham, Timothy D Smith.
Abstract
The hip region is examined to determine what aspects of musculoskeletal anatomy are precociously developed in primate species with highly specialized modes of locomotion. Muscles of the hind limb were removed and weighed in each specimen, and the hip joint of selected specimens was studied in stained serial sections. No perinatal differences among species are evident, but in adults, the hip joint of Galago moholi (a leaping specialist) appears to have proportionally thick articular cartilage (relative to the subchondral plate) compared to two species of cheirogaleids. Muscle mass distribution in the hind limbs confirms previous observations that the quadriceps femoris muscle is especially large in Galago (in percent mass of the entire hind limb), while the hip region is smaller compared to the more quadrupedal cheirogaleids. Across age groups, the species with the least specialized locomotion as adults, Cheirogaleus medius, shows little or no change in proximal to distal percentage distribution of muscle mass. Galago has a larger percentage mass gain in the thigh. We suggest that muscle mass gain to specific limb segments may be a critical milestone for primates with extremely specialized modes of locomotion.Entities:
Year: 2011 PMID: 22567295 PMCID: PMC3335645 DOI: 10.1155/2011/580864
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Anat Res Int ISSN: 2090-2743
Muscle group mass (g) averages and ratios of hind limb musculature in adult and infant C. medius and G. moholi.
| Muscle group1 |
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Adults | Infants | Adults | Infants | |||
|
|
| Ratio1 |
|
| Ratio | |
| Average | Average | Average | Average | Average | Average | |
| (range) | (range) | (range) | (range) | (range) | (range) | |
| Iliopsoas | 0.38 | 0.0042 | 100.0 | 0.35 | 0.013 | 26.9 |
| (0.25–0.50) | (65.8–131.6) | (0.21–0.46) | (0.0130–0.0132) | (15.9–35.4) | ||
| Gluteals3 | 0.86 | 0.0125 | 68.8 | 0.65 | 0.020 | 32.5 |
| (0.41–1.21) | (0.005–0.019) | (21.6–242.0) | (0.43–0.86) | (0.016–0.023) | (18.7–53.8) | |
| Small Hip Lat. Rotators | 0.17 | — | — | 0.25 | 0.007 | 35.7 |
| (0.07–0.30) | — | — | (0.12–0.40) | (0.005–0.009) | (13.3–80.0) | |
| hamstrings | 0.98 | 0.011 | 89.0 | 1.35 | 0.040 | 33.8 |
| (0.31–1.58) | (0.005–0.014) | (21.8–343.7) | (0.52–1.92) | (0.025–0.055) | (9.40–76.6) | |
| sartorius | 0.14 | 0.002 | 70.0 | 0.50 | 0.008 | 62.5 |
| (0.11–0.18) | (0.001–0.003) | (33.2–361.0) | (0.03–1.70) | (0.006–0.011) | (2.5–267.3) | |
| quadriceps | 1.18 | 0.017 | 69.4 | 5.48 | 0.109 | 50.3 |
| (0.47–1.57) | (0.013–0.023) | (21.0–119.7) | (4.44–6.00) | (0.085–0.124) | (35.8–70.4) | |
| hip adductors | 0.68 | 0.008 | 85.0 | 0.98 | 0.018 | 54.4 |
| (0.28–1.26) | (0.003–0.013) | (22.6–369.6) | (0.46–1.83) | (0.017–0.019) | (24.8–106.1) | |
| superficial ankle flexors | 0.40 | 0.010 | 40.0 | 0.63 | 0.019 | 33.2 |
| (0.19–0.57) | (0.005–0.016) | (12.0–123.8) | (0.50–0.92) | (0.013–0.025) | (20.0–69.4) | |
| deep ankle flexors | 0.45 | 0.006 | 75.0 | 0.41 | 0.018 | 22.8 |
| (0.32–0.65) | (0.003–0.008) | (42.4–215.8) | (0.33–0.49) | (0.006–0.023) | (14.5–76.3) | |
| anterior comp. leg | 0.44 | 0.005 | 88.0 | 0.37 | 0.013 | 28.5 |
| (0.28–0.81) | (0.003–0.010) | (27.2–269.0) | (0.20–0.59) | (0.005–0.020) | (10.2–128.3) | |
| lateral comp. leg | 0.27 | 0.003 | 90.0 | 0.26 | 0.008 | 32.5 |
| (0.15–0.39) | (0.001–0.050) | (30.2–394.0) | (0.21–0.34) | (0.007–0.013) | (15.6–48.1) | |
| Body mass4 | 156 | 12 | 13 | 180 | 13.4 | 13.4 |
1Average adult mm mass/average infant mm mass.
2This muscle could be reliably removed in only a single perinatal specimen of C. medius.
3gluteals: gluteus medius, gluteus minimus, gluteus superficialis ant., tensor fasciae femoris, iliopsoas; hamstrings: flexor cruris lateralis, semitendinosus, semimembranosus; quadriceps: rectus femoris, vastus intermedius, vastus medialis, vastus lateralis; adductors: pectineus, adductor brevis, adductor longus, adductor magnus (presemimembranosus*), gracilis; anterior compartment leg: tibialis anterior, extensor digitorum longus, extensor hallucis longus, abductor hallucis longus*; superficial flexors: gastrocnemius, soleus, plantaris; deep flexors: peroneotibialis, flexor fibularis, tibialis posterior, flexor tibialis; lateral compartment: peroneus brevis, peroneus longus, peroneus digiti quarti, peroneus digiti quinti,* (*, if present).
4data from Kappeler and Pereira [23].
Figure 1Gross organization of the hip musculature in Microcebus murinus, lateral view of left hind limb. (a)–(d) show a single adult specimen at various stages of dissection. (a) The thigh musculature is intact, showing the large vastus lateralis (VL) balanced by a large biceps femoris (BF). These muscles partially obscure the posterior portion of gluteal musculature (G). (b) BF removed, exposing the caudofemoralis (Cf) and femorcoccygeus (Fc). (c) When the Fc is removed, additional musculature remains (*), running parallel, but deep to the Fc. (d) This muscle is shown with its sacral point of origin removed; the Fc has been removed to better emphasize *; a different adult is shown in (e)–(f) with the BF removed (e), and VL resected (f). (g) A third adult is shown, in an advance stage of dissection, emphasizing *, which may be an accessory head of the Fc. Sm, semimembranosus; St, semitendinosus.
Figure 2Comparison of hind limb muscle mass distribution among segments (excluding intrinsic foot muscles) in three species of primates at adult age. Data for M. murinus from Atzeva et al. [1].
Figure 4Distribution of hind limb musculature in three species of primates at adult age. Percentage mass in limb segments is indicated (i.e., hamstring mm excluded from hip extensors). Data for M. murinus from Atzeva et al. [1].
Figure 3Distribution of hind limb musculature in three species of primates at adult age. Percentage mass of functional groups is indicated (i.e., hamstring mm included with hip extensors). Graphs based on mean muscle mass presented in Table 1; data for M. murinus from Atzeva et al. [1].
Mean percentage (SD) of functional muscle groups in adult primates with results of statistical tests.
|
|
|
| Kruskal-Wallis test | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| % hip extensors (including hamstrings) | 16.0† (4.1) | 27.0 (4.3) | 30.0† (1.7) |
|
| % knee extensors | 50.0† (7.0) | 20.0 (2.9) | 25.0† (2.6) |
|
| % ankle plantarflexors | 6.0† (0.6) | 7.0 (1.0) | 7.0† (0.6) |
|
†Pairs of means that were significantly different using a Mann Whitney U-test with a sequential Bonferroni correction to assess significance [24]. Use of this statistical correction was extensively discussed by Cabin and Mitchell [28]. They noted that failure to use this correction inflates Type I errors (falsely rejecting the null hypothesis), while “overzealous use” of this correction inflates Type II errors (falsely accepting the null hypothesis. One possible approach would be to pool all post hoc tests for correction, in which case the range of corrected P values is .006 to .05. In this case, none of the pairs are significantly different, but the likelihood of Type II errors appears markedly increased. We applied the sequential Bonferroni correction separately for the three Mann Whitney U-tests that followed each Kruskal-Wallis test.
Figure 5Comparison of hind limb muscle mass distribution among segments (excluding intrinsic foot muscles) in three species of primates: age comparisons. For this graph, iliopsoas m. and external hip rotators are excluded because they were not measured in all perinatal samples. Data for M. murinus from Atzeva et al. [1].
Figure 6Comparison of hind limb muscle mass distribution among segments (excluding intrinsic foot muscles) in C. medius and G. moholi: age comparisons. For this graph, iliopsoas m. mass is included in the hip. Hip percentage in infant C. medius should be regarded with caution, since the iliopsoas muscle could only be weighed in one specimen.
Figure 7Articular cartilage in adult cheirogaleids, acetabular (A) and femoral (F) surfaces are shown. Superior aspect is at the top of the image. Arrowheads indicate the junction of the subchondral plate and articular cartilage. (a, b) C. medius (same specimen); (c) M. murinus (2 different specimens). Note the difference in articular cartilage thickness of the acetabulum compared to the femoral head in C. medius (a, b). This is most apparent when viewing the extent of cartilage that is between the tidemark (TM) and the joint cavity (the TM is the line separating the deeper mineralized cartilage matrix from the more superficial matrix.) There is less disparity in articular cartilage thickness between the joint surfaces in M. murinus (c). Ca: joint cavity; Sy: synovial membrane. Stains: a, b: Gomori trichrome preparation; c: Picro Ponceau. Scale bars: a, c, d: 300 μm; b: 200 μm.
Figure 8Articular cartilage in adult G. moholi. Superior aspect is at the top of the image, except in (c) (superior is to the left). Arrowheads indicate the junction of the subchondral plate and articular cartilage. (a) The proportionally thick articular cartilage of the acetabulum (A) is shown; (b, c) show a different specimen; (b, d) revealing proportionally thick articular cartilage over the acetabulum and femur (F). Ca: joint cavity; Isch: ischium; Sy: synovial membrane. Stains: a, hematoxylin eosin; b, c: Gomori trichrome preparation. Scale bars: a, b: 300 μm; c: 200 μm; TM: tidemark.
Measurements of joint thickness (mm).
|
|
|
| ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AC | SP | Ratio | AC | SP | Ratio | AC | SP | Ratio | ||
| Acetabulum | Mean | 0.123 | 0.05 | 3.77 | 0.254 | 0.13 | 2.21 | 0.679 | 0.143 | 6.48 |
| (SD) | (0.055) | (0.046) | (0.049) | (0.069) | (0.328) | (0.173) | ||||
| range | 0.056–0.201 | 0.01–0.162 | 0.209–0.307 | 0.07–0.206 | 0.336–0.975 | 0.059–0.445 | ||||
|
| ||||||||||
| Femur | Mean | 0.155 | 0.056 | 4.99 | 0.135 | 0.031 | 5 | 0.297 | 0.084 | 6.40 |
| (SD) | (0.071) | (0.092) | (0.037) | (0.018) | (0.167) | (0.037) | ||||
| range | 0.061–0.265 | 0.02–0.375 | 0.11–0.178 | 0.015–0.051 | 0.113–0.423 | 0.015–0.533 | ||||
Figure 9Ossification center in 2 perinatal cheirogaleids. Superior aspect is at the top of the image. C. medius (a) and M. murinus (b, c) are shown. The proximal epiphysis of the femur (F) and the iliac (Ili) and pubic (P) centers of ossification are at least partially cartilaginous. Ca: joint cavity; LT: ligamentum teres; Sy: synovial membrane. Stains: a, b, hematoxylin eosin; c: Gomori trichrome preparation. Scale bars: a, b: 200 μm; c: 300 μm.
Figure 10Ossification center in 2 perinatal galagids. Superior aspect is at the top of the image. G. moholi (a)–(c) and G. demidoff (d, e) are shown. Note similar extent of ossification of the femur (F) and portions of the os coxa compared to cheirogaleids (Figure 9). Stains: hematoxylin eosin. Ca: joint cavity. Scale bars, 300 μm; Ili: ilium; A: acetabular joint space.