Literature DB >> 26969917

Variety, sex and ontogenetic differences in the pelvic limb muscle architectural properties of leghorn chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus) and their links with locomotor performance.

Kayleigh A Rose1, Robert L Nudds1, Jonathan R Codd1.   

Abstract

Leghorn (layer) chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus) differ in locomotor morphology and performance due to artificial selection for standard (large) and bantam (small) varieties, sexual dimorphisms and ontogenetic stage. Here, the hind limb skeletal muscle architectural properties of mature and juvenile standard breeds and mature bantams are compared and linked to measures of locomotor performance. Mature males possessed greater relative muscle physiological cross-sectional areas (PCSAs) than their conspecific females, indicative of greater force-generating capacity, and in line with their greater maximum sustainable speeds compared with females. Furthermore, some of the relative fascicle lengths of the pennate muscles were greater in mature males than in mature females, which may permit greater muscle contractibility. Immature standard leghorns, however, did not share the same dimorphisms as their mature forms. The differences in architectural properties between immature and mature standard males indicate that with the onset of male sexual maturity, concomitant with increasing muscle mass in males, the relative fascicle lengths of pennate muscles and the relative PCSAs of the parallel-fibred muscles also increase. The age-related differences in standard breed male muscle architecture are linked to the presence and absence of sex differences in maximum aerobic speeds. Males of bantam and standard varieties shared similar muscle proportions (% body mass), but exhibited intrinsic muscle differences with a tendency for greater force-generating capabilities in bantams and greater contractile capabilities in standards. The metabolic costs associated with the longer fascicle lengths, together with more crouched limbs in standard than in bantam males may explain the lack of allometry in the minimum metabolic cost of transport between these birds of different size.
© 2016 Anatomical Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  artificial selection; chicken; locomotion; muscle architecture; ontogeny; sexual dimorphism; size

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26969917      PMCID: PMC5341587          DOI: 10.1111/joa.12460

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Anat        ISSN: 0021-8782            Impact factor:   2.610


  31 in total

Review 1.  Muscle and tendon contributions to force, work, and elastic energy savings: a comparative perspective.

Authors:  A A Biewener; T J Roberts
Journal:  Exerc Sport Sci Rev       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 6.230

2.  Partitioning the energetics of walking and running: swinging the limbs is expensive.

Authors:  Richard L Marsh; David J Ellerby; Jennifer A Carr; Havalee T Henry; Cindy I Buchanan
Journal:  Science       Date:  2004-01-02       Impact factor: 47.728

3.  Sexual dimorphism for growth in Muscovy ducks and changes in insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I), growth hormone (GH) and triiodothyronine (T3) plasma levels.

Authors:  E Baéza; J Williams; D Guémené; M J Duclos
Journal:  Reprod Nutr Dev       Date:  2001 Mar-Apr

4.  Scaling body support in mammals: limb posture and muscle mechanics.

Authors:  A A Biewener
Journal:  Science       Date:  1989-07-07       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 5.  The functional significance of muscle architecture--a theoretical analysis.

Authors:  C Gans; W J Bock
Journal:  Ergeb Anat Entwicklungsgesch       Date:  1965

Review 6.  Functional and clinical significance of skeletal muscle architecture.

Authors:  R L Lieber; J Fridén
Journal:  Muscle Nerve       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 3.217

7.  Adaptations for rapid and forceful contraction in wing muscles of the male golden-collared manakin: sex and species comparisons.

Authors:  J D Schultz; F Hertel; M Bauch; B A Schlinger
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 1.836

8.  Scaling of muscle architecture and fiber types in the rat hindlimb.

Authors:  Carolyn M Eng; Laura H Smallwood; Maria Pia Rainiero; Michele Lahey; Samuel R Ward; Richard L Lieber
Journal:  J Exp Biol       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 3.312

9.  Reappraisal of the comparative cost of human locomotion using gait-specific allometric analyses.

Authors:  Jonas Rubenson; Denham B Heliams; Shane K Maloney; Philip C Withers; David G Lloyd; Paul A Fournier
Journal:  J Exp Biol       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 3.312

10.  Energetics and mechanics of terrestrial locomotion. I. Metabolic energy consumption as a function of speed and body size in birds and mammals.

Authors:  C R Taylor; N C Heglund; G M Maloiy
Journal:  J Exp Biol       Date:  1982-04       Impact factor: 3.312

View more
  5 in total

1.  Body proportions for the facilitation of walking, running and flying: the case of partridges.

Authors:  Jesús Nadal; Carolina Ponz; Antoni Margalida
Journal:  BMC Evol Biol       Date:  2018-11-26       Impact factor: 3.260

2.  Maniraptoran pelvic musculature highlights evolutionary patterns in theropod locomotion on the line to birds.

Authors:  Matthew M Rhodes; Donald M Henderson; Philip J Currie
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2021-03-04       Impact factor: 2.984

3.  Gene expression profiles of specific chicken skeletal muscles.

Authors:  Hua Kui; Bo Ran; Maosen Yang; Xin Shi; Yingyu Luo; Yujie Wang; Tao Wang; Diyan Li; Surong Shuai; Mingzhou Li
Journal:  Sci Data       Date:  2022-09-08       Impact factor: 8.501

Review 4.  From fibre to function: are we accurately representing muscle architecture and performance?

Authors:  James Charles; Roger Kissane; Tatjana Hoehfurtner; Karl T Bates
Journal:  Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc       Date:  2022-04-07

5.  Does posture explain the kinematic differences in a grounded running gait between male and female Svalbard rock ptarmigan (Lagopus muta hyperborea) moving on snow?

Authors:  Andres Marmol-Guijarro; Robert Nudds; Lars Folkow; John Lees; Jonathan Codd
Journal:  Polar Biol       Date:  2021-05-05       Impact factor: 2.310

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.