| Literature DB >> 28358033 |
Jung-Kyun Kim1, Yong-Eun Kwon1, Sang-Gil Lee2, Ji-Hyun Lee2, Jin-Gyu Kim2, Min Huh3, Eunji Lee1, Youn-Joong Kim1,2.
Abstract
Osteohistological researches on dinosaurs are well documented, but descriptions of direct correlations between the bone microstructure and corresponding nanostructure are currently lacking. By applying correlative microscopy, we aimed to verify that well-preserved osteohistological features correlate with pristine fossil bone nanostructures from the femoral bones of Koreanosaurus boseongensis. The quality of nanostructural preservation was evaluated based on the preferred orientation level of apatite crystals obtained from selected area electron diffraction (SAED) patterns and by measuring the "arcs" from the {100} and {002} diffraction rings. Unlike our expectations, our results revealed that well-preserved microstructures do not guarantee pristine nanostructures and vice versa. Structural preservation of bone from macro- to nanoscale primarily depends on original bioapatite density, and subsequent taphonomical factors such as effects from burial, pressure, influx of external elements and the rate of diagenetic alteration of apatite crystals. Our findings suggest that the efficient application of SAED analysis opens the opportunity for comprehensive nanostructural investigations of bone.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28358033 PMCID: PMC5372082 DOI: 10.1038/srep45562
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Gross morphology and selected osteohistological features of both femora.
(a,b) Medial view of both femora. The arrows indicate sectioned locations. (c,d) Overall composite micrographs of optical thin sections from both femora. (e–j) Magnified optical micrographs obtained from the regions marked by yellow arrows in (c,d). The osteohistological features of the right femur are preserved at a relatively higher degree in microscale. Detailed optical micrographs of both femora are provided in Supplementary Fig. S3.
Figure 2Comparative OM-SEM-TEM structural analyses of both femora.
The illustrated overall cross-sections represent estimated and simplified images of both femora being in pristine condition. The illustrated SAED pattern of fossil bone apatite represents a high degree of preferred orientation of apatite crystals. The SEM micrographs represent areas adjacent to the FIB-milled regions with consistent surface morphology and preservation features from the exact milled spots (see Supplementary Fig. S4 for detailed SEM micrographs). The TEM data reveals the quality of nanostructural preservation based on the SAED patterns of apatite crystals. (a,b) Right femur. Although osteohistological features are well-preserved throughout the sample as shown in the representative optical micrographs, the general apatite density and its arrangement within the bone matrix appeared to be uneven in EM (SEM + TEM) data. (a) Outermost bone wall comprised of parallel-fibred bone. (b) Middle bone wall. Yellow circles in TEM micrographs indicate the designated areas for obtaining SAED patterns. (c–f) Left femur. The OM-SEM-TEM data on structure was relatively consistent. Yellow arrows in OM micrographs from (c,d) indicate the exact designated regions viewed in SEM. C = calcite. (c) Inner bone wall region with small-scale calcite intrusion. (d) High preservation level of nanostructure in compact bone areas with poorly preserved microstructure. (e) Relatively intact outermost bone wall, and (f) relatively intact inner bone wall displaying high level of nanostructural preservation.
Figure 3SAED patterns of the right femur from cross-FIB-milled samples.
The nanostructure is generally preserved in varying degrees from all regions. (a–c) Outermost bone wall comprised of parallel-fibred bone (c is specifically from an upper thin section from the marked region). (d,e) Innermost bone wall with cancellous bone. (f–l) Middle bone wall. Corresponding OM, SEM, and TEM micrographs in Supplementary Fig. S8.
Figure 4SAED patterns of the left femur from cross-FIB-milled samples.
Regions with intact bone tissue had well-preserved nanostructure. Disrupted regions (mainly by calcite intrusion) eventually lost their structural integrity from the microscale to the nanoscale. (a,b) Outermost bone wall. (c) Innermost bone wall. (d,e) Anterior inner porous region. (f–h) Disrupted inner bone wall. (i-l) Intact inner bone wall. Corresponding OM and TEM micrographs in Supplementary Fig. S9.
Preferred orientation of apatite crystals in both femora.
| Microstructure | Right femur | Corresponding figure(s) | Left femur | Corresponding figure(s) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intact regions | Outer bone wall | Weak | 3b | Strong | 4a; 4b |
| None | 3a; 3c | ||||
| Inner bone wall | Strong | 3j | Strong | 4i; 4k; 4l | |
| Moderate | 3h; 3i | Moderate | 4c; 4j | ||
| Weak | 3f; 3kII; 3l | ||||
| None | 3g; 3kI | ||||
| Unique regions | Innermost bone wall with cancellous bone | Strong | 3d | — | — |
| None | 3e | — | — | ||
| Disrupted regions | — | — | Weak | 4f | |
| — | — | None | 4g; 4hI; 4hII | ||
| Anterior inner porous region | — | — | Strong | 4dI | |
| — | — | None | 4dII; 4eI; 4eII |
Figure 5Simplified illustration of calcite and clay distribution in both femora.
The illustration represents the main distribution trend of these externally originating phases revealed through cross-polarized OM imaging, SEM-EDS and EPMA-WDS mapping. Also, note that the illustration is not from exactly matching specific regions from both femora. The insets represent the distribution of clay occupying miniscule pores within the bone. The distribution of these pores decreases towards the outer bone wall. (a) Right femur. Large calcite phenocrysts are present within the medullary cavity in areas lacking bone fragments. (b) Left femur. The highly destructive nature of intrusive calcite is shown, and the mixed distribution of clay and calcite is also a notable feature exclusive to the left femur. The anterior inner porous region has a wide distribution of clay within the bone matrix.
Comparative analysis of fossil bone preservation from the macroscale to the nanoscale.
| Right Femur | Left Femur | |
|---|---|---|
| Gross Morphology | Overall shape preserved, proximal region shows heavy erosion. | Well-preserved, surface of distal end show signs of erosion. |
| Microstructure | - Relatively well-preserved. | - Considerably hindered. |
| - Vascularization pattern intact. | - Vascularization pattern intact. | |
| - Fragmentation of cancellous bone and certain areas of the bone wall. | - Bone tissue type of highly porous region not discernible. | |
| Apatite Density and Distribution | - High and generally uneven. | - High and generally even in intact bone regions. |
| - Outer bone wall distribution is relatively more even. | - Only the anterior inner porous region has low density. | |
| Preferred Orientation of Apatite | Varying degrees in every sampled region. | - High degree in intact bone regions. |
| - Generally lacking in disrupted regions. | ||
| - Varying degrees in porous region. | ||
| Distribution of Calcite | - Medullary cavity-filling phase. | - Larger pores, gaps, and cracks. |
| - Larger pores, gaps, and cracks. | - Calcite of varying thicknesses penetrating the bone wall. | |
| Distribution of Clay Phases | A small number of minuscule pores are filled mostly with illite followed sparsely by vermiculite from the inner compact bone wall and cancellous bone. | - Medullary cavity-filling phase. |
| - Porous region occupied by illite, kaolinite, vermiculite, and smectite. | ||
| - A small number of minuscule pores are filled with illite from the inner compact bone wall. | ||
| Brief Interpretation | - Initial lithification likely occurred on or near the surface. Osteohistology preserved owing to the lack of extensive pressure and other interruptions. | - The combination of increase in size and crystallinity of apatite, decrease of open spaces between apatite crystals from pressure may have resulted in high level of nanostructural preservation. |
| - Nanostructural preservation highly uneven, which suggested relatively more “open spaces” and slower diagenesis rate of apatite crystals. | - The overall density of the highly porous area was increased by the association of clay. | |
| - Calcite intrusion has damaged both the microstructure and nanostructure of bone in affected regions. | ||
| Evidence based on correlative microscopy | SEM micrographs show that although apatite density from the outer bone wall appears to be even in low magnifications, it is notably uneven in high magnifications, which correlates with the TEM data. | OM and SEM micrographs show the extent of relatively intact and disrupted bone tissues, and SAED patterns of apatite crystals from each corresponding region directly indicates the level of nanostructural preservation. |
| Issues | Our assumption on microstructural preservation may apply to the femur as the bone is composed of dense apatite, but we are uncertain if it also applies on bones with lesser density. | SAED data size is too small from porous region due to difficulty of obtaining FIB-milled samples with sufficient amount of apatite crystals because of its patchy distribution. |