OBJECTIVES: High-altitude (>2500 m) populations face several pressures, including hypoxia and cold-dry air, resulting in greater respiratory demand to obtain more oxygen and condition inspired air. While cardiovascular and pulmonary adaptations to high-altitude hypoxia have been extensively studied, adaptations of upper-respiratory structures, e.g., nasal cavity, remain untested. This study investigates whether nasal morphology presents adaptations to hypoxic (larger noses) and/or cold-dry (tall/narrow noses) conditions among high-altitude samples. METHODS: CT scans of two high- and four low-altitude samples from diverse climates were collected (n = 130): high-altitude Tibetans and Peruvians; low-altitude Peruvians, Southern Chinese (temperate), Mongolian-Buriats (cold-dry), and Southeast Asians (hot-wet). Facial and nasal distances were calculated from 3D landmarks placed on digitally-modeled crania. Temperature, precipitation, and barometric pressure data were also obtained. RESULTS: Principal components analysis and analyses of variance primarily indicate size-related differences among the cold-dry (Mongolian-Buriats) and hot-wet (Southeast Asians) adapted groups. Two-block partial least squares (PLS) analysis show weak relationships between size-standardized nasal dimensions and environmental variables. However, among PLS1 (85.90% of covariance), Tibetans display relatively larger nasal cavities related to lower temperatures and barometric pressure; regression analyses also indicate high-altitude Tibetans possess relatively larger internal nasal breadths and heights for their facial size. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, nasal differences relate to climate among the cold-dry and hot-wet groups. Specific nasal adaptations were not identified among either Peruvian group, perhaps due to their relatively recent migration history and population structure. However, high-altitude Tibetans seem to exhibit a compromise in nasal morphology, serving in increased oxygen uptake, and air-conditioning processes.
OBJECTIVES: High-altitude (>2500 m) populations face several pressures, including hypoxia and cold-dry air, resulting in greater respiratory demand to obtain more oxygen and condition inspired air. While cardiovascular and pulmonary adaptations to high-altitude hypoxia have been extensively studied, adaptations of upper-respiratory structures, e.g., nasal cavity, remain untested. This study investigates whether nasal morphology presents adaptations to hypoxic (larger noses) and/or cold-dry (tall/narrow noses) conditions among high-altitude samples. METHODS: CT scans of two high- and four low-altitude samples from diverse climates were collected (n = 130): high-altitude Tibetans and Peruvians; low-altitude Peruvians, Southern Chinese (temperate), Mongolian-Buriats (cold-dry), and Southeast Asians (hot-wet). Facial and nasal distances were calculated from 3D landmarks placed on digitally-modeled crania. Temperature, precipitation, and barometric pressure data were also obtained. RESULTS: Principal components analysis and analyses of variance primarily indicate size-related differences among the cold-dry (Mongolian-Buriats) and hot-wet (Southeast Asians) adapted groups. Two-block partial least squares (PLS) analysis show weak relationships between size-standardized nasal dimensions and environmental variables. However, among PLS1 (85.90% of covariance), Tibetans display relatively larger nasal cavities related to lower temperatures and barometric pressure; regression analyses also indicate high-altitude Tibetans possess relatively larger internal nasal breadths and heights for their facial size. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, nasal differences relate to climate among the cold-dry and hot-wet groups. Specific nasal adaptations were not identified among either Peruvian group, perhaps due to their relatively recent migration history and population structure. However, high-altitude Tibetans seem to exhibit a compromise in nasal morphology, serving in increased oxygen uptake, and air-conditioning processes.
Authors: Sahin Naqvi; Hanne Hoskens; Franziska Wilke; Seth M Weinberg; John R Shaffer; Susan Walsh; Mark D Shriver; Joanna Wysocka; Peter Claes Journal: Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet Date: 2022-04-28 Impact factor: 9.340