| Literature DB >> 36101383 |
Jesse R Goliath1,2, James H Gosman2, Sam D Stout2, Timothy M Ryan3,4.
Abstract
High-resolution computed tomography images were acquired for 31 proximal human tibiae, age 8 to 37.5 years, from Norris Farms #36 cemetery site (A.D. 1300). Morphometric analysis of subchondral cortical and trabecular bone architecture was performed between and within the tibial condyles. Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to examine the association between region, age, body mass, and each morphometric parameter. The findings indicate that age-related changes in mechanical loading have varied effects on subchondral bone morphology. With age, trabecular microstructure increased in bone volume fraction (p = 0.033) and degree of anisotropy (p = 0.012), and decreased in connectivity density (p = 0.001). In the subchondral cortical plate, there was an increase in thickness (p < 0.001). When comparing condylar regions, only degree of anisotropy differed (p = 0.004) between the medial and lateral condyles. Trabeculae in the medial condyle were more anisotropic than in the lateral region. This research represents an innovative approach to quantifying both cortical and trabecular subchondral bone microarchitecture in archaeological remains.Entities:
Keywords: 3D imaging; bone microstructure; functional morphology; growth and development; skeletal biology
Year: 2022 PMID: 36101383 PMCID: PMC9312028 DOI: 10.3390/biology11071002
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biology (Basel) ISSN: 2079-7737
Sample composition.
| ID | Estimated Age (Years) | Age Category | Sex | Body Mass Estimation (kg) | Voxel Size (mm) | VOI Cube Size (mm) | VOI Length (# of Slices) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 8 | 1 | U | 17.182 | 0.04 | 4.72 | 119 |
| 2 | 9 | 1 | 26.786 | 0.05 | 4.4 | 89 | |
| 3 | 9 | 1 | 20.152 | 0.04 | 5.16 | 130 | |
| 4 | 9.5 | 1 | 12.802 | 4 | 101 | ||
| 5 | 10.5 | 1 | 22.475 | 0.05 | 5.5 | 111 | |
| 6 | 11 | 1 | 20.481 | 5.7 | 115 | ||
| 7 | 15 | 2 | 33.687 | 5.6 | 113 | ||
| 8 | 15.5 | 2 | M? | 36.562 | 6.55 | 132 | |
| 9 | 16 | 2 | F | 34.549 | 6.2 | 124 | |
| 10 | 16 | 2 | M | 44.901 | 4.35 | 88 | |
| 11 | 16 | 2 | U | 39.148 | 6.15 | 124 | |
| 12 | 16.5 | 2 | F? | 31.407 | 6.3 | 127 | |
| 13 | 18 | 2 | F | 49.611 | 0.056 | 5.684 | 103 |
| 14 | 19.5 | 2 | 58.139 | 0.057 | 5.015 | 89 | |
| 15 | 19.5 | 2 | F? | 61.282 | 0.056 | 6.322 | 114 |
| 16 | 19.5 | 2 | F | 52.893 | 6.438 | 116 | |
| 17 | 21.5 | 3 | M | 62.587 | 0.057 | 7.772 | 137 |
| 18 | 22.5 | 3 | 78.169 | 0.056 | 8.178 | 147 | |
| 19 | 26.5 | 3 | 67.804 | 8.12 | 146 | ||
| 20 | 27.5 | 3 | F | 54.349 | 6.148 | 111 | |
| 21 | 32.5 | 4 | 58.970 | 6.902 | 124 | ||
| 22 | 32.5 | 4 | 59.480 | 0.057 | 6.844 | 121 | |
| 23 | 32.5 | 4 | M | 65.678 | 5.684 | 101 | |
| 24 | 32.5 | 4 | 58.092 | 0.056 | 6.554 | 118 | |
| 25 | 32.5 | 4 | F | 62.670 | 6.264 | 113 | |
| 26 | 32.5 | 4 | M | 73.941 | 8.294 | 149 | |
| 27 | 32.5 | 4 | 70.679 | 6.438 | 116 | ||
| 28 | 35 | 4 | F | 63.570 | 6.728 | 121 | |
| 29 | 37.5 | 4 | M | 71.477 | 0.057 | 7.328 | 130 |
| 30 | 37.5 | 4 | 66.862 | 0.056 | 7.192 | 129 | |
| 31 | 37.5 | 4 | 75.391 | 7.598 | 137 |
All measurements are in millimeters (mm). M = male; M? = possible male; F = female; F? = possible female; U = unknown; VOI = volume of interest. # = number.
Figure 1Proximal tibia VOI placements. Note: Left image—lateral condyle, transverse view; center image—medial condyle, transverse view; A—anterior; P—posterior; 1–4—VOIs within condyle; 5–7—intercondylar VOIs; right image—coronal view.
Figure 2Example of an isolated trabecular (15.5 yr old) VOI using ImageJ. Note: Scale: 1 mm.
Description of bone morphometric variables.
| Bone Morphometric Variable (Unit) | Description | References |
|---|---|---|
| Bone Volume Fraction (%) | Ratio showing what proportion of a volume is comprised of trabecular bone/bone tissue | [ |
| Trabecular Thickness (mm) | Measure of the average thickness of trabecular struts | [ |
| Subchondral Cortical Plate Thickness (mm) | Mean cortex thickness | |
| Trabecular Separation (mm) | Mean distance between trabeculae | [ |
| Trabecular Number (mm−1) | Ratio of bone volume fraction to trabecular thickness, a measure of the number of traversals across a trabecular or solid structure | [ |
| Connectivity Density (mm−3) | Measure of the ‘connectedness’ of trabeculae to one another within the VOI | [ |
| Degree of Anisotropy (unitless) | Measure of the directional orientation of trabeculae, ranging from 0 (fully isotropic) to 1 (fully anisotropic) | [ |
Figure 3Left image: step one of separation script execution (highlighting bone). Note: bone material selected via threshold adjustments; 16.5-year-old tibia cross-section shown. Right image: step two of separation script execution (highlighting air space). Note: air space selected via a second set of threshold adjustments; 16.5-year-old tibia cross-section shown.
Mean statistics for all variables by age category. Note: body mass is sex-pooled, while the other parameters are region-pooled (i.e., both condyles).
| Variables (Unit) | Age Category |
| Mean (Standard Deviation) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bone Volume Fraction (%) | 1 | 11 | 0.234 (0.04) |
| 2 | 20 | 0.278 (0.06) | |
| 3 | 8 | 0.290 (0.02) | |
| 4 | 22 | 0.274 (0.03) | |
| Trabecular Thickness (mm) | 1 | 11 | 0.282 (0.07) |
| 2 | 20 | 0.320 (0.05) | |
| 3 | 8 | 0.333 (0.02) | |
| 4 | 22 | 0.316 (0.02) | |
| Trabecular Separation (mm) | 1 | 11 | 0.843 (0.15) |
| 2 | 20 | 0.859 (0.19) | |
| 3 | 8 | 0.820 (0.05) | |
| 4 | 22 | 0.832 (0.11) | |
| Connectivity Density (mm−3) | 1 | 8 | 4.133 (0.95) |
| 2 | 20 | 3.144 (0.84) | |
| 3 | 8 | 2.485 (0.51) | |
| 4 | 21 | 2.680 (0.57) | |
| Degree of Anisotropy (-) | 1 | 11 | 0.616 (0.06) |
| 2 | 20 | 0.654 (0.05) | |
| 3 | 8 | 0.687 (0.08) | |
| 4 | 22 | 0.684 (0.07) | |
| Trabecular Number (mm−1) | 1 | 11 | 0.826 (0.10) |
| 2 | 20 | 0.870 (0.12) | |
| 3 | 8 | 0.873 (0.05) | |
| 4 | 22 | 0.872 (0.11) | |
| Subchondral Cortical Plate Thickness (mm) | 1 | 11 | 0.888 (0.39) |
| 2 | 20 | 1.154 (0.24) | |
| 3 | 8 | 1.600 (0.16) | |
| 4 | 22 | 1.645 (0.39) | |
| Body Mass (kg) | 1 | 6 | 19.979 (1.93) |
| 2 | 10 | 44.219 (3.40) | |
| 3 | 4 | 65.727 (4.99) | |
| 4 | 11 | 66.074 (1.85) |
Mean statistics for all morphometric variables by condyle region. Note: lateral condyle = 1; medial condyle = 2.
| Variable (Unit) | Condyle | Mean | Standard Deviation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bone Volume Fraction (%) | 1 | 0.2651 | 0.0468 |
| 2 | 0.2753 | 0.0449 | |
| Trabecular Thickness (mm) | 1 | 0.3091 | 0.0505 |
| 2 | 0.317 | 0.0404 | |
| Trabecular Separation (mm) | 1 | 0.8538 | 0.1623 |
| 2 | 0.826 | 0.1108 | |
| Connectivity Density (mm−3) | 1 | 3.0826 | 1.0485 |
| 2 | 2.9423 | 0.6384 | |
| Degree of Anisotropy (-) | 1 | 0.634 | 0.0577 |
| 2 | 0.6936 | 0.0623 | |
| Trabecular Number (mm−1) | 1 | 0.8635 | 0.1083 |
| 2 | 0.8634 | 0.1066 | |
| Subchondral Cortical Plate Thickness (mm) | 1 | 1.300 | 0.4668 |
| 2 | 1.3387 | 0.4425 |
Figure 4Volume of interest visual representation for each age category. 1 = Category 1 (9-year-old unknown sex); 2 = Category 2 (16-year-old male); 3 = Category 3 (26-year-old male); 4 = Category 4 (37.5-year-old male). Note: Scale: 1 mm. All images from VOI 2.
Figure 5All morphometric parameters by condylar region across age categories.
Age category independent sample Kruskal–Wallis test.
| Statistical Test | BV/TV (%) | Tb.Th (mm) | Tb.Sp (mm) | Conn.D (mm−3) | DA (-) | Tb.N (mm−1) | Plate Ct.Th (mm) | Body Mass (kg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kruskal–Wallis | 8.752 | 4.711 | 0.547 | 17.345 | 10.934 | 0.515 | 26.861 | 23.669 |
| df | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| 0.033 | 0.194 | 0.908 | <0.001 | 0.012 | 0.916 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
Kruskal–Wallis post hoc test for significant age category comparisons.
| Variable (Unit) | Age Category Comparison | |
|---|---|---|
| BV/TV (%) | 1 vs. 3 | 0.040 |
| Conn.D (mm−3) | 1 vs. 3 | 0.003 |
| 1 vs. 4 | 0.003 | |
| DA (-) | 1 vs. 4 | 0.011 |
| Plate Ct.Th (mm) | 1 vs. 3 | 0.004 |
| 1 vs. 4 | <0.001 | |
| 2 vs. 3 | 0.040 | |
| 2 vs. 4 | 0.030 |
Pairwise related-sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test comparing condylar parameter differences.
| Variable (Unit) | Mean Rank (Negative) | Mean Rank (Positive) | Z | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BV/TV (%) | 18.75 | 13.03 | −0.649 | 0.516 |
| Tb.Th (mm) | 15.13 | 14.03 | −0.490 | 0.624 |
| Tb.Sp (mm) | 13.35 | 13.65 | −0.051 | 0.959 |
| Conn.D (mm−3) | 15.31 | 11.69 | −0.597 | 0.551 |
| Tb.N (mm−1) | 13.24 | 16.45 | −0.501 | 0.616 |
| DA (-) | 10.93 | 15.69 | −2.881 | 0.004 |
| Plate Ct.Th (mm) | 15.70 | 12.13 | −0.470 | 0.638 |
Mann–Whitney test comparing parameters between sexes.
| Statistical Test | BV/TV (%) | Tb.Th Mean (mm) | Tb.Sp Mean (mm) | Conn.D (mm−3) | DA | Tb.N (mm−1) | Plate Ct.Th (mm) | Body Mass (kg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mann–Whitney U | 159.0 | 217.0 | 268.5 | 304.0 | 261.5 | 178.0 | 188.0 | 26.0 |
| Z | −2.309 | −1.034 | 0.099 | 1.183 | −0.055 | −1.891 | −1.671 | −2.462 |
| 0.021 | 0.301 | 0.921 | 0.237 | 0.956 | 0.059 | 0.095 | 0.013 |
Figure 6Body mass and bone volume fraction sex differences across age.