» Articles » PMID: 29875283

Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Different Keratinous Horns

Overview
Date 2018 Jun 8
PMID 29875283
Citations 8
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Animal horns play an important role during intraspecific combat. This work investigates the microstructure and mechanical properties of horns from four representative ruminant species: the bighorn sheep (), domestic sheep (), mountain goat () and pronghorn (), aiming to understand the relation between evolved microstructures and mechanical properties. Microstructural similarity is found where disc-shaped keratin cells attach edge-to-edge along the growth direction of the horn core (longitudinal direction) forming a lamella; multiple lamellae are layered face to face along the impact direction (radial direction, perpendicular to horn core growth direction), forming a wavy pattern surrounding a common feature, the tubules. Differences among species include the number and shape of the tubules, the orientation of aligned lamellae and the shape of keratin cells. Water absorption tests reveal that the pronghorn horn has the largest water-absorbing ability due to the presence of nanopores in the keratin cells. The loading direction (compressive and tensile) and level of hydration vary among the horns from different species. The differences in mechanical properties among species may relate to their different fighting behaviours: high stiffness and strength in mountain goat to support the forces during stabbing; high tensile strength in pronghorn for interlocked pulling; impact energy absorption properties in domestic and bighorn sheep to protect the skull during butting. These design rules based on evolutionary modifications among species can be applied in synthetic materials to meet different mechanical requirements.

Citing Articles

BioinspiredLLM: Conversational Large Language Model for the Mechanics of Biological and Bio-Inspired Materials.

Luu R, Buehler M Adv Sci (Weinh). 2023; 11(10):e2306724.

PMID: 38145334 PMC: 10933662. DOI: 10.1002/advs.202306724.


Feeding without teeth: the material properties of rhamphothecae from two species of durophagous sea turtles.

Ingle D, Perez E, Porter M, Marshall C R Soc Open Sci. 2023; 10(4):221424.

PMID: 37090964 PMC: 10113817. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.221424.


Oxidized Biomass and Its Usage as Adsorbent for Removal of Heavy Metal Ions from Aqueous Solutions.

Condurache B, Cojocaru C, Samoila P, Cosmulescu S, Predeanu G, Enache A Molecules. 2022; 27(18).

PMID: 36144850 PMC: 9506469. DOI: 10.3390/molecules27186119.


Genetics of the phenotypic evolution in sheep: a molecular look at diversity-driving genes.

Kalds P, Zhou S, Gao Y, Cai B, Huang S, Chen Y Genet Sel Evol. 2022; 54(1):61.

PMID: 36085023 PMC: 9463822. DOI: 10.1186/s12711-022-00753-3.


The Study of Mechanical Behaviors of Horn Sheath under Pendulum Impact.

Yang K, Qin N, Zhou C, Wang B, Yu H, Li H Polymers (Basel). 2022; 14(16).

PMID: 36015531 PMC: 9412671. DOI: 10.3390/polym14163272.


References
1.
Launey M, Chen P, McKittrick J, Ritchie R . Mechanistic aspects of the fracture toughness of elk antler bone. Acta Biomater. 2009; 6(4):1505-14. DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2009.11.026. View

2.
Hieronymus T, Witmer L, Ridgely R . Structure of white rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum) horn investigated by X-ray computed tomography and histology with implications for growth and external form. J Morphol. 2006; 267(10):1172-6. DOI: 10.1002/jmor.10465. View

3.
Marshall R, Orwin D, Gillespie J . Structure and biochemistry of mammalian hard keratin. Electron Microsc Rev. 1991; 4(1):47-83. DOI: 10.1016/0892-0354(91)90016-6. View

4.
Huang W, Zaheri A, Jung J, Espinosa H, McKittrick J . Hierarchical structure and compressive deformation mechanisms of bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) horn. Acta Biomater. 2017; 64:1-14. DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2017.09.043. View

5.
Sullivan T, Pissarenko A, Herrera S, Kisailus D, Lubarda V, Meyers M . A lightweight, biological structure with tailored stiffness: The feather vane. Acta Biomater. 2016; 41:27-39. DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2016.05.022. View