» Articles » PMID: 34283941

Back to the Bones: Do Muscle Area Assessment Techniques Predict Functional Evolution Across a Macroevolutionary Radiation?

Overview
Date 2021 Jul 20
PMID 34283941
Citations 8
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Measures of attachment or accommodation area on the skeleton are a popular means of rapidly generating estimates of muscle proportions and functional performance for use in large-scale macroevolutionary studies. Herein, we provide the first evaluation of the accuracy of these muscle area assessment (MAA) techniques for estimating muscle proportions, force outputs and bone loading in a comparative macroevolutionary context using the rodent masticatory system as a case study. We find that MAA approaches perform poorly, yielding large absolute errors in muscle properties, bite force and particularly bone stress. Perhaps more fundamentally, these methods regularly fail to correctly capture many qualitative differences between rodent morphotypes, particularly in stress patterns in finite-element models. Our findings cast doubts on the validity of these approaches as means to provide input data for biomechanical models applied to understand functional transitions in the fossil record, and perhaps even in taxon-rich statistical models that examine broad-scale macroevolutionary patterns. We suggest that future work should go back to the bones to test if correlations between attachment area and muscle size within homologous muscles across a large number of species yield strong predictive relationships that could be used to deliver more accurate predictions for macroevolutionary and functional studies.

Citing Articles

Muscle-controlled physics simulations of bird locomotion resolve the grounded running paradox.

van Bijlert P, van Soest A, Schulp A, Bates K Sci Adv. 2024; 10(39):eado0936.

PMID: 39321289 PMC: 11423892. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.ado0936.


Comparative muscle anatomy of the anuran pelvis and hindlimb in relation to locomotor mode.

Leavey A, Richards C, Porro L J Anat. 2024; 245(5):751-774.

PMID: 39119773 PMC: 11470798. DOI: 10.1111/joa.14122.


Ontogenetic growth in the crania of (Synapsida: Cynodontia) captures a dietary shift.

Wynd B, Abdala F, Nesbitt S PeerJ. 2022; 10:e14196.

PMID: 36299507 PMC: 9590418. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.14196.


Anatomically grounded estimation of hindlimb muscle sizes in Archosauria.

Cuff A, Wiseman A, Bishop P, Michel K, Gaignet R, Hutchinson J J Anat. 2022; 242(2):289-311.

PMID: 36206401 PMC: 9877486. DOI: 10.1111/joa.13767.


A toolbox for the retrodeformation and muscle reconstruction of fossil specimens in Blender.

Herbst E, Meade L, Lautenschlager S, Fioritti N, Scheyer T R Soc Open Sci. 2022; 9(8):220519.

PMID: 36039284 PMC: 9399692. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.220519.


References
1.
Gignac P, Erickson G . The Biomechanics Behind Extreme Osteophagy in Tyrannosaurus rex. Sci Rep. 2017; 7(1):2012. PMC: 5435714. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-02161-w. View

2.
Bell P, Snively E, Shychoski L . A comparison of the jaw mechanics in hadrosaurid and ceratopsid dinosaurs using finite element analysis. Anat Rec (Hoboken). 2009; 292(9):1338-51. DOI: 10.1002/ar.20978. View

3.
Serrano-Fochs S, De Esteban-Trivigno S, Marce-Nogue J, Fortuny J, Farina R . Finite Element Analysis of the Cingulata Jaw: An Ecomorphological Approach to Armadillo's Diets. PLoS One. 2015; 10(4):e0120653. PMC: 4412537. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0120653. View

4.
Davis J, Santana S, Dumont E, Grosse I . Predicting bite force in mammals: two-dimensional versus three-dimensional lever models. J Exp Biol. 2010; 213(11):1844-51. DOI: 10.1242/jeb.041129. View

5.
Bates K, Falkingham P . Estimating maximum bite performance in Tyrannosaurus rex using multi-body dynamics. Biol Lett. 2012; 8(4):660-4. PMC: 3391458. DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2012.0056. View