Anatomical and ontogenetic influences on muscle density

Abstract Physiological cross-sectional area (PCSA), an important biomechanical variable, is an estimate of a muscle’s contractile force potential and is derived from dividing muscle mass by the product of a muscle’s average fascicle length and a theoretical constant representing the density of mamma...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Kaitlyn C. Leonard, Nikole Worden, Marissa L. Boettcher, Edwin Dickinson, Kailey M. Omstead, Anne M. Burrows, Adam Hartstone-Rose
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Nature Portfolio 2021
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/3fad88c458c0475da1a12f81e79371ac
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:3fad88c458c0475da1a12f81e79371ac
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:3fad88c458c0475da1a12f81e79371ac2021-12-02T14:07:48ZAnatomical and ontogenetic influences on muscle density10.1038/s41598-021-81489-w2045-2322https://doaj.org/article/3fad88c458c0475da1a12f81e79371ac2021-01-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81489-whttps://doaj.org/toc/2045-2322Abstract Physiological cross-sectional area (PCSA), an important biomechanical variable, is an estimate of a muscle’s contractile force potential and is derived from dividing muscle mass by the product of a muscle’s average fascicle length and a theoretical constant representing the density of mammalian skeletal muscle. This density constant is usually taken from experimental studies of small samples of several model taxa using tissues collected predominantly from the lower limbs of adult animals. The generalized application of this constant to broader analyses of mammalian myology assumes that muscle density (1) is consistent across anatomical regions and (2) is unaffected by the aging process. To investigate the validity of these assumptions, we studied muscles of rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) in the largest sample heretofore investigated explicitly for these variables, and we did so from numerous anatomical regions and from three different age-cohorts. Differences in muscle density and histology as a consequence of age and anatomical region were evaluated using Tukey’s HSD tests. Overall, we observed that older individuals tend to have denser muscles than younger individuals. Our findings also demonstrated significant differences in muscle density between anatomic regions within the older cohorts, though none in the youngest cohort. Approximately 50% of the variation in muscle density can be explained histologically by the average muscle fiber area and the average percent fiber area. That is, muscles with larger average fiber areas and a higher proportion of fiber area tend to be denser. Importantly, using the age and region dependent measurements of muscle density that we provide may increase the accuracy of PCSA estimations. Although we found statistically significant differences related to ontogeny and anatomical region, if density cannot be measured directly, the specific values presented herein should be used to improve accuracy. If a single muscle density constant that has been better validated than the ones presented in the previous literature is preferred, then 1.0558 and 1.0502 g/cm3 would be reasonable constants to use across all adult and juvenile muscles respectively.Kaitlyn C. LeonardNikole WordenMarissa L. BoettcherEdwin DickinsonKailey M. OmsteadAnne M. BurrowsAdam Hartstone-RoseNature PortfolioarticleMedicineRScienceQENScientific Reports, Vol 11, Iss 1, Pp 1-11 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Kaitlyn C. Leonard Nikole Worden Marissa L. Boettcher Edwin Dickinson Kailey M. Omstead Anne M. Burrows Adam Hartstone-Rose Anatomical and ontogenetic influences on muscle density
description	Abstract Physiological cross-sectional area (PCSA), an important biomechanical variable, is an estimate of a muscle’s contractile force potential and is derived from dividing muscle mass by the product of a muscle’s average fascicle length and a theoretical constant representing the density of mammalian skeletal muscle. This density constant is usually taken from experimental studies of small samples of several model taxa using tissues collected predominantly from the lower limbs of adult animals. The generalized application of this constant to broader analyses of mammalian myology assumes that muscle density (1) is consistent across anatomical regions and (2) is unaffected by the aging process. To investigate the validity of these assumptions, we studied muscles of rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) in the largest sample heretofore investigated explicitly for these variables, and we did so from numerous anatomical regions and from three different age-cohorts. Differences in muscle density and histology as a consequence of age and anatomical region were evaluated using Tukey’s HSD tests. Overall, we observed that older individuals tend to have denser muscles than younger individuals. Our findings also demonstrated significant differences in muscle density between anatomic regions within the older cohorts, though none in the youngest cohort. Approximately 50% of the variation in muscle density can be explained histologically by the average muscle fiber area and the average percent fiber area. That is, muscles with larger average fiber areas and a higher proportion of fiber area tend to be denser. Importantly, using the age and region dependent measurements of muscle density that we provide may increase the accuracy of PCSA estimations. Although we found statistically significant differences related to ontogeny and anatomical region, if density cannot be measured directly, the specific values presented herein should be used to improve accuracy. If a single muscle density constant that has been better validated than the ones presented in the previous literature is preferred, then 1.0558 and 1.0502 g/cm3 would be reasonable constants to use across all adult and juvenile muscles respectively.
format	article
author	Kaitlyn C. Leonard Nikole Worden Marissa L. Boettcher Edwin Dickinson Kailey M. Omstead Anne M. Burrows Adam Hartstone-Rose
author_facet	Kaitlyn C. Leonard Nikole Worden Marissa L. Boettcher Edwin Dickinson Kailey M. Omstead Anne M. Burrows Adam Hartstone-Rose
author_sort	Kaitlyn C. Leonard
title	Anatomical and ontogenetic influences on muscle density
title_short	Anatomical and ontogenetic influences on muscle density
title_full	Anatomical and ontogenetic influences on muscle density
title_fullStr	Anatomical and ontogenetic influences on muscle density
title_full_unstemmed	Anatomical and ontogenetic influences on muscle density
title_sort	anatomical and ontogenetic influences on muscle density
publisher	Nature Portfolio
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/3fad88c458c0475da1a12f81e79371ac
work_keys_str_mv	AT kaitlyncleonard anatomicalandontogeneticinfluencesonmuscledensity AT nikoleworden anatomicalandontogeneticinfluencesonmuscledensity AT marissalboettcher anatomicalandontogeneticinfluencesonmuscledensity AT edwindickinson anatomicalandontogeneticinfluencesonmuscledensity AT kaileymomstead anatomicalandontogeneticinfluencesonmuscledensity AT annemburrows anatomicalandontogeneticinfluencesonmuscledensity AT adamhartstonerose anatomicalandontogeneticinfluencesonmuscledensity
_version_	1718391901721198592

Anatomical and ontogenetic influences on muscle density

Ejemplares similares