Abstract

How do the various anatomical parts (modules) of the animal body evolve into very different integrated forms (integration) yet still function properly without decreasing the individual’s survival? This long-standing question remains unanswered for multiple reasons, including lack of consensus about conceptual definitions and approaches, as well as a reasonable bias toward the study of hard tissues over soft tissues. A major difficulty concerns the non-trivial technical hurdles of addressing this problem, specifically the lack of quantitative tools to quantify and compare variation across multiple disparate anatomical parts and tissue types. In this paper we apply for the first time a powerful new quantitative tool, Anatomical Network Analysis (AnNA), to examine and compare in detail the musculoskeletal modularity and integration of normal and abnormal human upper and lower limbs. In contrast to other morphological methods, the strength of AnNA is that it allows efficient and direct empirical comparisons among body parts with even vastly different architectures (e.g. upper and lower limbs) and diverse or complex tissue composition (e.g. bones, cartilages and muscles), by quantifying the spatial organization of these parts—their topological patterns relative to each other—using tools borrowed from network theory. Our results reveal similarities between the skeletal networks of the normal newborn/adult upper limb vs. lower limb, with exception to the shoulder vs. pelvis. However, when muscles are included, the overall musculoskeletal network organization of the upper limb is strikingly different from that of the lower limb, particularly that of the more proximal structures of each limb. Importantly, the obtained data provide further evidence to be added to the vast amount of paleontological, gross anatomical, developmental, molecular and embryological data recently obtained that contradicts the long-standing dogma that the upper and lower limbs are serial homologues. In addition, the AnNA of the limbs of a trisomy 18 human fetus strongly supports Pere Alberch's ill-named "logic of monsters" hypothesis, and contradicts the commonly accepted idea that birth defects often lead to lower integration (i.e. more parcellation) of anatomical structures.

Highlights

  • A central question in evolutionary biology and biological anthropology is how various anatomical parts of the animal body evolved into very different forms such that all parts still fit together and function properly [1,2,3,4,5]

  • Some authors argue that modularity enables flexibility because the direction and magnitude of evolutionary change among and within parts can vary without sacrificing function [9,11,12,13,14,15,16,17], while others argue that a higher integration within an anatomical system, such as the head, may increase evolvability [2]. These issues are crucial to understand the evolution of human limbs, which is notable among tetrapods and primates for the magnitude of morphological shifts in the musculoskeletal system, including the pervasive changes in the limbs associated with the acquisition of bipedalism [18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27]

  • We recently used Anatomical Network Analysis (AnNA) to provide new insights on the musculoskeletal organization of the head of human adults, newborns, and fetuses with and without birth defects, as well as some preliminary comparisons between the head and upper limbs [29,45,46]. This present paper provides the first application of AnNA to examine and compare in detail the musculoskeletal modularity and integration of the upper and lower limbs (ULs, LLs) in the normal human adult and newborn phenotype and in a trisomy 18 (T18) human fetus

Read more

Summary

Introduction

A central question in evolutionary biology and biological anthropology is how various anatomical parts of the animal body evolved into very different forms such that all parts still fit together and function properly [1,2,3,4,5]. Ever since Bateson’s [6] and Olson & Miller’s [7] seminal works on these concepts, the idea of an animal’s body as a set of nested parts within parts (modularity) that maintain a level of autonomy to change while still growing and adapting in coordinated ways (integration) continues to gain support as a central mechanism of evolution [8,9,10] These concepts are tightly linked to questions about complexity and evolvability (the ability to respond to selective pressure). New approaches are needed to identify and compare patterns of organization, integration, modularity, evolvability and complexity between the muscles and bones of the limbs to have a more comprehensive and integrative view of the evolutionary history, as well as on the functional morphology, development and pathology, of the human body in the context of habitual bipedalism

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call