Let bone and muscle talk together : a study of real and virtual dissection and its implications for femoral musculoskeletal structure of chimpanzees
Let bone and muscle talk together : a study of real and virtual dissection and its implications for femoral musculoskeletal structure of chimpanzees
复制标题
让骨骼和肌肉一起对话：真实和虚拟解剖的研究及其对黑猩猩股骨肌肉骨骼结构的影响
DOI：
10.1111/joa.12270
复制
发表时间：
2014
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Nakatsukasa M
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Morimoto N;Suwa G;Nishimura T;Ponce de Leon MS;Zollikofer CPE;Nakatsukasa M
股骨近端的形态和相关的肌肉组织是特别相关的理解类人猿运动系统。现存人科动物骨骼-肌肉对应关系的知识构成了推断化石人科动物结构-功能关系的重要比较基础。然而，在黑猩猩股骨近端骨干的肌肉附着部位和表面形态之间的对应关系上仍然缺乏共识。关于臀大肌（GM）和股外侧肌（VL）的附着点位置，相对于股骨近端骨干的两个突出表面特征，外侧螺旋枕和下外侧窝，提出了两种替代观察结果。在这里，我们使用虚拟和物理解剖相结合，试图确定肌肉附着部位和骨骼学特征之间的确切对应关系，在两个标本ofPan troglodytes verus。结果表明，GM肌腱的插入始终是下外侧外侧的外侧螺旋枕，和下外侧窝的一部分始终形成附着部位的VL肌纤维。虽然在本研究中检查的两个标本的整体肌肉骨骼特征相似，但GM和VL在下外侧窝水平表现出不同程度的分离。一个标本显示腱性GM纤维穿过VL的后内侧部分，GM和VL都插入下外侧窝。在另一个标本中，GM和VL被插入下外侧窝的外侧肌间隔分开。因此，黑猩猩股骨近端肌肉附着的变化比以前认为的要大。我们的研究结果表明，一个明显的骨骼学特征，如下外侧窝不一定对应于一个单一的肌肉的附着部位，但可以作为两个肌肉之间的边界区域。因此，在解释肌肉附着部位的表面形貌和推断运动功能时需要谨慎。
Proximal femoral morphology and associated musculature are of special relevance to the understanding of hominoid locomotor systems. Knowledge of bone–muscle correspondence in extant hominoids forms an important comparative basis for inferring structure–function relationships in fossil hominids. However, there is still a lack of consensus on the correspondence between muscle attachment sites and surface morphology of the proximal femoral diaphysis in chimpanzees. Two alternative observations have been proposed regarding the attachment site positions ofgluteus maximus(GM) andvastus lateralis(VL) relative to two prominent surface features of the proximal femoral diaphysis, the lateral spiral pilaster and the inferolateral fossa. Here, we use a combination of virtual and physical dissection in an attempt to identify the exact correspondence between muscle attachment sites and osteological features in two specimens ofPan troglodytes verus. The results show that the insertion of the GM tendon is consistently inferolateral to the lateral spiral pilaster, and that a part of the inferolateral fossa consistently forms the attachment site of the VL muscular fibers. While overall musculoskeletal features are similar in the two specimens examined in this study, GM and VL exhibit different degrees of segregation at the level of the inferolateral fossa. One specimen exhibited tendinous GM fibers penetrating the posteromedial part of VL, with both GM and VL inserting at the inferolateral fossa. In the other specimen, GM and VL were separated by a lateral intermuscular septum, which inserted into the inferolateral fossa. Variation of proximal femoral muscle attachments in chimpanzees is thus greater than previously thought. Our results indicate that a conspicuous osteological feature such as the inferolateral fossa does not necessarily correspond to the attachment site of a single muscle, but could serve as a boundary region between two muscles. Caution is thus warranted when interpreting the surface topography of muscle attachment sites and inferring locomotor functions.