DOCSLIB.ORG

THE WAKE of the GROWTH PLATE a Thesis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
THE WAKE of the GROWTH PLATE a Thesis BONE GROWTH: THE WAKE OF THE GROWTH PLATE A thesis submitted To Kent State University in partial Fulfillment of the requirements for the DeGree of Master of Arts by Samantha H. Magrini AuGust 2021 © CopyriGht All riGhts reserved Except for previously published materials Thesis written by Samantha H. Magrini B.A., Youngstown State University, 2017 M.A., Kent State University, 2021 Approved by ___________________________________, Advisor Linda Spurlock ___________________________________, Chair, Department of Anthropology Mary Ann Raghanti ___________________________________, Interim Dean, College of Arts & Sciences Mandy Munro-Stasiuk TABLE OF CONTENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ iii LIST OF FIGURES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- iv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- vi CHAPTERS I. INTRODUCTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Wolff’s Law: History and Overview ---------------------------------------------------- 1 Limb Bud Formation ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 Endochondral Ossification ---------------------------------------------------------------- 6 Proposed Research Hypothesis --------------------------------------------------------- 11 II. METHODS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12 The Libben OsteoloGical Collection --------------------------------------------------- 12 Sample Selection ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14 Three-Dimensional ScanninG and PrintinG ------------------------------------------- 15 Final Processing for Analysis ----------------------------------------------------------- 18 Ill. RESULTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21 ImaGe Overlays --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21 CONCLUSIONS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25 REFERENCES ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27 iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Dorsal View of the Limb Bud -------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 Figure 2. Schematic Layout of the Growth Plate ---------------------------------------------------------- 7 Figure 3. The PTHrP-Ihh NeGative Feedback Loop ------------------------------------------------------ 9 Figure 4. 3D Scans of Specimen 10063 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 16 Figure 5. 3D Scans of Specimen 03210 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 17 Figure 6. 3D Scans of Specimen 02062 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 17 Figure 7. Comparison of Specimen #02062 and the 3D Printed Replica ----------------------------- 18 Figure 8. Cross-Sectioning of the 3D Printout ----------------------------------------------------------- 19 Figure 9. Specimen #02062 Alongside Comparison Specimens -------------------------------------- 19 Figure 10. Side-by-Side Comparisons of Specimen #12206 and Slice 1 ----------------------------- 21 Figure 11. Overlay Comparisons of Slice 1 and Specimen #12206 ----------------------------------- 21 Figure 12. Overlay Comparisons of Slice 2 and Specimen #3203 ------------------------------------ 22 Figure 13. Overlay Comparisons of Slice 3 and Specimen #5035 ------------------------------------ 22 Figure 14. Overlay Comparisons of Slice 4 and Specimen #4055 ------------------------------------ 22 Figure 15. Overlays of Proximal Growth Plate Surfaces ----------------------------------------------- 23 iv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Abbreviation Meaning Page AER Apical ectodermal ridGe 4 AP Anterior-posterior 5 BMP Bone morphoGenetic protein 4 FGF Fibroblast growth factor 4 Hox Homeobox 5 Ihh Indian hedgehog 8 LRP Lipoprotein receptor related protein 6 mRNA MessenGer RNA (ribonucleic acid) 10 PTHrP Parathyroid hormone-related protein 8 PZ Progress Zone 5 Runx2 Runt-related transcription factor 2 6 Shh Sonic hedgehog 4 Sox9 SRY-Box transcription factor 9 6 ZPA Zone of polarizinG activity 4 v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to start by thankinG my advisor, Dr. Linda Spurlock. You saw somethinG in me from day one, and I have so enjoyed traversinG the highs and lows of this process with you. I couldn’t have made this happen without your help and support. My other thesis committee members Dr. C. Owen Lovejoy, and Dr. Richard Meindl, thank you for your encouragement and input in making this a reality. It has been an educationally eye-opening experience to have you give your thoughts and advice throughout. I also would like to acknowledGe the help and support of Dr. Mary Ann RaGhanti, Chair of the AnthropoloGy Department, who not only provided needed critique of my early chapters, but who after many emails aided in settinG up connections with the DesiGn Innovation Hub for me. I would like to thank the Kent State Design Innovation Hub, specifically Andrea Oleniczak and J.R. Campbell for makinG it possible for me to access the 3D scanninG equipment, especially on such short notice. Your help along with that of the student workers introduced me to the amazinG possibilities which are presented when departments come toGether and form interdisciplinary connections. Most notably within the DI Hub student workers I must thank Aishwarya Yelakonda for all the technical support and help with ‘Eva’. I couldn’t have made this happen without her, and I thoroughly enjoyed the time we spent toGether as she helped me traverse the technical side of thinGs. Closer to home, yet across many miles, I must thank my parents, Brian, and Teresa Carley. I wouldn’t have been able to make this happen without the constant support and encouraGement they have given me every step of the way. Finally, I need to thank my husband, Troy Magrini Jr. He has been my rock throughout the highs and lows of this process. I have known from day one that he would be there to keep me going on the touGh days, and to cheer for me on the good ones. I am so lucky to have him there to help me see what awaits on the finish line. vi INTRODUCTION Wolff’s Law: History and Overview It is not uncommon for many to link bone growth and development to the effects of external mechanical loadinG forces, with the belief that loadinG is the primary drivinG factor of bone formation (Bertram and Swartz 1991; Frost 1983; Jansen 1920; Pearson and Lieberman 2004; Ruff, Holt, and Trinkaus 2006; Villemure and Stokes 2009). These hypotheses can be linked back to German anatomist Julius Wolff, who in 1882 produced several self-ascribed ‘laws’ regarding the formation of bone from which many have drawn inspiration (Wolff 1892; Wolff 1886). He stated that “the law of bone remodelinG is the law accordinG to which alterations of the internal architecture clearly observed and followinG mathematical rules, as well as secondary alterations of the external form of the bone followinG the same mathematical rules, occur as a consequence of primary changes in the shape and stressing or in the stressinG of the bones,” (Wolff 1892; Wolff 1886). Since Wolff’s influential treatise, many others added to his hypothesis. These include Young’s Modulus of Elasticity, an enGineerinG principle which has since been applied to the properties of bone, and which considers bones’ elastic properties (Pearson and Lieberman 2004). YounG’s Modulus as applied to bone specifies a ranGe of stress-strain which bone can withstand without breakinG and still return to its original size and shape (Pearson and Lieberman 2004). Another is the Hueter-Volkmann Law of mechanical modulation of bone growth, which suggests that immature bone lenGth is dictated by compressive forces acting upon the epiphyseal cartilage (Villemure and Stokes 2009; Volkmann 1865; Walker et al. 2002). Increases in pressure inhibit bone growth, whereas decreases in pressure and tension stimulate bone growth (Hueter 1862a; 1862b). This interestinG seems to contradict many of the principles applied beneath ‘Wolff’s Law’, as it suGGests that bone growth will be inhibited by pressure, rather than the typical claim of these ‘Laws’ which suGGest increased stress and strain will increase bone mass. Wolff 1 also worked alongside Wilhelm Roux, with whom he developed the “doctrine of the functional form of bones,” which states that the structure and form of bones is determined entirely, “mechanically” and “mathematically”, by tension and pressure stresses (Jansen 1920; Wolff 1892). Roux believed that the bone cells were capable of responding to mechanical stress and therefore were responsive to loading (Ruff, Holt, and Trinkaus 2006). Taken together these ideas have contributed to what is now known as ‘Wolff’s Law’ (Pearson and Lieberman 2004). The main principle of Wolff’s Law is that bone adapts to mechanical loadinG forces, and that there is a functional morpholoGy related to bone form and function (Pearson and Lieberman 2004). Essentially, bone would be laid down where needed and removed where not (Walker et al. 2002). Cortical bones would be expected to increase in volume as a response to force, which would increase the bone’s loadinG capacity (Bertram
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Development of the Endochondral Skeleton
    Downloaded from http://cshperspectives.cshlp.org/ on September 24, 2021 - Published by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press Development of the Endochondral Skeleton Fanxin Long1,2 and David M. Ornitz2 1Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri 63110 2Department of Developmental Biology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri 63110 Correspondence: fl[email protected] SUMMARY Much of the mammalian skeleton is composed of bones that originate from cartilage templates through endochondral ossification. Elucidating the mechanisms that control endochondral bone development is critical for understanding human skeletal diseases, injury response, and aging. Mouse genetic studies in the past 15 years have provided unprecedented insights about molecules regulating chondrocyte formation, chondrocyte maturation, and osteoblast differ- entiation, all key processes of endochondral bone development. These include the roles of the secreted proteins IHH, PTHrP, BMPs, WNTs, and FGFs, their receptors, and transcription factors such as SOX9, RUNX2, and OSX, in regulating chondrocyte and osteoblast biology. This review aims to integrate the known functions of extracellular signals and transcription factors that regulate development of the endochondral skeleton. Outline 1 Introduction 5 Osteoblastogenesis 2 Mesenchymal condensation 6 Closing remarks 3 Chondrocyte differentiation References 4 Growth plate development Editors: Patrick P.L. Tam, W. James Nelson, and Janet Rossant Additional Perspectives on Mammalian Development available at www.cshperspectives.org Copyright # 2013 Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; all rights reserved; doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a008334 Cite this article as Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 2013;5:a008334 1 Downloaded from http://cshperspectives.cshlp.org/ on September 24, 2021 - Published by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press F.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Limb Development
    Upper Limb Development Alphonsus Chong Department of Hand and Reconstructive Microsurgery National University Hospital Why bother? Most congenital limb anomalies are due to: Disorders of embryogenesis or Problems during fetal development Some terminology Embryogenesis 0-8 weeks – new organ systems appear Fetal period Appearance of primary ossification center in humerus Differentiation, maturation and enlargement of existing organs Limb Development Limb Patterning Tissue Differentiation Why is it an arm and not Skeletal a leg? Joint Vascular Nerve Muscle and Tendon Positional Information and Axes of the upper limb Limb Bud in E3 Chick Embryo Limb bud (lateral plate) Loose mesenchymal cells from lateral plate mesoderm Ectodermal epithelial cells Migrating cells Somites --> Muscle Nerves Vasculature Limb Bud Development Limb bud Ectoderm and mesenchyme Not fully differentiated yet but all ingredients there If transplanted ectopic limb Limb Bud Regions AER Progress zone Zone of polarizing activity AER – Proximal to Distal formation Zone of Polarizing Actvity – AP development Morphogen Gradient Model Dorsal / ventral patterning less well understood Separation of Digits Apoptosis (Programmed cell death) of interdigital mesenchyme BMPs important Starts post-axial to pre-axial Mesoderm specifies amount of apoptosis How does this relate to pathogensis? Picture from Greene Learning Points UE development occurs early in embryogenesis – most risk of development congenital anomalies Pattern of limb development follows a body plan Digit formation is by apoptosis Thank You Further Reading Principles of Development 3rd Ed by Lewis Wolpert. Oxford University Press Growing Hand. Amit Gupta and Louisville Group.
    [Show full text]
  • Homeobox Genes D11–D13 and A13 Control Mouse Autopod Cortical
    Research article Homeobox genes d11–d13 and a13 control mouse autopod cortical bone and joint formation Pablo Villavicencio-Lorini,1,2 Pia Kuss,1,2 Julia Friedrich,1,2 Julia Haupt,1,2 Muhammed Farooq,3 Seval Türkmen,2 Denis Duboule,4 Jochen Hecht,1,5 and Stefan Mundlos1,2,5 1Max Planck Institute for Molecular Genetics, Berlin, Germany. 2Institute for Medical Genetics, Charité, Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany. 3Human Molecular Genetics Laboratory, National Institute for Biotechnology & Genetic Engineering (NIBGE), Faisalabad, Pakistan. 4National Research Centre Frontiers in Genetics, Department of Zoology and Animal Biology, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. 5Berlin-Brandenburg Center for Regenerative Therapies (BCRT), Charité, Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany. The molecular mechanisms that govern bone and joint formation are complex, involving an integrated network of signaling pathways and gene regulators. We investigated the role of Hox genes, which are known to specify individual segments of the skeleton, in the formation of autopod limb bones (i.e., the hands and feet) using the mouse mutant synpolydactyly homolog (spdh), which encodes a polyalanine expansion in Hoxd13. We found that no cortical bone was formed in the autopod in spdh/spdh mice; instead, these bones underwent trabecular ossification after birth. Spdh/spdh metacarpals acquired an ovoid shape and developed ectopic joints, indicating a loss of long bone characteristics and thus a transformation of metacarpals into carpal bones. The perichon- drium of spdh/spdh mice showed abnormal morphology and decreased expression of Runt-related transcription factor 2 (Runx2), which was identified as a direct Hoxd13 transcriptional target. Hoxd11–/–Hoxd12–/–Hoxd13–/– tri- ple-knockout mice and Hoxd13–/–Hoxa13+/– mice exhibited similar but less severe defects, suggesting that these Hox genes have similar and complementary functions and that the spdh allele acts as a dominant negative.
    [Show full text]
  • Skeletal Development in Human: a Model for the Study of Developmental Genes Page 1 Sur 10
    Skeletal development in human: a model for the study of developmental genes Page 1 sur 10 Atlas of Genetics and Cytogenetics in Oncology and Haematology Home Genes Leukemias Tumors Cancer prone Deep Insight Portal Teaching Skeletal development in human: a model for the study of developmental genes * I- Introduction I-1. Developmental genes in Drosophila I-2. Skeletal development in human II- Development of the axial skeleton II-1. Signaling molecules involved in the determination of sclerotome to cartilage II- 2. Role of Hox genes in the regulation of vertebral segments III- Development of the limbs (appendicular skeleton) III-1. Limb bud differentiation with respect to three axes III-2. Role of FGF and their receptors in limb development III-3. The role of Hox and BMP genes in the limb bud development IV- Development of the skull IV-1. Signalling molecules involved in craniofacial development V- Conclusion * I. Introduction Our understanding of the genetic and molecular control of development in vertebrates has dramatically increased during the last 10 years through the discovery that molecular processes that control development in invertebrates have been conserved during evolution and are also found in vertebrates. Important developmental genes were identified that are not only similar in sequence but also in their molecular function in widely diverged organisms such as C.elegans, Drosophila, zebrafish, mice and man. From Drosophila studies it is now clear that epigenetic development is regulated by cascades of gene expression. Early acting regulatory genes initiate the developmental process and induce the expression of other downstream genes. http://www.infobiogen.fr/services/chromcancer/IntroItems/GenDevelLongEngl.html 25/01/2006 Skeletal development in human: a model for the study of developmental genes Page 2 sur 10 I.1 Developmental genes in Drosophila Phenotypic analysis of Drosophila mutants has allowed identification in the early eighties of more than 50 developmental genes that fall into three broad classes: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Injuries and Normal Variants of the Pediatric Knee
    Revista Chilena de Radiología, año 2016. ARTÍCULO DE REVISIÓN Injuries and normal variants of the pediatric knee Cristián Padilla C.a,* , Cristián Quezada J.a,b, Nelson Flores N.a, Yorky Melipillán A.b and Tamara Ramírez P.b a. Imaging Center, Hospital Clínico Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile. b. Radiology Service, Hospital de Niños Roberto del Río, Santiago, Chile. Abstract: Knee pathology is a reason for consultation and a prevalent condition in children, which is why it is important to know both the normal variants as well as the most frequent pathologies. In this review a brief description is given of the main pathologies and normal variants that affect the knee in children, not only the main clinical characteristics but also the findings described in the different, most used imaging techniques (X-ray, ultrasound, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]). Keywords: Knee; Paediatrics; Bone lesions. Introduction posteromedial distal femoral metaphysis, near the Pediatric knee imaging studies are used to evaluate insertion site of the medial twin muscle or adductor different conditions, whether traumatic, inflammatory, magnus1. It is a common finding on radiography and developmental or neoplastic. magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), incidental, with At a younger age the normal evolution of the more frequency between ages 10-15 years, although images during the skeletal development of the distal it can be present at any age until the physeal closure, femur, proximal tibia and proximal fibula should be after which it resolves1. In frontal radiography, it ap- known to avoid diagnostic errors. Older children and pears as a radiolucent, well circumscribed, cortical- adolescents present a higher frequency of traumatic based lesion with no associated soft tissue mass, with and athletic injuries.
    [Show full text]
  • Hand Bone Age: a Digital Atlas of Skeletal Maturity
    V. Gilsanz/O. Ratib · Hand Bone Age Vicente Gilsanz · Osman Ratib Hand Bone Age A Digital Atlas of Skeletal Maturity With 88 Figures Vicente Gilsanz, M.D., Ph.D. Department of Radiology Childrens Hospital Los Angeles 4650 Sunset Blvd., MS#81 Los Angeles, CA 90027 Osman Ratib, M.D., Ph.D. Department of Radiology David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA 100 Medical Plaza Los Angeles, CA 90095 This eBook does not include ancillary media that was packaged with the printed version of the book. ISBN 3-540-20951-4 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New York Library of Congress Control Number: 2004114078 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilm or in any other way, and storage in data banks. Duplication of this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the German Copyright Law of September 9, 1965, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer-Verlag. Violations are liable to prosecution under the German Copyright Law. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New York Springer is a part of Springer Science+Business Media http://www.springeronline.com A Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005 Printed in Germany The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from therelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse. Product liability: The publishers cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information about the application of operative techniques and medications contained in this book.
    [Show full text]
  • Ossification Center of the Humeral Shaft in the Human Fetus: a CT, Digital, and Statistical Study
    Surg Radiol Anat DOI 10.1007/s00276-017-1849-4 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Ossification center of the humeral shaft in the human fetus: a CT, digital, and statistical study Marcin Wiśniewski1 · Mariusz Baumgart1 · Magdalena Grzonkowska1 · Bogdan Małkowski2 · Arnika Wilińska‑Jankowska3 · Zygmunt Siedlecki4 · Michał Szpinda1 Received: 20 September 2016 / Accepted: 16 March 2017 © The Author(s) 2017. This article is an open access publication Abstract diameter, y = −10.037 + 4.648 × ln (age) ± 0.560 for its dis- Purpose The knowledge of the development of the tal transverse diameter, y = −146.601 + 11.237 × age ± 19.9 humeral shaft ossification center may be useful both in 07 for its projection surface area, and y = 121.159 + 0.001 × determining the fetal stage and maturity and for detecting (age)4 ± 102.944 for its volume. congenital disorders, as well. This study was performed to Conclusions With no sex differences, the ossification quantitatively examine the humeral shaft ossification center center of the humeral shaft grows logarithmically with with respect to its linear, planar, and volumetric parameters. respect to its length and transverse diameters, linearly with Materials and method Using methods of CT, digital respect to its projection surface area, and fourth-degree image analysis, and statistics, the size of the humeral shaft polynomially with respect to its volume. The obtained mor- ossification center in 48 spontaneously aborted human phometric data of the humeral shaft ossification center are fetuses aged 17–30 weeks was studied. considered normative for respective prenatal weeks and Results With no sex differences, the best-fit growth may be of relevance in both the estimation of fetal ages and dynamics for the humeral shaft ossification center was mod- the ultrasonic diagnostics of congenital defects.
    [Show full text]
  • Hip Joint: Embryology, Anatomy and Biomechanics
    ISSN: 2574-1241 Volume 5- Issue 4: 2018 DOI: 10.26717/BJSTR.2018.12.002267 Ahmed Zaghloul. Biomed J Sci & Tech Res Review Article Open Access Hip Joint: Embryology, Anatomy and Biomechanics Ahmed Zaghloul1* and Elalfy M Mohamed2 1Assistant Lecturer, Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura University, Egypt 2Domenstrator, Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura University, Egypt Received: : December 11, 2018; Published: : December 20, 2018 *Corresponding author: Ahmed Zaghloul, Assistant Lecturer, Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura University, Egypt Abstract Introduction: Hip joint is matchless developmentally, anatomically and physiologically. It avails both mobility and stability. As the structural linkage between the axial skeleton and lower limbs, it plays a pivotal role in transmitting forces from the ground up and carrying forces from the trunk, head, neck and upper limbs down. This Article reviews the embryology, anatomy and biomechanics of the hip to give a hand in diagnosis, evaluation and treatment of hip disorders. Discussion: Exact knowledge about development, anatomy and biomechanics of hip joint has been a topic of interest and debate in literature dating back to at least middle of 18th century, as Hip joint is liable for several number of pediatric and adult disorders. The proper acting of the hip counts on the normal development and congruence of the articular surfaces of the femoral head (ball) and the acetabulum (socket). It withstands enormous loads from muscular, gravitational and joint reaction forces inherent in weight bearing. Conclusion: The clinician must be familiar with the normal embryological, anatomical and biomechanical features of the hip joint.
    [Show full text]
  • Bone Development Histology Fundamentals > Musculoskeletal System > Musculoskeletal System
    Bone Development Histology Fundamentals > Musculoskeletal System > Musculoskeletal System BONE DEVELOPMENT: OSTEOGENESIS (OSSIFICATION)  Endochondral ossification • An INDIRECT form of ossification, wherein a hyaline cartilaginous model (template) is replaced with bone, such as occurs with long bones (eg, the femur). Intramembranous ossification • A DIRECT form of ossification mesenchymal cells directly differentiate to osteoblasts (no cartilaginous model is first formed), such as occurs with flat bones (the skull bones). INTRAMEMBRANOUS OSSIFICATION  • Embryologically, skeletal tissues typically derive from mesoderm: the midline (axial) skeleton derives from the somites and the appendicular (the limb) skeleton derives from the lateral plate. • Mesenchymal cells migrate to vascularized gelatinous extracellular collagen fiber matrix (a primary spongiosa). • They differentiate directly into osteoblasts. • Osteoblasts form bone in a loosely arranged (disorganized), immature initial form of bone, called woven bone. • Osteoblasts become trapped within their own bony matrix and become osteocytes; these bony matrices are referred to as trabeculae (aka fused spicules). • Woven bone later matures to form lamellar bone, a much tougher form of bone that constitutes both compact bone and spongy bone. Compact Bone • The outer layer: the periosteum. - Comprises columns of compact bone, called osteons. - Centrally, within each osteon, lies a longitudinally-oriented canal, the Haversian (aka central) canal. - Each osteon comprises concentric rings of lamellae. - Osteocytes are a mature form of osteoblast (the bone-producing cells) within the bony matrix. - Internal to the compact bone, lies the endosteum, which comprises in inner circumferential lamellae and the 1 / 7 osteoprogenitor cells, internal to it. Spongy bone* Lies internal to the endosteum and comprises a network of lamellae that do NOT form the Haversian channels and osteons found in compact bone.
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Comparison Table (Pdf
    Species comparison of stages_full text CfS dog (Travis, Meyers-Wallen) TS mouse (reference: Theiler) 1-20 hrs CS human (reference: O'Rahilly & Miller) CfS 1 Litters: TM_ IVF_090, d6 TS 1 Theiler stage characterized by CS 1 Carnegie stage gamete or One cell oocyte in oviduct One celled egg Ovulated oocyte to unicellular zygote zygote (Primary oocyte) Begins with fertilization of egg in metaphase stage of the prior to first cleavage meiotic second maturation division Male and female pronuclei present at 20 hrs CfS 1 vs TS 1 Page 1 Species comparison of stages_full text CfS dog (Travis, Meyers-Wallen) TS mouse (reference: Theiler) 1-20 hrs CS human (reference: O'Rahilly & Miller) CfS 2 Litters: TM_ IVF_090, d8 TS 2 Theiler stage characterized by CS 2 Carnegie stage gamete or Zygote at 2 cell stage Beginning of zygote segmentation Zygotes at 2 cells or more, but zygote Starts with completion of first cleavage division, ends not including blastocyst stage with zygotes at 2 cell stage maximum CfS 2 vs TS 2 Page 2 Species comparison of stages_full text CfS dog (Travis, Meyers-Wallen) TS mouse (reference: Theiler) 2 dpc CS human (reference: O'Rahilly & Miller) CfS 3 Litters: TM_ IVF_090, d8-9 TS 3 Theiler stage characterized by CS 2 Carnegie stage gamete or Zygotes at 4-16 cell stage morulae Advanced segmenting embryos, morulae Zygotes at 2 cells or more, but zygote but morulae have no cavity present Includes zygotes from 2 cells to 16 cell morulae not including blastocyst stage between cells but no cavity present between cells of morulae CfS
    [Show full text]
  • How Do Digits Emerge? -‐ Mathematical Models of Limb
    How do digits emerge? - Mathematical Models of Limb Development Dagmar Iber1,2,*, Philipp Germann1 Affiliations: 1 - Department of Biosystems, Science and Engineering (D-BSSE), ETH Zurich, Mattenstraße 26, 4058 Basel, Switzerland 2 - Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics (SIB), Switzerland * Corresponding Author and Contact Person for Reprint Requests: Dagmar Iber Department for Biosystems, Science, and Engineering (D-BSSE), ETH Zurich Mattenstraße 26 4058 Basel Switzerland Tel + 41 61 387 3210 Fax + 41 61 387 31 94 [email protected] Keywords: Limb Development, Endochondral Ossification, Turing Pattern, Computational Biology Word count: 6000 words This is the pre-peer reviewed version of the same article published in: Birth Defects Research Part C: Embryo Today: Reviews ABSTRACT (146) The mechanism that controls digit formation has long intrigued developmental and theoretical biologists, and many different models and mechanisms have been proposed. Here we review models of limb development with a specific focus on digit and long bone formation. Decades of experiments have revealed the basic signalling circuits that control limb development, and recent advances in imaging and molecular technologies provide us with unprecedented spatial detail and a broader view on the regulatory networks. Computational approaches are important to integrate the available information into a consistent framework that will allow us to achieve a deeper level of understanding and that will help with the future planning and interpretation of complex experiments, paving the way to in silico genetics. Previous models of development had to be focused on very few, simple regulatory interactions. Algorithmic developments and increasing computing power now enable the generation and validation of increasingly realistic models that can be used to test old theories and uncover new mechanisms.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantitative Anatomy of the Primary Ossification Center in the Fetal Pubis
    Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy (2019) 41:755–761 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-019-02229-4 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Quantitative anatomy of the primary ossifcation center in the fetal pubis bone Mariusz Baumgart1 · Marcin Wiśniewski1 · Magdalena Grzonkowska1 · Mateusz Badura1 · Michał Szpinda1 · Katarzyna Pawlak‑Osińska2 Received: 9 November 2018 / Accepted: 22 March 2019 / Published online: 29 March 2019 © The Author(s) 2019 Abstract Purposes Skeletodysplasiae and hereditary dysostoses constitute a group of over 350 disorders of the skeletal system. Knowledge about development of the pubic primary ossifcation center may be useful in both determining the fetal stage and maturity, and for detecting congenital disorders. The present study was performed to quantitatively examine the pubic primary ossifcation center with respect to its linear, planar, and volumetric parameters. Materials and methods Using methods of computed tomography (CT), digital-image analysis and statistics, the size of the pubic primary ossifcation center in 33 spontaneously aborted human fetuses (18 males and 15 females) aged 22–30 weeks was studied. Results With no sex and laterality diferences, the best-ft growth dynamics for the pubic primary ossifcation center was modeled by the following functions: y = − 13.694 + 0.728 × age ± 0.356 for its sagittal diameter, y = − 3.350 + 0.218 × age ± 0.159 for its vertical diameter, y = − 61.415 + 2.828 × age ± 1.519 for its projection surface area, and y = − 65.801 + 3.17 3 × age ± 2.149 for its volume. Conclusions The size of the pubic primary ossifcation center shows neither sex nor laterality diferences. The growth dynamics of the vertical and sagittal diameters, projection surface area, and volume of the pubic ossifcation centers follow proportionately to fetal age.
    [Show full text]