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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Kaitlyn C. Leonard, Nikole Worden, Marissa L. Boettcher, Edwin Dickinson, Kailey M. Omstead, Anne M. Burrows, Adam Hartstone-Rose
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Nature Publishing Group 2021-01-01
Series:Scientific Reports
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81489-w
id doaj-3fad88c458c0475da1a12f81e79371ac
record_format Article
spelling doaj-3fad88c458c0475da1a12f81e79371ac2021-01-24T12:30:31ZengNature Publishing GroupScientific Reports2045-23222021-01-0111111110.1038/s41598-021-81489-wAnatomical and ontogenetic influences on muscle densityKaitlyn C. Leonard0Nikole Worden1Marissa L. Boettcher2Edwin Dickinson3Kailey M. Omstead4Anne M. Burrows5Adam Hartstone-Rose6Department of Biological Science, North Carolina State UniversityDepartment of Biological Science, North Carolina State UniversityCollege of Medicine, Medical University of South CarolinaDepartment of Biological Science, North Carolina State UniversityDepartment of Physical Therapy, Duquesne UniversityDepartment of Physical Therapy, Duquesne UniversityDepartment of Biological Science, North Carolina State UniversityAbstract 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.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81489-w
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Kaitlyn C. Leonard
Nikole Worden
Marissa L. Boettcher
Edwin Dickinson
Kailey M. Omstead
Anne M. Burrows
Adam Hartstone-Rose
spellingShingle 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
Scientific Reports
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 Publishing Group
series Scientific Reports
issn 2045-2322
publishDate 2021-01-01
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.
url https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81489-w
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_ 1724325666294333440