Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33593183›Full record

ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2021

Evolutionary biomechanics: hard tissues and soft evidence?

Sarah Broyde, Matthew Dempsey, Linjie Wang, Philip G Cox, Michael Fagan, Karl T Bates

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. From fibre to function: are we accurately representing muscle architecture and performance?Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2022
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Evolutionary biomechanics: hard tissues and soft evidence?Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Sarah BroydeDepartment of Musculoskeletal Biology, Institute of Aging and Chronic Disease, University of Liverpool, The William Henry Duncan Building, 6 West Derby Street, Liverpool L7 8TX, UK.
Matthew DempseyDepartment of Musculoskeletal Biology, Institute of Aging and Chronic Disease, University of Liverpool, The William Henry Duncan Building, 6 West Derby Street, Liverpool L7 8TX, UK.
Linjie WangDepartment of Engineering, University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, UK.
Philip G CoxDepartment of Archaeology, University of York, PalaeoHub, Wentworth Way, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, UK.
Michael FaganDepartment of Engineering, University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, UK.
Karl T BatesDepartment of Musculoskeletal Biology, Institute of Aging and Chronic Disease, University of Liverpool, The William Henry Duncan Building, 6 West Derby Street, Liverpool L7 8TX, UK.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/R016380/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/R016917/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/R017190/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biomechanical modelling is a powerful tool for quantifying the evolution of functional performance in extinct animals to understand key anatomical innovations and selective pressures driving major evolutionary radiations. However, the fossil record is composed predominantly of hard parts, forcing palaeontologists to reconstruct soft tissue properties in such models. Rarely are these reconstruction approaches validated on extant animals, despite soft tissue properties being highly determinant of functional performance. The extent to which soft tissue reconstructions and biomechanical models accurately predict quantitative or even qualitative patterns in macroevolutionary studies is therefore unknown. Here, we modelled the masticatory system in extant rodents to objectively test the ability of current muscle reconstruction methods to correctly identify quantitative and qualitative differences between macroevolutionary morphotypes. Baseline models generated using measured soft tissue properties yielded differences in muscle proportions, bite force, and bone stress expected between extant sciuromorph, myomorph, and hystricomorph rodents. However, predictions from models generated using reconstruction methods typically used in fossil studies varied widely from high levels of quantitative accuracy to a failure to correctly capture even relative differences between macroevolutionary morphotypes. Our novel experiment emphasizes that correctly reconstructing even qualitative differences between taxa in a macroevolutionary radiation is challenging using current methods. Future studies of fossil taxa should incorporate systematic assessments of reconstruction error into their hypothesis testing and, moreover, seek to expand primary datasets on muscle properties in extant taxa to better inform soft tissue reconstructions in macroevolutionary studies.

Indexed as

Bite ForceFossilsAnimalsBiological EvolutionBiomechanical PhenomenaBiophysicsbiomechanicsfinite element analysismacroevolutionmulti-body dynamicsrodent mastication

Identifiers

PMID33593183
PMCPMC7935025

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.