ArticleJournal of anatomy2021
Anatomical comparison across heads, fore- and hindlimbs in mammals using network models.
Article in Journal of anatomy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Functional Differences in Muscle Architecture Across the Pelvis and Hind Limb of Primates.American journal of biological anthropology · 2026Article
- The neuropathy-causingbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Anatomical description of the jaw muscles and theoretical bite force assessment in South American opossums using manual and digital dissection methods.Journal of anatomy · 2026Article
- Topological and variational modularity: A case study using the pectoral girdle across the Chrosomus eos-neogaeus hybridization complex.Anatomical record (Hoboken, N.J. : 2007) · 2026Article
- Anatomical network modules of the human central nervous-craniofacial skeleton system.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
- Convergence, divergence, and macroevolutionary constraint as revealed by anatomical network analysis of the squamate skull, with an emphasis on snakes.Scientific reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Animal body parts evolve with variable degrees of integration that nonetheless yield functional adult phenotypes: but, how? The analysis of modularity with Anatomical Network Analysis (AnNA) is used to quantitatively determine phenotypic modules based on the physical connection among anatomical elements, an approach that is valuable to understand developmental and evolutionary constraints. We created anatomical network models of the head, forelimb, and hindlimb of two taxa considered to represent a 'generalized' eutherian (placental: mouse) and metatherian (marsupial: opossum) anatomical configuration and compared them with our species, which has a derived eutherian configuration. In these models, nodes represent anatomical units and links represent their physical connection. Here, we aimed to identify: (1) the commonalities and differences in modularity between species, (2) whether modules present a potential phylogenetic character, and (3) whether modules preferentially reflect either developmental or functional aspects of anatomy, or a mix of both. We predicted differences between networks of metatherian and eutherian mammals that would best be explained by functional constraints, versus by constraints of development and/or phylogeny. The topology of contacts between bones, muscles, and bones + muscles showed that, among all three species, skeletal networks were more similar than musculoskeletal networks. There was no clear indication that humans and mice are more alike when compared to the opossum overall, even though their musculoskeletal and skeletal networks of fore- and hindlimbs are slightly more similar. Differences were greatest among musculoskeletal networks of heads and next of forelimbs, which showed more variation than hindlimbs, supporting previous anatomical studies indicating that in general the configuration of the hindlimbs changes less across evolutionary history. Most observations regarding the anatomical networks seem to be best explained by function, but an exception is the adult opossum ear ossicles. These ear bones might form an independent module because the incus and malleus are involved in forming a functional primary jaw that enables the neonate to attach to the teat, where this newborn will complete its development. Additionally, the human data show a specialized digit 1 module (thumb/big toe) in both limb types, likely the result of functional and evolutionary pressures, as our ape ancestors had highly movable big toes and thumbs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.