Match!

Rethinking the nature of fibrolamellar bone: an integrative biological revision of sauropod plexiform bone formation

Published on Feb 1, 2014in Biological Reviews10.29
· DOI :10.1111/brv.12041
Koen Stein9
Estimated H-index: 9
(University of Bonn),
Edina Prondvai5
Estimated H-index: 5
(MTA: Hungarian Academy of Sciences)
Abstract
We present novel findings on sauropod bone histology that cast doubt on general palaeohistological concepts concerning the true nature of woven bone in primary cortical bone and its role in the rapid growth and giant body sizes of sauropod dinosaurs. By preparing and investigating longitudinal thin sections of sauropod long bones, of which transverse thin sections were published previously, we found that the amount of woven bone in the primary complex has been largely overestimated. Using comparative cellular and light-extinction characteristics in the two section planes, we revealed that the majority of the bony lamina consists of longitudinally organized primary bone, whereas woven bone is usually represented only by a layer a few cells thin in the laminae. Previous arguments on sauropod biology, which have been based on the overestimated amount, misinterpreted formation process and misjudged role of woven bone in the plexiform bone formation of sauropod dinosaurs, are thereby rejected. To explain the observed pattern in fossil bones, we review the most recent advances in bone biology concerning bone formation processes at the cellular and tissue levels. Differentiation between static and dynamic osteogenesis (SO and DO) and the revealed characteristics of SO- versus DO-derived bone tissues shed light on several questions raised by our palaeohistological results and permit identification of these bone tissues in fossils with high confidence. By presenting the methods generally used for investigating fossil bones, we show that the major cause of overestimation of the amount of woven bone in previous palaeohistological studies is the almost exclusive usage of transverse sections. In these sections, cells and crystallites of the longitudinally organized primary bone are cut transversely, thus cells appear rounded and crystallites remain dark under crossed plane polarizers, thereby giving the false impression of woven bone. In order to avoid further confusion in palaeohistological studies, we introduce new osteohistological terms as well as revise widely used but incorrect terminology. To infer the role of woven bone in the bone formation of fast-growing tetrapods, we review some aspects of the interrelationships between the vascularity of bone tissues, basal metabolic rate, body size and growth rate. By putting our findings into the context of osteogenesis, we provide a new model for the diametrical limb bone growth of sauropods and present new implications for the evolution of fast growth in vertebrates. Since biomechanical studies of bone tissues suggest that predominant collagen fibre orientation (CFO) is controlled by endogenous, functional and perhaps phylogenetic factors, the relationship between CFO and bone growth rate as defined by Amprino's rule, which has been the basis for the biological interpretation of several osteohistological features, must be revised. Our findings draw attention to the urgent need for revising widely accepted basic concepts of palaeohistological studies, and for a more integrative approach to bone formation, biomechanics and bone microstructural features of extant and extinct vertebrates to infer life history traits of long extinct, iconic animals like dinosaurs. © 2013 Cambridge Philosophical Society.
  • References (117)
  • Citations (51)
References117
Newest
#1Nicole Klein (University of Bonn)H-Index: 19
#2P Martinsander (University of Bonn)H-Index: 32
Last.Eric Buffetaut (CNRS: Centre national de la recherche scientifique)H-Index: 34
view all 6 authors...
#1Roger S. Seymour (University of Adelaide)H-Index: 41
#2Sarah L. Smith (University of Adelaide)H-Index: 1
Last.Daniela Schwarz-Wings (Humboldt University of Berlin)H-Index: 7
view all 5 authors...
#1Jorge Cubo (University of Paris)H-Index: 20
#2Nathalie Le Roy (University of Burgundy)H-Index: 9
Last.Laëtitia Montes (University of Paris)H-Index: 6
view all 4 authors...
#1Holly N. Woodward (MSU: Montana State University)H-Index: 7
#2John R. Horner (MSU: Montana State University)H-Index: 41
Last.James O. Farlow (Purdue University)H-Index: 25
view all 3 authors...
#1Michael Kerschnitzki (MPG: Max Planck Society)H-Index: 15
#2W. Wagermaier (MPG: Max Planck Society)H-Index: 13
Last.Peter Fratzl (MPG: Max Planck Society)H-Index: 83
view all 8 authors...
Cited By51
Newest
#1Edina Prondvai (UGent: Ghent University)H-Index: 8
#2Pascal Godefroit (Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences)H-Index: 20
Last.Dongyu Hu (Ministry of Land and Resources of the People's Republic of China)H-Index: 4
view all 4 authors...
#1Xiaoxue Bo (SNNU: Shaanxi Normal University)H-Index: 2
#2Minyao Wu (SNNU: Shaanxi Normal University)H-Index: 2
Last.Hongyuan Wang (SNNU: Shaanxi Normal University)H-Index: 8
view all 4 authors...
#1Roberto Toni (Tufts University)H-Index: 11
#1Kristof Veitschegger (UZH: University of Zurich)H-Index: 4
#2Christian Kolb (UZH: University of Zurich)H-Index: 7
Last.Marcelo R. Sánchez-Villagra (UZH: University of Zurich)H-Index: 32
view all 5 authors...
View next paperMicrostructure and Mineralization of Vertebrate Skeletal Tissues