Histomorphometric, fractal and lacunarity comparative analysis of sheep (Ovis aries), goat (Capra hircus) and roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) compact bone samples

• Autorzy: Gudea A.I. , Stefan A. C.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Quantitative and qualitative studies dealing with histomorphometry of the bone tissue play a new role in modern legal medicine/forensic medicine and archaeozoology nowadays. This study deals with the differences found in case of humerus and metapodial bones of recent sheep (Ovis aries), goat (Capra hircus) and roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) specimens, both from a qualitative point of view, but mainly from a quantitative perspective. A novel perspective given by the fractal analysis performed on the digital histological images is approached. This study shows that the qualitative assessment may not be a reliable one due to the close resemblance of the structures. From the quantitative perspective (several measurements performed on osteonal units and statistical processing of data), some of the elements measured show significant differences among 3 species (the primary osteonal diameter, etc.). The fractal analysis and the lacunarity of the images show a great deal of potential, proving that this type of analysis can be of great help in the separation of the material from this perspective. (Folia Morphol 2013; 72, 3: 239–248)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

histomorphometry; fractal analysis; lacunarity comparative analysis; sheep; Ovis aries; goat; Capra hircus; roe deer; Capreolus capreolus; compact bone sample

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Folia Morphologica
• Rocznik: 2013
• Tom: 72
• Numer: 3
• Opis fizyczny: p.239-248,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Gudea A.I.

• Department of Comparative Anatomy, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine, Cluj Napoca, 3-5 Manaștur str., 400372, Romania

autor

Stefan A. C.

• Department of Pathophysiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine, Cluj Napoca, 3-5 Manaștur str., 400372, Romania

Bibliografia

• 1. Byron CD (2006) Role of the osteoclast in cranial suture waveform patterning. Anatom Record, Part A: 552–563.
• 2. Cattaneo C, Porta D, Gibelli D, Gambe C (2009) Histological determination of the human origin of bone fragments. J Forensic Sciences, 54: 531–533.
• 3. Crowder C, Stout S (2011) Bone histology: an anthropological perspective [Internet]. CRC Press. Available from: http://books.google.ro/books?id=nS7P8-2UpUEC.
• 4. Cuijpers AGFM (2006) Histological identification of bone fragments in archaeology: telling humans apart from horses and cattle. Intern J Osteoarchaeol, 16: 456–480.
• 5. Cuijpers AGFM (2009) Distinguishing between the bone fragments of medium-sized mammals and children. A histological identification method for archaeology. Antropol Anz, 67: 181–203.
• 6. Cuijpers AGFM (2009) Species identification in archaeology [Internet]. PhD, aprox 150. Available from: www.ubvu.uv.nl/dissertations.
• 7. Cuijpers AGFM, Lauwerier RCGM (2008) Differentiating between bone fragments from horses and cattle: a histological identification method for archaeology. Environmental Archaeol, 13: 163–173.
• 8. Dammers K (2002) Using osteohistology for ageing and sexing. 9th ICAZ Conference-Recent Advances in Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones.
• 9. Dittmann K (2003) Histomorphometrische Untersuchung der Knochen mikrostruktur von Primaten und haustieren mit them Ziel der Speziesidentifikaton unter Berucksichtigung von Domestikationeffecten. Anthrop Anz, 61: 175–188.
• 10. Dittmann K, Grupe G, Manhart H, Peters J, Strott N (2008) Histomorphometry of mammalian and avian compact bone. Department Biologie, Facultat fur Biologie, Bereich Biodiversitatsforschung, Martinsreid, Germany.
• 11. Enlow DH, Brown SO (1956) A comparative histological study of fossil and recent bone tissues. Part II. Texas J Science, 8: 405–412.
• 12. Enlow DH, Brown SO (1957) A Comparative histological study of fossil and recent bone tissues. Part II. Texas J Science, 9: 186–214.
• 13. Enlow DH, Brown SO (1958) A Comparative histological study of fossil and recent bone tissues. Part III. Texas J Science, 10: 187–230.
• 14. Fazzalari NL, Parkinson NL (1996) Fractal dimension and the architecture of the trabecular bone. J Pathology, 178: 100–105.
• 15. Jowsey J (1996) Studies of Haversian systems in man and some animals. J Anat, 100: 857–864.
• 16. Landini G (2011) Fractals in microscopy [Internet]. J Microscopy, 241: 1–8. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2818.2010.03454.x.
• 17. Lasota-Moskalewska A, Moskalewski S (1982) Microscopic comparrison of bones from medieval domestic and wild pigs. Ossa, 7: 173–178.
• 18. Maat GJR, Van Den Bos RPM, Aarents JMJ (2001) Manual preparation of ground sections for the microscopy of natural bone tissue: update and modification of frost’s “rapid manual method”. Intern J Osteoarchaeol, 11: 366–374.
• 19. Mainland I, Schutkowski H, Thomson AF (2007) Macroand micromorphological features of lifestyle differences in pigs and wild boar. Anthopozoologica, 42: 89–105.
• 20. Martiniakova M, Grosskopf B, Omelka R, Dammers K, Vondrakova M, Bauerova M (2006) Histological study of compact bone tissue in some mammals: a method for species identification. Intern J Osteoarchaeol, 17: 82–90.
• 21. Martiniakova M, Grosskopf B, Omelka R, Vondrakova M, Bauerova M (2006) Differences among species in compact bone tissue microstructure of mammalian skeleton: use of a discriminat function analysis for species identification. J Forensic Sci, 51: 1235–1239.
• 22. Martiniakova M, Grosskopf B, Omelka R, Vondrakova M, Bauerova M (2006) Histological analysis of ovine compact bone tissue. J Vet Med Sci, 69: 409–411.
• 23. Mori R, Kodaka T, Soeta S, Sato J, Kakino J, Hamato S, Takaki H, Naito Y (2005) Preliminary Study of histological comparison on the growth pattern of long-bone cortex in young calf, pig and sheep. J Vet Med Sci, 67: 1223–1229.
• 24. Morris ZH (2007) Quantitative and spatial analysis of the microscopic bone structures od deer (Odocoileus virginianus) dog (Canis familiaris) and pig (Sus scrofa domestica). Department of Geography and Anthopology, Toronto.
• 25. Otton T, Da Silveira FRCS, Niterói R, Melo RHC, Lima RCF (2009) On Using lacunarity for diagnosis of breast diseases considering thermal images. In: Systems, Signals and Image Processing, 2009. IWSSIP 2009. 16th International Conference on Date of Conference: 18–20 June 2009.
• 26. Paral V, Witter K, Tonar Z (2007) Microscopic examination of ground sections- a simple method for distinguishing between bone and antler? Intern J Osteoarchaeol, 17: 627–634.
• 27. Parkinson IH, Fazzalari NL (2000) Methodological principles for fractal analysis of trabecular bone [Internet]. J Microscopy, 198: 134–142. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2818.2000.00684.x.
• 28. Rajtova V, Briancin J, Kokardova M (1995) Lamellar bone structure in small ruminats. Folia Veterinaria, 3–4: 123–126.
• 29. Senesi N, Wilkinson KJ (2008) Biophysical chemistry of fractal structures and processes in environmental systems. Wiley, Chicester.
• 30. Yasara F, Akgunlub F (2008) Evaluating mandibular cortical index quantitatively. Eur J Dentistry, 2: 283–290.
• 31. Zaia A, Eleonori R, Maponi P, Rossi R, Murri R (2005) Medical Imaging and osteoporosis: fractal’s lacunarity analysis of trabecular bone in MR images. Proceedings of the 18th IEEE Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems (CBMS’05).
• 32. Zaia A, Eleonori R, Maponi P, Rossi R, Murri R (2006) MR imaging and osteoporosis: fractal lacunarity analysis of trabecular bone. [Internet]. IEEE transactions on information technology in biomedicine. A publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 10: 484–489. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16871715.