Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Smaller, weaker, and less stiff bones evolve from changes in subsistence strategy

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Osteoporosis International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Summary

We propose a computational model with which to examine the evolution of bone. Our results indicate that changes in subsistence strategy have influenced the evolution of bone growth and mechanoregulation, and predict that bone size, stiffness, and structural strength may decrease in future generations, bringing increased risk of fracture and prevalence of osteoporosis.

Introduction

Archeological data suggest that bone size and strength have decreased over evolution. We hypothesize that changing evolutionary pressures and levels of physical activity, both arising from changes in subsistence strategy, have affected the evolution of bone. We propose a computational model with which to examine the evolution of bone growth and mechanoregulation due to the transitions from hunter–gatherer to agricultural to modern lifestyles.

Methods

The evolution of genes governing growth and mechanoregulation in a population of bones is simulated, where each individual is represented by a 2-D bone cross-section. Genetic variability is assumed to modulate growth through mechanoregulatory factors that direct periosteal expansion, endosteal expansion/infilling, and ash content accretion in response to strains incurred during walking.

Results

The model predicts decreases in cortical area and section modulus (a measure of structural strength) and increases in maximum compressive strain over the course of the simulation, meaning evolution of smaller, less strong, and less stiff bones is predicted for the population average. The model predicts small but continued decreases in size, strength, and stiffness in modern populations, despite the absence of a strong evolutionary advantage to efficient bones during this phase.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our results show that changing loading regimes and evolutionary pressures may have influenced the evolution of bone growth and mechanoregulation, and predict that bone size and strength may continue to decrease in future generations, bringing increased risk of fracture and prevalence of osteoporosis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ruff CB (2005) Mechanical determinants of bone form: insights from skeletal remains. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact 5:202–212

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Ruff CB, Larsen CS, Hayes WC (1984) Structural changes in the femur with the transition to agriculture on the Georgia coast. Am J Phys Anthropol 64:125–136

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Martin RB (2003) Functional adaptation and fragility of the skeleton. In: Agarwal SC, Stout SD (eds) Bone loss and osteoporosis: an anthropological perspective. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  4. Szulc P, Duboeuf F, Schott AM, Dargent-Molina P, Meunier PJ, Delmas PD (2006) Structural determinants of hip fracture in elderly women: re-analysis of the data from the EPIDOS study. Osteoporos Int 17:231–236

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Giladi M, Milgrom C, Simkin A, Stein M, Kashtan H, Margulies J, Rand N, Chisin R, Steinberg R, Aharonson Z, Kedem R, Frankel V (1987) Stress fractures and tibial bone width. A risk factor. J Bone Jt Surg 69-B:326–329

    Google Scholar 

  6. Michaelsson K, Olofsson H, Jensevik K, Larsson S, Mallmin H, Berglund L, Vessby B, Melhus H (2007) Leisure physical activity and the risk of fracture in men. PLoS Med 4:e199

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Booth FW, Lees SJ (2007) Fundamental questions about genes, inactivity, and chronic diseases. Physiol Genomics 28:146–157

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Stock J, Pfeiffer S (2001) Linking structural variability in long bone diaphyses to habitual behaviors: foragers from the southern African Later Stone Age and the Andaman Islands. Am J Phys Anthropol 115:337–348

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Ruff CB (2006) Gracilization of the modern human skeleton—The latent strength in our slender bones teaches lessons about human lives, current and past. Am Sci 94:508–514

    Google Scholar 

  10. Nowlan NC, Prendergast PJ (2005) Evolution of mechanoregulation of bone growth will lead to non-optimal bone phenotypes. J Theor Biol 235:408–418

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Currey JD, Pitchford JW, Baxter PD (2007) Variability of the mechanical properties of bone, and its evolutionary consequences. J R Soc Interface 4:127–135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Roberts JAF, Pembrey ME (1985) An introduction to medical genetics. Oxford, New York

    Google Scholar 

  13. Currey JD, Alexander RM (1985) The thickness of the walls of tubular bones. J Zool 206:453–468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kislev ME, Hartmann A, Bar-Yosef O (2006) Early domesticated fig in the Jordan Valley. Science 312:1372–1374

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Cook DC, Buikstra JE (1979) Health and differential survival in prehistoric populations: prenatal dental defects. Am J Phys Anthropol 51:649–664

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Taylor SJG, Walker PS (2001) Forces and moments telemetered from two distal femoral replacements during various activities. J Biomech 34:839–848

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. McCammon RW (1970) Human growth and development. Charles C Thomas, Springfield

    Google Scholar 

  18. Courtland HW, Nasser P, Goldstone AB, Spevak L, Boskey AL, Jepsen KJ (2008) Fourier transform infrared imaging microspectroscopy and tissue-level mechanical testing reveal intraspecies variation in mouse bone mineral and matrix composition. Calcif Tissue Int 83:342–353

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Martin RB, Burr DB, Sharkey NA (1998) Skeletal tissue mechanics. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  20. Spatz HC, Oleary EJ, Vincent JFV (1996) Young's moduli and shear moduli in cortical bone. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 263:287–294

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Prendergast PJ, Taylor D (1994) Prediction of bone adaptation using damage accumulation. J Biomech 27:1067–1076

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Carter DR, van der Meulen MCH, Beaupre GS (1996) Mechanical factors in bone growth and development. Bone 18:S5–S10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Duda GN, Heller M, Albinger J, Schulz O, Schneider E, Claes L (1998) Influence of muscle forces on femoral strain distribution. J Biomech 31:841–846

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Mulvihill BM, McNamara LM, Prendergast PJ (2008) Loss of trabeculae by mechano-biological means may explain rapid bone loss in osteoporosis. J R Soc Interface 5:1243–1253

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Garn SM (1970) The earlier gain and the later loss of cortical bone, in nutritional perspective. Charles C Thomas, Springfield

    Google Scholar 

  26. Currey JD, Butler G (1975) Mechanical properties of bone tissue in children. J Bone Joint Surg Am 57:810–814

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Tommasini SM, Nasser P, Hu B, Jepsen KJ (2008) Biological co-adaptation of morphological and composition traits contributes to mechanical functionality and skeletal fragility. J Bone Miner Res 23:236–246

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Price C, Herman B, Lufkin T, Goldman H, Jepsen K (2005) Genetic variation in bone growth patterns defines adult mouse bone fragility. J Bone Miner Res 20:1983–1991

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Jepsen KJ, Courtland HW, Nadeau JH (2010) Genetically determined phenotype covariation networks control bone strength. J Bone Miner Res 25:1581–1593

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Agarwal SC, Grynpas MD (1996) Bone quantity and quality in past populations. Anat Rec 246:423–432

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Bennike P, Bohr H (1990) Bone mineral content in the past and present. In: Christiansen C, Overgaard K (eds) Osteoporosis 1990: proceedings of the 3 rd international symposium on osteoporosis. Osteopress Aps, Copenhagen, pp 89–91

    Google Scholar 

  32. Ekenman I, Eriksson SAV, Lindgren JU (1995) Bone density in medieval skeletons. Calcif Tissue Int 56:355–358

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Trinkaus E, Stringer CB, Ruff CB, Hennessy RJ, Roberts MB, Parfitt SA (1999) Diaphyseal cross-sectional geometry of the Boxgrove 1 Middle Pleistocene human tibia. J Hum Evol 37:1–25

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. van der Meulen MC, Beaupré GS, Carter DR (1993) Mechanobiologic influences in long bone cross-sectional growth. Bone 14:635–642

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Larsen CS (1995) Biological changes in human-populations with agriculture. Annu Rev Anthropol 24:185–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Habicht J, Yarbrough C, Martorell R, Malina R, Klein R (1974) Height and weight standards for preschool children: how relevant are ethnic differences in growth potential? Lancet 303:611–615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Komlos J, Lauderdale B (2007) The mysterious trend in American heights in the 20th century. Ann Hum Biol 34:206–215

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Hyldstrup L, Andersen T, McNair P, Breum L (1993) Bone metabolism in obesity: changes related to severe overweight and dietary weight reduction. Acta Endocrinol 129:393

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Professors Patrick Prendergast and Roberto Fajardo for their advice on this study.

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Boston University, 110 Cummington Street, Boston, MA, 02215, USA

    N. C. Nowlan & E. F. Morgan

  2. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Boston University, 44 Cummington Street, Boston, MA, 02215, USA

    E. F. Morgan

  3. Department of Orthopaedics, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, One Gustave L. Levy Place, Box 1188, New York, NY, 10029, USA

    K. J. Jepsen

  4. EMBL-CRG Systems Biology Unit, Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG), Dr. Aiguader, 88, 08003, Barcelona, Spain

    N. C. Nowlan

Authors
  1. N. C. Nowlan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. K. J. Jepsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. E. F. Morgan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to N. C. Nowlan.

Additional information

Funding Sources

NCN has received funding from the Fulbright Program and the Irish Research Council for Science, Engineering and Technology. This work was partially supported by the NIH (AR44927, AR56639).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nowlan, N.C., Jepsen, K.J. & Morgan, E.F. Smaller, weaker, and less stiff bones evolve from changes in subsistence strategy. Osteoporos Int 22, 1967–1980 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-010-1390-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-010-1390-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation