Osteoporosis International

, Volume 22, Issue 6, pp 1967–1980 | Cite as

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

Original Article

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.

Keywords

Bone adaptation Bone fragility Evolution simulation Hunter–gatherer Physical activity 

Notes

Acknowledgements

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

Conflicts of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Ruff CB (2005) Mechanical determinants of bone form: insights from skeletal remains. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact 5:202–212PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 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 64:125–136PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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 YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. 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 17:231–236PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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:326–329Google Scholar
  6. 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:e199PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Booth FW, Lees SJ (2007) Fundamental questions about genes, inactivity, and chronic diseases. Physiol Genomics 28:146–157PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 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 115:337–348PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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 94:508–514Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nowlan NC, Prendergast PJ (2005) Evolution of mechanoregulation of bone growth will lead to non-optimal bone phenotypes. J Theor Biol 235:408–418PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Currey JD, Pitchford JW, Baxter PD (2007) Variability of the mechanical properties of bone, and its evolutionary consequences. J R Soc Interface 4:127–135PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Roberts JAF, Pembrey ME (1985) An introduction to medical genetics. Oxford, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Currey JD, Alexander RM (1985) The thickness of the walls of tubular bones. J Zool 206:453–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kislev ME, Hartmann A, Bar-Yosef O (2006) Early domesticated fig in the Jordan Valley. Science 312:1372–1374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cook DC, Buikstra JE (1979) Health and differential survival in prehistoric populations: prenatal dental defects. Am J Phys Anthropol 51:649–664PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Taylor SJG, Walker PS (2001) Forces and moments telemetered from two distal femoral replacements during various activities. J Biomech 34:839–848PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McCammon RW (1970) Human growth and development. Charles C Thomas, SpringfieldGoogle Scholar
  18. 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 83:342–353PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Martin RB, Burr DB, Sharkey NA (1998) Skeletal tissue mechanics. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Spatz HC, Oleary EJ, Vincent JFV (1996) Young's moduli and shear moduli in cortical bone. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 263:287–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Prendergast PJ, Taylor D (1994) Prediction of bone adaptation using damage accumulation. J Biomech 27:1067–1076PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Carter DR, van der Meulen MCH, Beaupre GS (1996) Mechanical factors in bone growth and development. Bone 18:S5–S10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Duda GN, Heller M, Albinger J, Schulz O, Schneider E, Claes L (1998) Influence of muscle forces on femoral strain distribution. J Biomech 31:841–846PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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 5:1243–1253PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Garn SM (1970) The earlier gain and the later loss of cortical bone, in nutritional perspective. Charles C Thomas, SpringfieldGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Currey JD, Butler G (1975) Mechanical properties of bone tissue in children. J Bone Joint Surg Am 57:810–814PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 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 23:236–246PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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 20:1983–1991PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jepsen KJ, Courtland HW, Nadeau JH (2010) Genetically determined phenotype covariation networks control bone strength. J Bone Miner Res 25:1581–1593PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Agarwal SC, Grynpas MD (1996) Bone quantity and quality in past populations. Anat Rec 246:423–432PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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 89–91Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ekenman I, Eriksson SAV, Lindgren JU (1995) Bone density in medieval skeletons. Calcif Tissue Int 56:355–358PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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 37:1–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    van der Meulen MC, Beaupré GS, Carter DR (1993) Mechanobiologic influences in long bone cross-sectional growth. Bone 14:635–642PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Larsen CS (1995) Biological changes in human-populations with agriculture. Annu Rev Anthropol 24:185–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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 303:611–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Komlos J, Lauderdale B (2007) The mysterious trend in American heights in the 20th century. Ann Hum Biol 34:206–215PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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 129:393PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringBoston UniversityBostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biomedical EngineeringBoston UniversityBostonUSA
  3. 3.Department of OrthopaedicsMount Sinai School of MedicineNew YorkUSA
  4. 4.EMBL-CRG Systems Biology UnitCentre for Genomic Regulation (CRG)BarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations