Cargando…

Are endocasts good proxies for brain size and shape in archosaurs throughout ontogeny?

Cranial endocasts, or the internal molds of the braincase, are a crucial correlate for investigating the neuroanatomy of extinct vertebrates and tracking brain evolution through deep time. Nevertheless, the validity of such studies pivots on the reliability of endocasts as a proxy for brain morpholo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Watanabe, Akinobu, Gignac, Paul M., Balanoff, Amy M., Green, Todd L., Kley, Nathan J., Norell, Mark A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6365484/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30506962
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joa.12918
_version_ 1783393426388025344
author Watanabe, Akinobu
Gignac, Paul M.
Balanoff, Amy M.
Green, Todd L.
Kley, Nathan J.
Norell, Mark A.
author_facet Watanabe, Akinobu
Gignac, Paul M.
Balanoff, Amy M.
Green, Todd L.
Kley, Nathan J.
Norell, Mark A.
author_sort Watanabe, Akinobu
collection PubMed
description Cranial endocasts, or the internal molds of the braincase, are a crucial correlate for investigating the neuroanatomy of extinct vertebrates and tracking brain evolution through deep time. Nevertheless, the validity of such studies pivots on the reliability of endocasts as a proxy for brain morphology. Here, we employ micro‐computed tomography imaging, including diffusible iodine‐based contrast‐enhanced CT, and a three‐dimensional geometric morphometric framework to examine both size and shape differences between brains and endocasts of two exemplar archosaur taxa – the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) and the domestic chicken (Gallus gallus). With ontogenetic sampling, we quantitatively evaluate how endocasts differ from brains and whether this deviation changes during development. We find strong size and shape correlations between brains and endocasts, divergent ontogenetic trends in the brain‐to‐endocast correspondence between alligators and chickens, and a comparable magnitude between brain–endocast shape differences and intraspecific neuroanatomical variation. The results have important implications for paleoneurological studies in archosaurs. Notably, we demonstrate that the pattern of endocranial shape variation closely reflects brain shape variation. Therefore, analyses of endocranial morphology are unlikely to generate spurious conclusions about large‐scale trends in brain size and shape. To mitigate any artifacts, however, paleoneurological studies should consider the lower brain–endocast correspondence in the hindbrain relative to the forebrain; higher size and shape correspondences in chickens than alligators throughout postnatal ontogeny; artificially ‘pedomorphic’ shape of endocasts relative to their corresponding brains; and potential biases in both size and shape data due to the lack of control for ontogenetic stages in endocranial sampling.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6365484
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63654842019-02-15 Are endocasts good proxies for brain size and shape in archosaurs throughout ontogeny? Watanabe, Akinobu Gignac, Paul M. Balanoff, Amy M. Green, Todd L. Kley, Nathan J. Norell, Mark A. J Anat Original Articles Cranial endocasts, or the internal molds of the braincase, are a crucial correlate for investigating the neuroanatomy of extinct vertebrates and tracking brain evolution through deep time. Nevertheless, the validity of such studies pivots on the reliability of endocasts as a proxy for brain morphology. Here, we employ micro‐computed tomography imaging, including diffusible iodine‐based contrast‐enhanced CT, and a three‐dimensional geometric morphometric framework to examine both size and shape differences between brains and endocasts of two exemplar archosaur taxa – the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) and the domestic chicken (Gallus gallus). With ontogenetic sampling, we quantitatively evaluate how endocasts differ from brains and whether this deviation changes during development. We find strong size and shape correlations between brains and endocasts, divergent ontogenetic trends in the brain‐to‐endocast correspondence between alligators and chickens, and a comparable magnitude between brain–endocast shape differences and intraspecific neuroanatomical variation. The results have important implications for paleoneurological studies in archosaurs. Notably, we demonstrate that the pattern of endocranial shape variation closely reflects brain shape variation. Therefore, analyses of endocranial morphology are unlikely to generate spurious conclusions about large‐scale trends in brain size and shape. To mitigate any artifacts, however, paleoneurological studies should consider the lower brain–endocast correspondence in the hindbrain relative to the forebrain; higher size and shape correspondences in chickens than alligators throughout postnatal ontogeny; artificially ‘pedomorphic’ shape of endocasts relative to their corresponding brains; and potential biases in both size and shape data due to the lack of control for ontogenetic stages in endocranial sampling. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018-12-03 2019-03 /pmc/articles/PMC6365484/ /pubmed/30506962 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joa.12918 Text en © 2018 The Authors. Journal of Anatomy published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Anatomical Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Watanabe, Akinobu
Gignac, Paul M.
Balanoff, Amy M.
Green, Todd L.
Kley, Nathan J.
Norell, Mark A.
Are endocasts good proxies for brain size and shape in archosaurs throughout ontogeny?
title Are endocasts good proxies for brain size and shape in archosaurs throughout ontogeny?
title_full Are endocasts good proxies for brain size and shape in archosaurs throughout ontogeny?
title_fullStr Are endocasts good proxies for brain size and shape in archosaurs throughout ontogeny?
title_full_unstemmed Are endocasts good proxies for brain size and shape in archosaurs throughout ontogeny?
title_short Are endocasts good proxies for brain size and shape in archosaurs throughout ontogeny?
title_sort are endocasts good proxies for brain size and shape in archosaurs throughout ontogeny?
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6365484/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30506962
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joa.12918
work_keys_str_mv AT watanabeakinobu areendocastsgoodproxiesforbrainsizeandshapeinarchosaursthroughoutontogeny
AT gignacpaulm areendocastsgoodproxiesforbrainsizeandshapeinarchosaursthroughoutontogeny
AT balanoffamym areendocastsgoodproxiesforbrainsizeandshapeinarchosaursthroughoutontogeny
AT greentoddl areendocastsgoodproxiesforbrainsizeandshapeinarchosaursthroughoutontogeny
AT kleynathanj areendocastsgoodproxiesforbrainsizeandshapeinarchosaursthroughoutontogeny
AT norellmarka areendocastsgoodproxiesforbrainsizeandshapeinarchosaursthroughoutontogeny