Articular constraint, handedness, and directional asymmetry in the human second metacarpal

Effects of Exercise Intervention on Knee Morphology in Middle-Aged Women: A Longitudinal Analysis Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging

“…Plochocki [2004] also found the subchondral bone surface areas of the right upper limb to be significantly larger than those of the left upper limb in human skeletons from subjects who were supposedly right-handed. In the human second metacarpal, Lazenby et al [2008] recently also observed the mediolateral (but not the dorsopalmar) dimensions of the subchondral bone surfaces to be significantly larger on the right-hand side, but pointed out that the side differences in subarticular bone microarchitecture and diaphyseal bone geometry were quantitatively far more important than those of subchondral bone size. The authors concluded that their results were consistent with the concept of 'articular constraint', as well as a limited phenotypical plasticity of epiphyseal bone size and articular surfaces [Lazenby et al, 2008].…”

“…In the human second metacarpal, Lazenby et al [2008] recently also observed the mediolateral (but not the dorsopalmar) dimensions of the subchondral bone surfaces to be significantly larger on the right-hand side, but pointed out that the side differences in subarticular bone microarchitecture and diaphyseal bone geometry were quantitatively far more important than those of subchondral bone size. The authors concluded that their results were consistent with the concept of 'articular constraint', as well as a limited phenotypical plasticity of epiphyseal bone size and articular surfaces [Lazenby et al, 2008]. The results of the current study are in agreement with this concept in that the difference of loading history prior and during the training intervention may have been too small to cause a significant increase in subchondral bone enlargement.…”

“…Mechanical stimulation has been shown to enhance the biosynthetic activity of the chondrocytes [Sah et al, 1989;Kim et al, 1995;Buschmann et al, 1999;Jin et al, 2001;Waldman et al, 2003], and animal models have suggested that cartilage thickness may adapt to the mechanical loading conditions in healthy joints [Jurvelin et al, 1990;Oettmeier et al, 1992]. To date, however, it is unclear whether adult articular cartilage and joint morphology display phenotypic plasticity and adapt to individual loading histories [Lieberman et al, 2001;Plochocki, 2004;Plochocki et al, 2006;Lazenby et al, 2008].…”

Bilateral Asymmetry of Humeral Torsion and Length in African Apes and Humans

“…In humans, habitual lateralization of behaviours, possibly associated with this cerebral lateralization, has been shown to produce skel-etal asymmetries, and a number of osteological studies have established an association between lateralized mechanical loads and bone remodelling [Ruff and Hayes, 1983;Steele, 2000a, b;Lazenby, 2002;Stock and Pfeiffer, 2004]. In particular, upper limb asymmetries have been well documented in the skeleton of Homo sapiens with numerous studies showing how asymmetric loads influence upper limb morphology in human populations and professional athletes [Roy et al, 1994;Trinkaus et al, 1994;Kontulainen et al, 2002;Lazenby, 2002;Rhodes and Knüsel, 2005;Lazenby et al, 2008;Shaw and Stock, 2009a, b;Shaw, 2011]. Bilateral asymmetries in the upper limbs of great apes are, however, less well documented, even though these are potentially informative about the origins of functional lateralization in humans and non-human primates.…”

Phenotypic plasticity and constraint along the upper and lower limb diaphyses of Homo sapiens

“…Unlike field hockey, cross-country running by and large assumes a unidirectional mobility pattern, where the greatest strain is oriented in the A-P axis during forward locomotion (Macdonald et al, 2009;Marchi and Shaw, 2011). The aforementioned differences between the two lower limb activities may be responsible for influencing geometry along the distal tibial diaphysis as well, albeit to a lesser extent than at midshaft, though genetic canalization may ultimately be a greater regulator of metaphyseal and epiphyseal morphology (Lovejoy et al, 1999(Lovejoy et al, , 2003Lazenby et al, 2008). Bearing these results in mind, interpreting behavior along both the upper and lower limbs may be most effective by studying cross-sectional properties at or near the midshaft, as activity pattern among individuals and populations becomes more difficult to discern with increasing distance from these regions.…”