Muscle development in the shark Scyliorhinus canicula: implications for the evolution of the gnathostome head and paired appendage musculature

Ziermann, Janine M.; Freitas, Renata; Diogo, Rui

doi:10.1186/s12983-017-0216-y

Cited by 23 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 80 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In most amphibians investigated by Ziermann (), the mandibular and hyoid arch muscles develop more or less simultaneously, with a delay in the development of the branchial arch muscles. The hypobranchial muscles also usually develop later than the mandibular and hyoid arch muscles in N. forsteri and amphibians (present study; Ericsson et al, ; Ziermann, ), as well as in the small‐spotted catshark Scyliorhinus canicula (Ziermann et al, ) and the Senegal bichir Polypterus senegalus (Noda et al, ), with what we assume to be the ancestral condition for gnathostomes.…”

Section: Ontogeny/phylogenysupporting

confidence: 70%

Cephalic muscle development in the Australian lungfish,Neoceratodus forsteri

Ziermann

Clement

Ericsson

et al. 2017

Journal of Morphology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lungfishes are the extant sister group of tetrapods. As such, they are important for the study of evolutionary processes involved in the water to land transition of vertebrates. The evolution of a true neck, that is, the complete separation of the pectoral girdle from the cranium, is one of the most intriguing morphological transitions known among vertebrates. Other salient changes involve new adaptations for terrestrial feeding, which involves both the cranium and its associated musculature. Historically, the cranium has been extensively investigated, but the development of the cranial muscles much less so. Here, we present a detailed study of cephalic muscle development in the Australian lungfish, Neoceratodus forsteri, which is considered to be the sister taxon to all other extant lungfishes. Neoceratodus shows several developmental patterns previously described in other taxa; the tendency of muscles to develop from anterior to posterior, from their region of origin toward insertion, and from lateral to ventral/medial (outside-in), at least in the branchial arches. The m.protractor pectoralis appears to develop as an extension of the most posterior m.levatores arcuum branchialium, supporting the hypothesis that the m.cucullaris and its derivatives (protractor pectoralis, levatores arcuum branchialium) are branchial muscles. We present a new hypothesis regarding the homology of the ventral branchial arch muscles (subarcualis recti and obliqui, transversi ventrales) in lungfishes and amphibians. Moreover, the morphology and development of the cephalic muscles confirms that extant lungfishes are neotenic and have been strongly influenced via paedomorphosis during their evolutionary history.

show abstract

Section: Ontogeny/phylogenysupporting

confidence: 70%

Cephalic muscle development in the Australian lungfish,Neoceratodus forsteri

Ziermann

Clement

Ericsson

et al. 2017

Journal of Morphology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…) that is often erroneously described as an appendicular muscle in fishes (see e.g., Diogo & Ziermann, ; Ziermann et al. ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(, 2016), Diogo & Ziermann (), Miyashita & Diogo (), and Ziermann et al. (). The latter authors reviewed comparative, paleontological, and developmental data and suggested that the pectoral‐pelvic musculature similarity seen in teleosts is a derived, homoplastic feature acquired independently in the evolutionary transition leading to these fishes, somewhat mirroring the homoplastic similarity seen in other derived gnathostome groups, such as tetrapods.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…In the early development of the pelvic and pectoral fin musculature of fishes such as sharks, the abductor and adductor muscle masses are formed from a series of individual muscles that clearly reflect a segmented pattern, which later in development becomes imperceptible (Jarvik, ; see also recent work of Ziermann et al. ). Moreover, the adductor and abductor masses of both the pelvic and pectoral appendages of adult chondrostean fishes (N. Siomava, pers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…), which for some respects of muscle development are often considered to be paedomorphic, strongly resemble the clearly segmented, serial thin muscle bundles that can be seen in early developmental stages of fishes such as sharks (Ziermann et al. ). In fact, in adult chondrosteans there is a striking similarity between the configuration of the main abductor and adductor masses of the pectoral, pelvic, anal, and dorsal fins.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparative anatomy of zebrafish paired and median fin muscles: basis for functional, developmental, and macroevolutionary studies

Siomava

Diogo

2017

Journal of Anatomy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the last decades, Danio rerio became one of the most used model organisms in various evo-devo studies devoted to the fin skeletal anatomy and fin-limb transition. Surprisingly, there is not even a single paper about the detailed anatomy of the adult muscles of the five fin types of this species. To facilitate more integrative developmental, functional, genetic, and evolutionary studies of the appendicular musculoskeletal system of the zebrafish and to provide a basis for further comparisons with other fishes and tetrapods, we describe here the identity, overall configuration, and attachments of appendicular muscles in a way that can be easily understood and implemented by non-anatomist researchers. We show that the muscle pattern of the caudal fin is very different from patterns seen in other fins but is very consistent within teleosts. Our observations support the idea of the developmental and evolutionary distinction of the caudal fin and point out that the musculature of the adult zebrafish pectoral and pelvic fins is in general very similar. Both paired fins have superficial and deep layers of abductors and adductors going to all/most rays plus the dorsal and ventral arrectors going only to the first ray. Nevertheless, we noted three major differences between the pelvic and pectoral fins of adult zebrafishes: (i) the pectoral girdle lacks a retractor muscle, which is present in the pelvic girdle - the retractor ischii; (ii) the protractor of the pelvic girdle is an appendicular/trunk muscle, while that of the pectoral girdle is a branchiomeric muscle; (iii) the first ray of the pectoral fin is moved by an additional arrector-3. The anal and dorsal fins consist of serially repeated units, each of which comprises one half-ray and three appendicular muscles (one erector, depressor, and inclinator) on each side of the body. The outermost rays are attachment points for the longitudinal protractor and retractor. Based on our results, we discuss whether the pectoral appendage might evolutionarily be closer to the head than to the pelvic appendage and whether the pelvic appendage might have been derived from the trunk/median fins. We discuss a hypothesis of paired fin origin that is a hybrid of the fin-fold and Gegenbaur's theories. Lastly, our data indicate that D. rerio is indeed an appropriate model organism for the appendicular musculature of teleosts in particular and, at least in the case of the paired fins, also of actinopterygians as a whole.

show abstract

Development and growth of the pelvic fin in the extant coelacanthLatimeria chalumnae

Mansuit

Clément²,

Herrel

et al. 2020

The Anatomical Record

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ontogeny of the paired appendages has been extensively studied in lungfishes and tetrapods, but remains poorly known in coelacanths. Recent work has shed light on the anatomy and development of the pectoral fin in Latimeria chalumnae. Yet, information on the development of the pelvic fin and girdle is still lacking. Here, we described the development of the pelvic fin and girdle in Latimeria chalumnae based on 3D reconstructions generated from conventional and X‐ray synchrotron microtomography, as well as MRI acquisitions. As in other jawed vertebrates, the development of the pelvic fin occurs later than that of the pectoral fin in Latimeria. Many elements of the endoskeleton are not yet formed at the earliest stage sampled. The four mesomeres are already formed in the fetus, but only the most proximal radial elements (preaxial radial 0–1) are formed and individualized at this stage. We suggest that all the preaxial radial elements in the pelvic and pectoral fin of Latimeria are formed through the fragmentation of the mesomeres. We document the progressive ossification of the pelvic girdle, and the presence of a trabecular system in the adult. This trabecular system likely reinforces the cartilaginous girdle to resist the muscle forces exerted during locomotion. Finally, the presence of a preaxial element in contact with the pelvic girdle from the earliest stage of development onward questions the mono‐basal condition of the pelvic fin in Latimeria. However, the particular shape of the mesomeres may explain the presence of this element in contact with the girdle.

show abstract

Muscle development in the shark Scyliorhinus canicula: implications for the evolution of the gnathostome head and paired appendage musculature

Cited by 23 publications

References 80 publications

Cephalic muscle development in the Australian lungfish,Neoceratodus forsteri

Cephalic muscle development in the Australian lungfish,Neoceratodus forsteri

Comparative anatomy of zebrafish paired and median fin muscles: basis for functional, developmental, and macroevolutionary studies

Development and growth of the pelvic fin in the extant coelacanthLatimeria chalumnae

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About