Sex estimation of teeth at different developmental stages using dimorphic enamel peptide analysis

Objectives: In previous work examining the etiology of cribra orbitalia (CO) and porotic hyperostosis (PH) in a contemporary juvenile mortality sample, we noted that males had higher odds of having CO lesions than females. Here, we examine potential reasons for this pattern in greater detail. Four non-mutually exclusive mechanisms could explain the observed sex differences: (1) sex-biased mortality; (2) sexual dimorphism in immune responses; (3) sexual dimorphism in bone turnover; or (4) sexual dimorphism in marrow conversion. Subjects and methods:The sample consists of postmortem computed tomography scans and autopsy reports, field reports, and limited medical records of 488 individuals from New Mexico (203 females; 285 males) aged between 0.5 and 15 years. We used Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, predicted probabilities, and odds ratios to test each mechanism.Results: Males do not have lower survival probabilities than females, and we find no indications of sex differences in immune response. Overall, males have a higher probability of having CO or PH lesions than females. Conclusions:All results indicate that lesion formation in juveniles is influenced by some combination of sex differences in the pace of red-yellow conversion of the bone marrow and bone turnover. The preponderance of males with CO and PH likely speaks to the potential for heightened osteoblastic activity in males. We find no support for the hypotheses that sex biases in mortality or immune responses impacted lesion frequency in this sample. Sex differences in biological processes experienced by children may affect lesion formation and lesion expression in later life.

Section: Pathways To Sex Differences In Indicators Of Childhood Stressmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A biological approach to adult sex differences in skeletal indicators of childhood stress

O’Donnell

Hill

Anderson

et al. 2021

“…This study emphasizes the importance of estimating sex in juveniles in past populations, which is now possible at reasonable cost using amelogenin peptide analysis (Stewart et al, 2016 , 2017 ). Tests of this method on developing dentition has now shown that it can be used to consistently and reliably estimate sex in juveniles as young as perinate (Gowland et al, 2021 ; Stewart et al, 2017 ). As this method grows in popularity, we urge bioarchaeologists studying growth to make use of it to explore sex‐based differences in growth attainment within their study populations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biological mortality bias in diaphyseal growth of contemporary children: Implications for paleoauxology

Spake

Hoppa

Blau

et al. 2022

Objectives: Biological mortality bias is the idea that individuals who comprise skeletal samples (non-survivors) are a specific subset of the overall population, who may have been exposed to greater stress during life. Because of this, it is possible that studying growth in a skeletal population misrepresents the growth and health of survivors in that population. Using a modern sample, this study investigates whether biological mortality bias in growth may be present in archaeological skeletal samples.Materials and methods: Postmortem computed tomography scans of 206 children aged under 13 years were collected from two institutions in the United States and Australia. The sample was separated into children who died from natural causes as proxies for non-survivors and from accidental causes as proxies for survivors. Differences in long bone length for age were assessed through analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and z-score analysis, and these results were compared with studies linking anthropometrics and mortality risk in nonindustrialized societies.Results: Differences in growth favoring survivors were greater for girls than for boys and seemed to increase over age. The effect in nonindustrialized societies was 1.5 to 5 times the magnitude of that in our contemporary sample.Conclusions: A greater growth delay in girls than in boys has been documented in historical identified collections, and skeletal samples consistently become more stunted relative to modern standards over the course of growth. Our findings on biological mortality bias could explain part of these growth delays and impact interpretations of past ontogenetic environments.bioarchaeology, growth and development, long bone, osteological paradox, skeletal growth profiles | INTRODUCTIONIn The Osteological Paradox, Wood et al. (1992) outline a series of scenarios in which bioarchaeological conclusions drawn from skeletal samples might not reflect the health of the surviving segment of the population. Shortly after, Saunders and Hoppa (1993, p. 129) coined the term biological mortality bias, referring to the "physiological and morphological difference between those who die and those who survive." Biological mortality bias is a problem for all bioarchaeological analysis, but it is especially problematic for paleoauxology, or the study of growth in the past (Tillier, 1995), because growth is known to be environmentally sensitive (Bogin, 1999). This property has made

“…These osteological observations may be supplemented by information from proteomics, ancient DNA (amelogenin gene), and observations of mummified soft tissues, when available. The persistently elusive goal of accurate biological sex determinations in juveniles appears imminently achievable through minimally invasive proteomic procedures (Buonasera et al, 2020; Gowland et al, 2021; Parker et al, 2019; Stewart et al, 2017; Ziganshin et al, 2020) and genetic analyses (Mittnik et al, 2016; Skoglund et al, 2013). Efforts to improve macroscopic approaches to sex estimation in juveniles also continue (e.g., Garvin et al, 2021; Stull et al, 2017).…”

Section: Inferring Ancient Identitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Twenty‐first century bioarchaeology: Taking stock and moving forward

Buikstra

DeWitte

Baker

et al. 2022

Self Cite

This article presents outcomes from a Workshop entitled “Bioarchaeology: Taking Stock and Moving Forward,” which was held at Arizona State University (ASU) on March 6–8, 2020. Funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), the School of Human Evolution and Social Change (ASU), and the Center for Bioarchaeological Research (CBR, ASU), the Workshop's overall goal was to explore reasons why research proposals submitted by bioarchaeologists, both graduate students and established scholars, fared disproportionately poorly within recent NSF Anthropology Program competitions and to offer advice for increasing success. Therefore, this Workshop comprised 43 international scholars and four advanced graduate students with a history of successful grant acquisition, primarily from the United States. Ultimately, we focused on two related aims: (1) best practices for improving research designs and training and (2) evaluating topics of contemporary significance that reverberate through history and beyond as promising trajectories for bioarchaeological research. Among the former were contextual grounding, research question/hypothesis generation, statistical procedures appropriate for small samples and mixed qualitative/quantitative data, the salience of Bayesian methods, and training program content. Topical foci included ethics, social inequality, identity (including intersectionality), climate change, migration, violence, epidemic disease, adaptability/plasticity, the osteological paradox, and the developmental origins of health and disease. Given the profound changes required globally to address decolonization in the 21st century, this concern also entered many formal and informal discussions.