The Role of the Cranial Base in Facial Growth: Experimental Craniofacial Synostosis in the Rabbit

Rosenberg, Paul H.; Arlis, Harry; Haworth, Randal D.; Heier, Linda; Hoffman, Lloyd A.; LaTrenta, Gregory S.

doi:10.1097/00006534-199704001-00030

Cited by 72 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This sample includes some classics as well as more modern work: Twitty (1932), Detwiler (1938), Washburn and Detwiler (1943), Moss (1961Moss ( , 1969Moss ( , 1997, Müller (1989), Müller and Streicher (1989), Burke (1991), Rosenberg et al (1997), Poikela et al (2000), Badyaev et al (2005), and Alaqeel et al (2006).…”

Section: Discontinuitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flatfishes, Turtles, and Bolyerine Snakes: Evolution by Small Steps or Large, or Both?

Frazzetta

2011

Evol Biol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Step size in evolution is rapidly becoming a major subject of interest to biologists. Traditionally, small changes alone were seen as significant in evolution, and any large differences between an ancestor and its descendant could be explained entirely by the accumulation of many small steps. Whether the evolution of major adaptations is mainly a matter of amassing such small increments of change, or if a significant proportion occurs through the inclusion of one or more large steps, is vital to the understanding of how evolution works. This paper begins by examining four ''classic'' examples of animalsflatfishes, turtles, bolyerine snakes, and gastropod molluscs-each of which has seemed difficult to interpret as resulting from a continuous series of tiny increments. Recently, however, arguments have appeared to contradict those views, and to propose instead that each of these animal groups arose through continuous adaptive modifications. While some of these arguments are more plausible than others, the view of the present author is that in none of them is there convincing evidence to conclude that the groups arose solely through gradual changes. More specifically, there is no basis to reject an evolutionary origin of the major traits in each group that included at least one principal inovation, occurring in a large, discontinuous step, preceded and followed by relatively small, more gradual changes. The broader question of how discontinuous evolution may occur is addressed through several means. These include considerations of epigenetic (sensu Waddington) development, comparative embryology, population genetics, and other approaches. Overall the phenomenon of adaptive accommodation is seen as of major importance, and its implications for ameliorating possible deleterious attributes of novel phenotypes are discussed. In the course of these analyses the doctrine that all adaptive evolution is driven by external environmental change is reviewed. It is suggested that while small adaptive changes are often closely related to shifts in specific environmental facets, the modifications associated with more major adaptations may be less so.

show abstract

Section: Discontinuitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flatfishes, Turtles, and Bolyerine Snakes: Evolution by Small Steps or Large, or Both?

Frazzetta

2011

Evol Biol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…7 Closure time is also sex-dependent, with girls fusing slightly earlier around age 12 and boys fusing slightly later around age 14. A key driver of cranial base and consequently facial growth, its premature fusion has been shown in animal models, 8 with circumstantial evidence in humans, 9 to be associated with both cranial base and midface hypoplasia. The purpose of this study was to review computed tomographic scans of Apert syndrome and Muenke syndrome patients to determine whether they had premature fusion of the sphenooccipital synchondrosis when compared with each other and to subjects without craniosynostosis syndromes and midface hypoplasia.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Differential Closure of the Spheno-occipital Synchondrosis in Syndromic Craniosynostosis

McGrath

Gerety²,

Derderian

et al. 2012

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In some cases, the cranial base anomalies are believed to be the primary cause of the overall abnormal craniofacial development (Kreiborg et al 1993). Consistent with this, animal study provides experimental evidence that cranial base fusion alone accounts for many craniofacial dysmorphic features (Rosenberg et al 1997). While most of the craniofacial skeletons are formed by intramembranous ossification, the cranial base is a site of endochondral ossification, a bone-forming process guided by a cartilage template.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 60%

Developmental expression of Dkk1-3 and Mmp9 and apoptosis in cranial base of mice

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Dickkopf (Dkk) family and Mmp9 are important for apoptosis and a number of other developmental processes. However, little is known about their roles in the development of cranial base, which is an important structure for coordinated development and growth of the craniofacial skeletons. In order to establish whether and in what way these genes are involved in cranial base development, we examined their expression patterns and cell apoptosis. Dkk1 was first seen in the perichondral mesenchyme in restricted domains from E14, and later in the migrating mesenchymal cells within the cartilage. Thereafter, it was widespread throughout the bones of the cranial base. The expression was downregulated in postnatal stages. Dkk2 was localized in the perichondral mesenchyme outlining the anterior cranial base in embryogenesis. Dkk3 was mainly detected in the occipital-vertebral joint at E13 and E14. Mmp9 transcripts were clustered in the inner layer of perichondral mesenchyme, juxtaposed with the terminally differentiated hypertrophic chondrocytes from E14. Later Mmp9-expressing cells were found at the sites of chondrocyte apoptosis. This was particularly clear at the distal ends of the synchondroses. These data indicate that Mmp9 regulates skeletogenesis in cranial base in a manner that is largely similar to that of the appendicular skeletons. Expression of Dkks suggests other roles that remain to be defined.

show abstract

The Role of the Cranial Base in Facial Growth: Experimental Craniofacial Synostosis in the Rabbit

Cited by 72 publications

References 24 publications

Flatfishes, Turtles, and Bolyerine Snakes: Evolution by Small Steps or Large, or Both?

Flatfishes, Turtles, and Bolyerine Snakes: Evolution by Small Steps or Large, or Both?

Differential Closure of the Spheno-occipital Synchondrosis in Syndromic Craniosynostosis

Developmental expression of Dkk1-3 and Mmp9 and apoptosis in cranial base of mice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About