The effect of intervertebral cartilage on neutral posture and range of motion in the necks of sauropod dinosaurs

The necks of sauropod dinosaurs were a key factor in their evolution. The habitual posture and range of motion of these necks has been controversial, and computer-aided studies have argued for an obligatory sub-horizontal pose. However, such studies are compromised by their failure to take into account the important role of intervertebral cartilage. This cartilage takes very different forms in different animals. Mammals and crocodilians have intervertebral discs, while birds have synovial joints in their necks. The form and thickness of cartilage varies significantly even among closely related taxa. We cannot yet tell whether the neck joints of sauropods more closely resembled those of birds or mammals. Inspection of CT scans showed cartilage:bone ratios of 4.5% for Sauroposeidon and about 20% and 15% for two juvenile Apatosaurus individuals. In extant animals, this ratio varied from 2.59% for the rhea to 24% for a juvenile giraffe. It is not yet possible to disentangle ontogenetic and taxonomic signals, but mammal cartilage is generally three times as thick as that of birds. Our most detailed work, on a turkey, yielded a cartilage:bone ratio of 4.56%. Articular cartilage also added 11% to the length of the turkey's zygapophyseal facets. Simple image manipulation suggests that incorporating 4.56% of neck cartilage into an intervertebral joint of a turkey raises neutral posture by 15°. If this were also true of sauropods, the true neutral pose of the neck would be much higher than has been depicted. An additional 11% of zygapophyseal facet length translates to 11% more range of motion at each joint. More precise quantitative results must await detailed modelling. In summary, including cartilage in our models of sauropod necks shows that they were longer, more elevated and more flexible than previously recognised

Expression of PGP 9.5 by enteric neurons in horses and donkeys with and without intestinal disease

Intestinal motility disorders are an important problem in horses and donkeys and this study was carried out in order to evaluate the enteric neurons in animals with and without intestinal disease. Surplus intestinal tissue samples were collected from 28 horses undergoing exploratory laparotomy for colic. In addition, surplus intestinal samples from 17 control horses were collected immediately following humane destruction for clinical conditions not relating to the intestinal tract. Similar samples were also collected during routine post-mortem examinations from 12 aged donkeys; six animals were humanely destroyed for conditions related to the intestinal tract, while the remaining six were humanely destroyed for other reasons including dental and orthopaedic diseases. Tissue samples were fixed in formalin and immunohistochemical labelling was performed targeting the enteric neurons using a polyclonal antibody specific for the neuronal marker PGP 9.5. The distribution and density of neuronal networks were assessed qualitatively and semiquantitatively. There was strong PGP 9.5 expression in both the horse and donkey samples and labelling was detected throughout the tissue sections. In both species, PGP 9.5-immunoreactive nerve fibres were detected in all layers of the intestinal tract, both in large and small intestinal samples. Networks of enteric neurons were present in the donkey with a similar distribution to that seen in the horse. There was no demonstrable difference in enteric neuronal density and distribution in the groups of animals with intestinal disease compared with those without, apart from two (out of 28) horses with intestinal disease that showed a marked reduction in PGP 9.5 immunoreactivity. Apart from these two animals, this total cohort analysis differs from some previously observed findings in horses with intestinal disease and may therefore reflect the different pathophysiological processes occurring in varying intestinal conditions resulting in colic both in the donkey and the horse. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd