Comparison of the arm‐lowering performance between Gorilla and Homo through musculoskeletal modeling

Objectives:Contrary to earlier hypotheses, a previous biomechanical analysis indi-cated that long-documented morphological differences between the shoulders ofhumans and apes do not enhance the arm-raising mechanism. Here, we investigate adifferent interpretation: the oblique shoulder morphology that is shared by all homi-noids but humans enhances the arm-lowering mechanism.Materials and methods:Musculoskeletal models allow us to predict performancecapability to quantify the impact of muscle soft-tissue properties and musculoskeletalmorphology. In this study, we extend the previously published gorilla shoulder modelby adding glenohumeral arm-lowering muscles, then comparing the arm-loweringperformance to that of an existing human model. We further use the models to dis-entangle which morphological aspects of the shoulder affect arm-lowering capacityand result in interspecific functional differences.Results:Our results highlight that arm-lowering capacity is greater inGorillathan inHomo. The enhancement results from greater maximum isometric force capacitiesand moment arms of two important arm-lowering muscles, teres major, andpectoralis major. More distal muscle insertions along the humerus together with amore oblique shoulder configuration cause these greater moment arms.Discussion:The co-occurrence of improved arm-lowering capacity and high-muscleactivity at elevation angles used during vertical climbing highlight the importance of astrong arm-lowering mechanism for arboreal locomotor behavior in nonhuman apes.Therefore, our findings reveal certain skeletal shoulder features that are advanta-geous in an arboreal context. These results advance our understanding of adaptationin living apes and can improve functional interpretations of the hominin fossil recor

Exploring the functional morphology of the Gorilla shoulder through musculoskeletal modelling

Abstract Musculoskeletal computer models allow us to quantitatively relate morphological features to biomechanical performance. In non-human apes, certain morphological features have long been linked to greater arm abduction potential and increased arm-raising performance, compared to humans. Here, we present the first musculoskeletal model of a western lowland gorilla shoulder to test some of these long-standing proposals. Estimates of moment arms and moments of the glenohumeral abductors (deltoid, supraspinatus and infraspinatus muscles) over arm abduction were conducted for the gorilla model and a previously published human shoulder model. Contrary to previous assumptions, we found that overall glenohumeral abduction potential is similar between Gorilla and Homo. However, gorillas differ by maintaining high abduction moment capacity with the arm raised above horizontal. This difference is linked to a disparity in soft tissue properties, indicating that scapular morphological features like a cranially oriented scapular spine and glenoid do not enhance the abductor function of the gorilla glenohumeral muscles. A functional enhancement due to differences in skeletal morphology was only demonstrated in the gorilla supraspinatus muscle. Contrary to earlier ideas linking a more obliquely oriented scapular spine to greater supraspinatus leverage, our results suggest that increased lateral projection of the greater tubercle of the humerus accounts for the greater biomechanical performance in Gorilla. This study enhances our understanding of the evolution of gorilla locomotion, as well as providing greater insight into the general interaction between anatomy, function and locomotor biomechanics

Three-dimensional polygonal muscle modelling and line of action estimation in living and extinct taxa

Biomechanical models and simulations of musculoskeletal function rely on accurate muscle parameters, such as muscle masses and lines of action, to estimate force production potential and moment arms. These parameters are often obtained through destructive techniques (i.e., dissection) in living taxa, frequently hindering the measurement of other relevant parameters from a single individual, thus making it necessary to combine multiple specimens and/or sources. Estimating these parameters in extinct taxa is even more challenging as soft tissues are rarely preserved in fossil taxa and the skeletal remains contain relatively little information about the size or exact path of a muscle. Here we describe a new protocol that facilitates the estimation of missing muscle parameters (i.e., muscle volume and path) for extant and extinct taxa. We created three-dimensional volumetric reconstructions for the hindlimb muscles of the extant Nile crocodile and extinct stem-archosaur Euparkeria, and the shoulder muscles of an extant gorilla to demonstrate the broad applicability of this methodology across living and extinct animal clades. Additionally, our method can be combined with surface geometry data digitally captured during dissection, thus facilitating downstream analyses. We evaluated the estimated muscle masses against physical measurements to test their accuracy in estimating missing parameters. Our estimated muscle masses generally compare favourably with segmented iodine-stained muscles and almost all fall within or close to the range of observed muscle masses, thus indicating that our estimates are reliable and the resulting lines of action calculated sufficiently accurately. This method has potential for diverse applications in evolutionary morphology and biomechanics

The role of sensory feedback from carpal sinus hairs in locomotor kinematics of rats (Rattus norvegicus, Rodentia) during walking on narrow substrates

Carpal sinus hairs on the forearms are assumed to have evolved within the stem lineage of Theria. The presence and similar position of these specialized tactile hairs in scansorial and terrestrial species as well as earlier studies on rats indicate a biological role in sensing substrate irregularities in high structured environments to ensure the dynamic stability of the body during locomotion. While these sensors were considered as one functional unit until so far, the present study deals with the biological role of the single tactile hairs of the trident, assuming a role in sensing substrate diameters and adapting limb coordination and body posture to different arboreal inclinations. To investigate the influence of each hair, we studied the locomotion of rats on poles of two different diameters whereby we selectively removed individual carpal sinus hairs. The rats walked at speeds ranging from 0.12 m/s to 0.58 m/s. Normal-light high-speed cameras and x-ray fluoroscopy visualized the hairs and body dynamics during locomotion. The time lag between first contact of the hairs to the branch until contact of the forepaw was 56–108 ms. Within this time window the pronation/supination of the paw and anterior body posture are adjusted to the substrate diameter. We presume that the most proximal sinus hair (located between the medial and lateral one) senses the paw-substrate distance through the increasing bend from its first branch-contact until the contact of the paw. The medial and the lateral hairs touch the pole sides and thereby, may collect information about the properties of the small-diameter substrate. The removal of single hairs from the group results in minor changes of kinematic parameters, but locomotor stability is seriously impaired when more than one hair is cut. The kinematic responses span from a more crouched body posture and higher forearm pronation to paw slipping, muscle tremor or complete refusal to walk on the narrow substrate

Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2

BACKGROUND: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus and resulting COVID-19 pandemic present important diagnostic challenges. Several diagnostic strategies are available to identify current infection, rule out infection, identify people in need of care escalation, or to test for past infection and immune response. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 aim to identify previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and may help to confirm the presence of current infection. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of antibody tests to determine if a person presenting in the community or in primary or secondary care has SARS-CoV-2 infection, or has previously had SARS-CoV-2 infection, and the accuracy of antibody tests for use in seroprevalence surveys. SEARCH METHODS: We undertook electronic searches in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, which is updated daily with published articles from PubMed and Embase and with preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions. We conducted searches for this review iteration up to 27 April 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated antibody tests (including enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, chemiluminescence immunoassays, and lateral flow assays) in people suspected of current or previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, or where tests were used to screen for infection. We also included studies of people either known to have, or not to have SARS-CoV-2 infection. We included all reference standards to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT-PCR) and clinical diagnostic criteria). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed possible bias and applicability of the studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. We extracted 2x2 contingency table data and present sensitivity and specificity for each antibody (or combination of antibodies) using paired forest plots. We pooled data using random-effects logistic regression where appropriate, stratifying by time since post-symptom onset. We tabulated available data by test manufacturer. We have presented uncertainty in estimates of sensitivity and specificity using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: We included 57 publications reporting on a total of 54 study cohorts with 15,976 samples, of which 8526 were from cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Studies were conducted in Asia (n = 38), Europe (n = 15), and the USA and China (n = 1). We identified data from 25 commercial tests and numerous in-house assays, a small fraction of the 279 antibody assays listed by the Foundation for Innovative Diagnostics. More than half (n = 28) of the studies included were only available as preprints. We had concerns about risk of bias and applicability. Common issues were use of multi-group designs (n = 29), inclusion of only COVID-19 cases (n = 19), lack of blinding of the index test (n = 49) and reference standard (n = 29), differential verification (n = 22), and the lack of clarity about participant numbers, characteristics and study exclusions (n = 47). Most studies (n = 44) only included people hospitalised due to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection. There were no studies exclusively in asymptomatic participants. Two-thirds of the studies (n = 33) defined COVID-19 cases based on RT-PCR results alone, ignoring the potential for false-negative RT-PCR results. We observed evidence of selective publication of study findings through omission of the identity of tests (n = 5). We observed substantial heterogeneity in sensitivities of IgA, IgM and IgG antibodies, or combinations thereof, for results aggregated across different time periods post-symptom onset (range 0% to 100% for all target antibodies). We thus based the main results of the review on the 38 studies that stratified results by time since symptom onset. The numbers of individuals contributing data within each study each week are small and are usually not based on tracking the same groups of patients over time. Pooled results for IgG, IgM, IgA, total antibodies and IgG/IgM all showed low sensitivity during the first week since onset of symptoms (all less than 30.1%), rising in the second week and reaching their highest values in the third week. The combination of IgG/IgM had a sensitivity of 30.1% (95% CI 21.4 to 40.7) for 1 to 7 days, 72.2% (95% CI 63.5 to 79.5) for 8 to 14 days, 91.4% (95% CI 87.0 to 94.4) for 15 to 21 days. Estimates of accuracy beyond three weeks are based on smaller sample sizes and fewer studies. For 21 to 35 days, pooled sensitivities for IgG/IgM were 96.0% (95% CI 90.6 to 98.3). There are insufficient studies to estimate sensitivity of tests beyond 35 days post-symptom onset. Summary specificities (provided in 35 studies) exceeded 98% for all target antibodies with confidence intervals no more than 2 percentage points wide. False-positive results were more common where COVID-19 had been suspected and ruled out, but numbers were small and the difference was within the range expected by chance. Assuming a prevalence of 50%, a value considered possible in healthcare workers who have suffered respiratory symptoms, we would anticipate that 43 (28 to 65) would be missed and 7 (3 to 14) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG/IgM testing at days 15 to 21 post-symptom onset. At a prevalence of 20%, a likely value in surveys in high-risk settings, 17 (11 to 26) would be missed per 1000 people tested and 10 (5 to 22) would be falsely positive. At a lower prevalence of 5%, a likely value in national surveys, 4 (3 to 7) would be missed per 1000 tested, and 12 (6 to 27) would be falsely positive. Analyses showed small differences in sensitivity between assay type, but methodological concerns and sparse data prevent comparisons between test brands. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of antibody tests is too low in the first week since symptom onset to have a primary role for the diagnosis of COVID-19, but they may still have a role complementing other testing in individuals presenting later, when RT-PCR tests are negative, or are not done. Antibody tests are likely to have a useful role for detecting previous SARS-CoV-2 infection if used 15 or more days after the onset of symptoms. However, the duration of antibody rises is currently unknown, and we found very little data beyond 35 days post-symptom onset. We are therefore uncertain about the utility of these tests for seroprevalence surveys for public health management purposes. Concerns about high risk of bias and applicability make it likely that the accuracy of tests when used in clinical care will be lower than reported in the included studies. Sensitivity has mainly been evaluated in hospitalised patients, so it is unclear whether the tests are able to detect lower antibody levels likely seen with milder and asymptomatic COVID-19 disease. The design, execution and reporting of studies of the accuracy of COVID-19 tests requires considerable improvement. Studies must report data on sensitivity disaggregated by time since onset of symptoms. COVID-19-positive cases who are RT-PCR-negative should be included as well as those confirmed RT-PCR, in accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO) and China National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China (CDC) case definitions. We were only able to obtain data from a small proportion of available tests, and action is needed to ensure that all results of test evaluations are available in the public domain to prevent selective reporting. This is a fast-moving field and we plan ongoing updates of this living systematic review.status: publishe