Login

Join for Free!
112481 members

Biology Articles » Anatomy & Physiology » Differences in femoral compact bone tissue microscopic structure between adult cows (Bos taurus) and pigs (Sus scrofa domestica)

Differences in femoral compact bone tissue microscopic structure between adult cows (Bos taurus) and pigs (Sus scrofa domestica)

Martiniaková M, Grosskopf B, Vondráková M, Omelka R, Fabis M.

Department of Zoology and Anthropology, Constantine the Philosopher University, 949 01-Nitra, Slovakia. mmartiniakova@pobox.sk

The purpose of this investigation was to study in detail compact bone tissue microscopic structure of adult cows and pigs with an emphasis to find an adequate key for the species identification. Altogether 18 femurs were analysed. Each of the bones was sectioned at the smallest breadth of their diaphysis. Specimens were prepared using standard histological equipment, producing thin sections approximately 80-100 mum thick. The qualitative differences between investigated species were examined in anterior, posterior, medial and lateral views of thin sections. The quantitative ones were counted using the specific computer software Scion Image. We measured the area, perimeter, minimal and maximal diameter of the Haversian canals, the Haversian systems and the vascular canals of primary osteons. After that a discriminant function analysis was used for the species identification. According to our results the basic structural pattern of femur diaphysis was primary vascular plexiform in both species. However, non-vascular bone tissue was identified in cows and resorption lacunae were found between the secondary osteons in pigs. The measured variables of the Haversian canals, the Haversian systems and the primary osteon's vascular canals were higher in most cases in cows. Classification functions for investigated species give a correct classification of 64.69% of cases. This percentage value can be increased by integrating conclusions from the qualitative analysis.

 

Full text available in Anat Histol Embryol. 2006 Jun;35(3):167-70.


rating: 2.40 from 5 votes | updated on: 21 Aug 2008 | views: 3549 |

Rate article:







excellent!bad…