Cited by 13Pleistocene-Era Hominins and ArchaeologyForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology StudiesMorphological variations and asymmetry

Distinct growth of the nasomaxillary complex in Au. sediba

Open access
Lacruz, Rodrigo S., Bromage, Timothy G., O’Higgins, Paul, Toro-Ibacache, Viviana, Warshaw, Johanna, Berger, Lee R.·2015·Scientific Reports

Abstract

Studies of facial ontogeny in immature hominins have contributed significantly to understanding the evolution of human growth and development. The recently discovered hominin species Autralopithecus sediba is represented by a well-preserved and nearly complete facial skeleton of a juvenile (MH1) which shows a derived facial anatomy. We examined MH1 using high radiation synchrotron to interpret features of the oronasal complex pertinent to facial growth. We also analyzed bone surface microanatomy to identify and map fields of bone deposition and bone resorption, which affect the development of the facial skeleton. The oronasal anatomy (premaxilla-palate-vomer architecture) is similar to other Australopithecus species. However surface growth remodeling of the midface (nasomaxillary complex) differs markedly from Australopithecus, Paranthropus, early Homo and from KNM-WT 15000 (H. erectus/ergaster) showing a distinct distribution of vertically disposed alternating depository and resorptive fields in relation to anterior dental roots and the subnasal region. The ontogeny of the MH1 midface superficially resembles some H. sapiens in the distribution of remodeling fields. The facial growth of MH1 appears unique among early hominins representing an evolutionary modification in facial ontogeny at 1.9 my, or to changes in masticatory system loading associated with diet.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/srep15175

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Observed differences in prognathism are associated with distinct growth patterns and remodeling activity of bone cells.

    “The observed differences in prognathism are associated with distinct growth patterns and remodeling activity of bone cells [14][15][16]”

    From The evolutionary history of the human face (2019) · cites this paper as [15]

  • Au. sediba shares derived facial features with Au. africanus, but its facial remodeling differs from all other Australopithecus facial skeletons.

    “The younger species Au. sediba (~2.0 Ma) from South Africa 23 shares derived facial features with Au. africanus 10 , but its facial remodeling differs from all other Australopithecus facial skeletons (see Box 2, Fig. 2) 15”

    From The evolutionary history of the human face (2019) · cites this paper as [15]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 32 · Cited by 13

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Bromage T. G. Taung facial remodeling: A growth and development study. In Hominid Evolution: Past, Present, and Future Tobias P. V. Ed, pp. 239– 245 (Alan R. Riss, New York, 1985).
  2. Bromage T. G. & Boyde A. (2008) Bone growth remodeling of the early human face. in Essentials of facial growth Enlow D. H. & Hans M. G. Eds (W.B. Saunders. Philadelphia) (2008).
  3. Hoyte D. A. N. In Fundamentals of craniofacial growth Dixon A. D., Hoyte D., Ronning. O. Eds (CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida) (1997).
  4. Walters M. J. & O’Higgins P. Proc Australas Soc Hum Biol 5, 391 (1992).

Authors
Lacruz, R. S., Bromage, T. G., O’Higgins, P., Toro-Ibacache, V., Warshaw, J., & Berger, L. R.
Affiliations
  • New York University (US)
  • University of York (GB)
  • University of the Witwatersrand (ZA)
Corresponding author
Lacruz, Rodrigo S.
Venue
Scientific Reports
Published
2015-10-15
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
15175-15175
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2196204784
Cited by
13
References
32
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2015: 1
FWCI
4.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Universidad de Chile (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung
  • Max-Planck-Gesellschaft
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Comisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica
  • National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (R00DE022799, K99DE022799, DE022799)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Pleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Geometry and Topology › Morphological variations and asymmetry
Keywords
nasomaxillary complex, midface growth, bone remodeling, Australopithecus, Paranthropus, early Homo, stomatognathic system, synchrotron micro-CT
MeSH terms
Animals, Biological Evolution, Face, Fossils, Humans, Maxillofacial Development, Microscopy, Electron, Scanning, Nasal Bone, Skull, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Hominidae, Finite Element Analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review