Back

Anatomical description of the jaw muscles and theoretical bite force assessment in South-American opossums using manual and virtual dissection methods.

Melekian, A.; Decuypere, V.; Herrel, A.; Clarac, F.; Ladeveze, S.

2025-06-17 zoology
10.1101/2025.06.12.659107 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Marsupials (Marsupialia, Mammalia) represent a clade with highly varied ecologies. This is particularly true for opossums (South American marsupials), which are difficult to observe and collect. Consequently, few studies have focused on their bite force and the muscles of their masticatory apparatus, and there exists only scant information about the diet of certain species. Here we describe the masticatory muscles of several previously unstudied opossum species including Caenolestes fuliginosus, Dromiciops gliroides, and Monodelphis touan. We calculate the bite force of these species using data from both manual and virtual dissections and compare their theoretical bite forces with literature data. Additionally, we explore the differences between manual and virtual dissection to determine muscle PCSA (Physiological Cross-Sectional Area). We tried two virtual methods (VPDE: "virtual physiological data estimating method" and SM: "slicing muscle method") to calculate the PCSA, determine the differences induced by the inter-fiber void in the virtual volume, and calculate a correction post-treatment with the contrast agent. The results highlighted variation in the position of the muscular attachments of the M. zygomaticomandibularis, whose insertion area is the largest in Monodelphis touan and the smallest in Caenolestes fuliginosus. The bite forces are coherent with estimates from the literature suggesting that the biomechanical model is reliable. The comparison between manual and virtual dissection showed that while virtual dissection allows an overall description of the masticatory muscles, it is more complex to accurately describe the different subdivisions of the muscle bundles. Virtual dissection data could potentially complete manual dissection data with the association of the VPDE method, the exclusion of inter-fiber voids, and a correction for the treatment with contrast-agents.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 4%
26.6%
2
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
13.0%
3
The Anatomical Record
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.4%
50% of probability mass above
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 16%
6.6%
5
Journal of Experimental Biology
249 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
5.0%
6
Journal of Anatomy
27 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.1%
7
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.7%
8
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
3.0%
9
Animals
20 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.5%
10
Biology Open
130 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.8%
11
American Journal of Primatology
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.8%
12
Evolutionary Biology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
13
Gigabyte
60 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.7%
14
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 46%
1.4%
15
Integrative Organismal Biology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.0%
16
Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution
22 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
17
Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.8%
18
BioMed Research International
25 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
19
Peer Community Journal
254 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
20
Science of The Total Environment
179 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%
21
Ecology and Evolution
232 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.5%