Advertisement
-
1.
Bock WJ & Wahlert GV: Adaptation and form-function complex. Evolution 330: 269, 1965.
-
2.
Hillstrom HJ , Song J & Kraszewski AP et al.: Foot type biomechanics part 1: structure and function of the asymptomatic foot. Gait Posture 37: 445, 2012.
-
3.
Owens GK: Role of mechanical strain in regulation of differentiation of vascular smooth muscle cells. Circ Res 79: 1054, 1996.
-
4.
Williams B: Mechanical influences on vascular smooth muscle cell function. J Hypertens 16: 1921, 1998.
-
5.
Roncesvalles MN , Woollacott MH & Jensen JL: Development of lower extremity kinetics for balance control in infants and young children. J Mot Behav 33: 180, 2001.
-
6.
Wang JHC & Thampatty BP: An introductory review of cell mechanobiology. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 5: 1, 2006.
-
7.
Engler AJ , Sen S & Sweeney HL et al.: Matrix elasticity directs stem cell lineage specification. Cell 126: 677, 2006.
-
8.
Lim CT , Bershadsky A & Sheetz MP: Mechanobiology. J R Soc Interface 7 (suppl 3): S291, 2010.
-
9.
Ghibaudo M , Saez A & Trichet L et al.: Traction forces and rigidity sensing regulate cell functions. Soft Matter 4: 1836, 2008.
-
10.
Wen JH , Vincent LG & Fuhrmann A et al.: Interplay of matrix stiffness and protein tethering in stem cell differentiation. Nat Mater 13: 979, 2014.
-
11.
DiMilla PA , Barbee K & Lauffenburger DA: Mathematical model for the effects of adhesion and mechanics on cell migration speed. Biophys J 60: 15, 1991.
-
12.
Huttenlocher A , Ginsberg MH & Horwitz AF: Modulation of cell migration by integrin-mediated cytoskeletal linkages and ligand-binding affinity. J Cell Biol 134: 1551, 1996.
-
13.
Wang N , Tytell JD & Ingber DE: Mechanotransduction at a distance: mechanically coupling the extracellular matrix with the nucleus. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 10: 75, 2009.
-
14.
Reinhart-King CA , Dembo M & Hammer DA: Cell-cell mechanical communication through compliant substrates. Biophys J 95: 6044, 2008.
-
15.
Zhang QY , Zhang YY & Xie J et al.: Stiff substrates enhance cultured neuronal network activity. Sci Rep 4: 6215, 2014.
-
16.
Villemure I & Stokes IAF: Growth plate mechanics and mechanobiology: a survey of present understanding. J Biomech 42: 1793, 2009.
-
17.
Pearson OM & Lieberman DE: The aging of Wolff's “law”: ontogeny and responses to mechanical loading in cortical bone. Am J Phys Anthropol 39 (suppl): 63, 2004.
-
18.
Morgan EF , Salisbury Palomares KT & Gleason RE et al.: Correlations between local strains and tissue phenotypes in an experimental model of skeletal healing. J Biomech 43: 2418, 2010.
-
19.
Mueller MJ & Maluf KS: Tissue adaptation to physical stress: a proposed “physical stress theory” to guide physical therapist practice, education, and research. Phys Ther 82: 383, 2002.
-
20.
Young RL & Badyaev AV: Evolution of ontogeny: linking epigenetic remodeling and genetic adaptation in skeletal structures. Integr Com Biol 47: 234, 2007.
-
21.
Hellier CA & Jeffrey N: Morphological plasticity in the juvenile talus. J Foot Ankle Surg 12: 139, 2006.
-
22.
Buchanan CI & Marsh RL: Effects of long-term exercise on the biomechanical properties of the Achilles tendon of guinea fowl. J Appl Physiol (1985) 90: 164, 2001.
-
23.
Bohm S , Mersmann F & Arampatzis A: Human tendon adaptation in response to mechanical loading: a systematic review and meta-analysis of exercise intervention studies on healthy adults. Sports Med Open 1: 7, 2015.
-
24.
Wiesinger HP , Kosters A & Muller E et al.: Effects of increased loading on in vivo tendon properties: a systematic review. Med Sci Sports Exerc 47: 1885, 2015.
-
25.
Archambault JM , Hart DA & Herzog W: Response of rabbit Achilles tendon to chronic repetitive loading. Connect Tissue Res 42: 13, 2001.
-
26.
Ravosa MJ , Kunwar R & Stock SR et al.: Pushing the limit: masticatory stress and adaptive plasticity in mammalian craniomandibular joints. J Exp Biol 210: 628, 2007.
-
27.
Lynch M: The evolution of genetic networks by non-adaptive processes. Nat Rev Genet 8: 803, 207.
-
28.
McPoil HG & Hunt TG: Evaluation and management of foot and ankle disorders: present problems and future directions. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 21: 381, 1995.
-
29.
Vicenzino B: Foot orthotics in the treatment of lower limb conditions: a musculoskeletal physiotherapy perspective. Man Ther 9: 185, 2004.
-
30.
Fuller EA: Center of pressure and its theoretical relationship to foot pathology. JAPMA 89: 278, 1999.
-
31.
Wang J , Lü D & Mao D et al.: Mechanomics: an emerging field between biology and biomechanics. Protein Cell 5: 518, 2014.
-
32.
Groiso JA: Juvenile hallux valgus. A conservative approach to treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Am 74: 1367, 1992.
-
33.
Kilmartin TE , Barrington RL & Wallace WA: A controlled prospective trial of a foot orthosis for juvenile hallux valgus. J Bone Joint Surg Br 76: 210, 1994.
-
34.
Quinn G: Normal genetic variation of the human foot: part 2: population variance, epigenetic mechanisms, and developmental constraint in function. JAPMA 102: 149, 2012.
-
35.
Quinn G: Normal genetic variation of the human foot: part 1: the paradox of normal anatomical alignment in an evolutionary epigenetic model. JAPMA 102: 64, 2012.
-
36.
Schmalhausen I: Factors of Evolution: The Theory of Stabilizing Selection, Blakiston, Philadelphia, 1949.
-
37.
Gause GF: Problems of evolution. Trans Conn Acad Sci 37: 17, 1947.
-
38.
Scheiner SM & Lyman RF: The genetics of phenotypic plasticity. II. Response to selection. J Evol Biol 4: 23, 1991.
-
39.
Hannan MT , Menz HB & Jordan JM et al.: High heritability of hallux valgus and lesser toe deformities in adult men and women. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 65: 1515, 2013.
-
40.
Fraga MF , Ballestar E & Paz MF et al.: Epigenetic differences arise during the lifetime of monozygotic twins. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102: 10604, 2005.
-
41.
Wang G , Yang E & Brinkmeyer-Langford CL et al.: Additive, epistatic and environmental effects through the lens of expression variability QTL in a twin cohort. Genetics 196: 413, 2014.
-
42.
Chapman CR , Tuckett RP & Song CW: Pain and stress in a systems perspective: reciprocal neural, endocrine, and immune interactions. J Pain 9: 122, 2008.
-
43.
Riskowski JL , Dufour AB & Hagedorn TJ et al.: Associations of foot posture and function to lower extremity pain: results from a population-based foot study. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 65: 1804, 2013.
-
44.
Kirby KA: Subtalar joint axis location and rotational equilibrium theory of foot function. JAPMA 91: 465, 2011.
-
45.
Kirby KA & Green DR: “Evaluation and nonoperative management of pes valgus,” in Foot and Ankle Disorders in Children, edited by DeValentine, S p 295, Churchill Livingstone, New York, 1992.
-
46.
Noakes H & Payne C: The reliability of the manual supination resistance test. JAPMA 93: 185, 2003.
-
47.
Payne C , Munteaunu S & Miller K: Position of the subtalar joint axis and resistance of the rearfoot to supination. JAPMA 93: 131, 2003.
-
48.
Ingber DE: Mechanobiology and diseases of mechanotransduction. Ann Med 35: 564, 2003.
-
49.
Huidobro C & Fraga MF: A possible role for epigenetics in age-dependent bone diseases. Clin Rev Bone Miner Metab 8: 95, 2010.
-
50.
Nock CA , Vogt RJ & Beisner BE: “Functional Traits” in eLS, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, United Kingdom, 2016.
-
51.
Turner CH & Pavalko FM: Mechanotransduction and functional response of the skeleton to physical stress: the mechanisms and mechanics of bone adaptation. J Orthop Sci 3: 346, 1998.
-
52.
Thompson WR , Rubin CT & Rubin J: Mechanical regulation of signalling pathways in bone. Gene 503: 179, 2012.
-
53.
Sun HB , Schaniel C & Leong DJ et al.: Biology and mechano-response of tendon cells: progress overview and perspectives. J Orthop Res 33: 785, 2015.
-
54.
Murley GS , Menz HB & Landorf KB: Foot posture influences the electromyographic activity of selected lower limb muscles during gait. J Foot Ankle Res 26: 35, 2009.
-
55.
Murley GS , Landorf KB & Menz HB: Do foot orthoses change lower limb muscle activity in flat-arched feet towards a pattern observed in normal-arched feet? Clin Biomech 25: 728, 2010.
-
56.
Drakonaki EE , Allen GM & Wilson DJ: Ultrasound elastography for musculoskeletal applications. Br J Radiol 85: 435, 2012.
-
57.
Debernard L , Robert L & Charleux F et al.: Characterization of muscle architecture in children and adults using magnetic resonance elastography and ultrasound techniques. J Biomech 44: 397, 2011.
-
58.
Chang EY , Du J & Chung CB: UTE imaging in the musculoskeletal system. J Magn Reson Imaging 41: 870, 2015.
-
59.
Spencer GJ , Hitchcock IS & Genever PG: Emerging neuroskeletal signalling pathways: a review. FEBS Lett 559: 6, 2004.
-
60.
Nicolaus M & Edelaar P: Comparing the consequences of natural selection, adaptive phenotypic plasticity, and matching habitat choice for phenotype environment matching, population genetic structure, and reproductive isolation in meta-populations. Ecol Evol 8: 3815, 2018.
-
61.
Cahan A , Gilon D & Manor O et al.: Probabilistic reasoning and clinical decision making: do doctors overestimate diagnostic probabilities? Q J Med 96: 763, 2003.
-
62.
Chow SC & Chang M: Adaptive design methods in clinical trials: a review. Orphanet J Rare Dis 3: 11, 2008.
-
63.
Gottlieb G: Probabilistic epigenesis. Dev Sci 10: 1, 2007.
-
64.
Klingenberg CP: Evolution and development of shape: integrating quantitative approaches. Nat Rev Genet 11: 623, 2010.
-
65.
Collins M & Raleigh SM: Genetic risk factors for musculoskeletal soft tissue injuries. Med Sport Sci 54: 136, 2009.
Mechanobiology and Adaptive Plasticity Theory as a Potential Confounding Factor in Predicting Musculoskeletal Foot Function
Search for other papers by Greg Quinn in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
There are many theoretical models that attempt to accurately and consistently link kinematic and kinetic information to musculoskeletal pain and deformity of the foot. Biomechanical theory of the foot lacks a consensual model: clinicians are enticed to draw from numerous paradigms, each having different levels of supportive evidence and contrasting methods of evaluation, in order to engage in clinical deduction and treatment planning. Contriving to find a link between form and function lies at the heart of most of these competing theories and the physical nature of the discipline has prompted an engineering approach. Physics is of great importance in biology and helps us to model the forces that the foot has to deal with in order for it to work effectively. However, the tissues of the body have complex processes that are in place to protect them and they are variable between individuals. Research is uncovering why these differences exist and how these processes are governed. The emerging explanations for adaptability of foot structure and musculoskeletal homeostasis offer new insights into how clinical variation in outcomes and treatment effects might arise. These biological processes underlie how variation in the performance and use of common traits, even within apparently similar subgroups, make anatomical distinction less meaningful and are likely to undermine the justification of a “foot type.” Furthermore, mechanobiology introduces a probabilistic element to morphology based on genetic and epigenetic factors.
York Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, The York Hospital, Wigginton Road, York YO31 8HE, United Kingdom. (E-mail: greg.quinn@york.nhs.uk)
Conflict of Interest: None reported.
