Fig 1.
Reconstructed images of a mouse hindlimb following I2KI enhanced microCT scanning.
A, medial view; B, mid-sagittal section of the whole limb; C, mid-sagittal section of distal leg. For muscle abbreviations, see Tables 1 and 2.
Fig 2.
Three- dimensional representation of the mouse hindlimb, created through digital segmentation.
A, medial view; B, lateral view. For muscle abbreviation, see Tables 1 and 2. This model can be viewed as an interactive 3D PDF (S1 Fig).
Table 1.
Attachment points of muscles within four proximal functional groups.
Table 2.
Attachment points of muscles within two proximal and three distal functional groups.
Table 3.
Mean (±S.D) architectural properties of twenty hindlimb muscles, plus functional group means.
Table 4.
Mean (±S.D) architectural properties of nineteen hindlimb muscles, plus functional group means.
Fig 3.
Functional group means of select muscle architectural properties.
Lf:Lm, fibre length vs. muscle (belly) length ratio (A); PCSA, physiological cross-sectional area (B); PCSA:Mm, PCSA vs. muscle mass index (C); Lf:PCSA, fibre length vs. PCSA index (D). Bars represent mean ± standard deviation.
Table 5.
Statistically significant differences between muscle functional groups in terms of architectural properties (Mm, Lm and Lf).
Table 6.
Statistically significant differences between muscle functional groups in terms of architectural properties (Lf:Lm, pennation angle and PCSA).
Table 7.
Statistically significant differences between muscle functional groups in terms of architectural properties (PCSA:Mm and Lf:PCSA).