Next Article in Journal
In Vitro Research Tools in the Field of Human Immediate Drug Hypersensitivity and Their Present Use in Small Animal Veterinary Medicine
Previous Article in Journal
Exfoliative Endometrial Cytology in Embryo Donor Cows—Comparison of Sampling Localizations for the Diagnosis of Subclinical Endometritis
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Using Bronson Equation to Accurately Predict the Dog Brain Weight Based on Body Weight Parameter

by
L. Miguel Carreira
1,2,3,4
1
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Lisbon (FMV/ULisboa), Av. da Universidade Técnica de Lisboa, Polo Universitário Alto da Ajuda, Lisbon 1300-477, Portugal
2
Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Animal Health (CIISA), FMV/ULisboa, Av. da Universidade Técnica de Lisboa, Polo Universitário Alto da Ajuda, Lisbon 1300-477, Portugal
3
Anjos of Assis Veterinary Medicine Centre (CMVAA), Rua Dª. Francisca da Azambuja Nº 9–9A, Barreiro 2830-077, Portugal
4
Private Practice in Human Dentistry, Oral Medicine and Surgery Clinic, Lisbon 1300-477, Portugal
Vet. Sci. 2016, 3(4), 36; https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci3040036
Submission received: 7 August 2016 / Revised: 20 November 2016 / Accepted: 29 November 2016 / Published: 4 December 2016

Abstract

:
The study used 69 brains (n = 69) from adult dog cadavers, divided by their skull type into three groups, brachi (B), dolicho (D) and mesaticephalic (M) (n = 23 each), and aimed: (1) to determine whether the Bronson equation may be applied, without reservation, to estimate brain weight (BW) in brachy (B), dolicho (D), and mesaticephalic (M) dog breeds; and (2) to evaluate which breeds are more closely related to each other in an evolutionary scenario. All subjects were identified by sex, age, breed, and body weight (bw). An oscillating saw was used for a circumferential craniotomy to open the skulls; the brains were removed and weighed using a digital scale. For statistical analysis, p-values < 0.05 were considered significant. The work demonstrated a strong relationship between the observed and predicted BW by using the Bronson equation. It was possible to hypothesize that groups B and D present a greater encephalization level than M breeds, that B and D dog breeds are more closely related to each other than to M, and from the three groups, the D individuals presented the highest brain mass mean.

1. Introduction

Body weight influences almost every aspect of organism biology, including brain mass [1]. Variations in brain mass occur in proportion to the increase of body mass of the animal (allometric scaling); by increasing body size and weight, an increase of peripheral receptor conduction will promote a rise in the corresponding representation fields in the cerebral cortex (both motor and somatosensory cortices) [2,3,4]. Several studies demonstrated a strong positive correlation between brain weight (BW) and body weight (bw) in general and specifically in dogs [5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12]. The brain is at adult size when body growth is only 40 percent complete [13,14,15,16,17]. Bronson developed a mathematical equation to explain the encephalic allometry, demonstrating that the mean BW of dogs is related to mean bw and therefore BW could be calculated without previous models’ inconsistencies The evolution of diversity in brain size [3,18,19,20,21,22,23,24]. According to Bronson’s dog equation, average BW (y) can be expressed by the following allometric function: Y = 0.39X0.27, where 0.39 is the integration constant, X is the bw mean, and 0.27 is the allometric exponent or the potency associated with the intra-species ratio of BW and bw means [3,18,25,26,27]. This function may serve as a baseline for measuring increases or decreases in encephalization during species evolution [3]. Encephalization level (El) as a measure of relative brain size—defined as the ratio between the actual and the predicted brain mass for an individual El—is also used as a rough estimate of the intelligence of the animal and is useful for comparison within species or between fairly closely related species [28]. Since the allometric coefficient often exhibits intraspecific variation, which can be heritable, some theories assume that greater BW differences are a result of selection for differences in bw, registered among more distantly than closely related species [5,15]. The present study was developed in dog specimens and aimed: (1) to determine whether the Bronson equation may be applied, without reservation, to estimate BW in all the brachy (B), dolicho (D), and mesaticephalic (M) dog breeds; and (2) to evaluate which breeds are more closely related to each other in an evolutionary scenario.

2. Materials and Methods

The study used 69 brains (n = 69) from adult dog cadavers, divided by their skull type into three groups, B, D, and M (n = 23 each), obtained at the teaching hospital of Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Lisbon (FMV-ULisboa), Portugal, and Anjos of Assis Veterinary Medicine Centre (CMVAA), Barreiro, Portugal, after verification of death by a veterinary surgeon, authorization by the dog owners with signed consent forms, and approval by the ethical committee. All subjects were identified by sex, age, breed, and bw. An oscillating saw was used for a circumferential craniotomy to open the skulls; the brains were removed and weighed using a digital scale. The measurements were recorded onto recording forms, and the data were put into an SPSS® database (IBM, Armonk, North Castle, NY, USA). The Kolgomorov-Smirnov test (KS) was used to test for normality and ANOVA was used to test if BW differed among B, D, and M breeds. To test for pair-wise differences between groups, we used a post hoc Bonferroni correction. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

3. Results

Summary statistics for all considered variables (age, bw, and BW) are listed in Table 1. From all the evaluated parameters, only the BW of the brachycephalic group did not show data normality. The Bronson equation was used to calculate the expected BW from each specimen. Table 2 presents the one-way ANOVA results that tested if BW differed among B, D, and M breeds, and the post hoc Bonferroni correction to test for significant pair-wise differences between groups. Differences were registered for the bw and BW parameters. Statistically significant differences were registered for bw between the pair groups B-D (p < 0.00) and D-M (p < 0.00), and for BW only between the pair groups D-M (p < 0.00).

4. Discussion

According to the results, BW mean differed little, with no statistical significant differences, between the three groups considered; however, from all the groups, the M group presented a greater mean age (9.5 years), followed by group D (8.7 years), and then B (8.0 years). This is a very important parameter, since aging is associated with decreased brain volume (about 0.29% per year) and weight (about 5%–10% over the lifetime), due to atrophy of the gray and white matters, enhanced by multiple factors [17,29,30,31,32]. Aged dog brains show increased cortical atrophy, ventricular dilation, decreased total brain volume, and decreased frontal lobe volume, similar to humans [29,32]. In previous studies, age-related reduction in gray matter volume was observed bilaterally in the frontal gyrus, orbitalis gyrus, ectosylvius hyrus, olfactory bulb, superior olivaris nucleus in brainstem, and unilaterally in the posreal gyrus, sylvium gyrus, suprasylvian gyrus, cerebellum, and brainstem nuclei. Variations related to white matter loss were largely bilateral and included the internal capsula, tracts of anterior cingulate, and the alveus of the hypocampus [17,29,32]. Additionally, high body mass index, biochemical changes (in particular, those related to dopamine loss), and the loss of neurons and myelinated axons in different brain parenchyma regions decrease the brain mass with age promoting an enlargement of the ventricular system and the grooves on the brain surface [17,30,31,32,33,34]. In accordance with Schmidt et al. [35], the Bronson equation may serve as a baseline for measuring the El of species during their evolution. According to Kruska [5] and Pagel and Harvey [15], greater BW differences are registered among distantly related species as a result of selection for differences in bw. The study results showed that the biggest differences were registered between the pair-wise groups M-B and M-D; thus we can conclude that B and D dog breeds are more closely related to each other than to M. This is supported by the fact that the B and D breeds were the result of natural and artificial selection over the M breeds, which are most closely related to the gray wolf—Canis lupus—and from which they were domesticated [36]. This selection acted directly on the brain itself, and also depended on the selective forces involved, promoting the decreasing size of one part of the brain in order to increase the size of another [35,37]. This is the result of simultaneous isocortical neurogenesis onset and terminal neurogenesis that varies substantially between the rostral and caudal poles in some species, allowing for disproportionate expansion of some encephalic cortical regions relative to others [38,39,40,41,42,43]. With the Bronson equation, it was possible to verify that D and B specimens presented the best ratio between the registered and the predicted BW, and according the study results, we found that D has the highest mean brain mass, heavier than the B and the M specimens.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, the work demonstrated a strong relationship between the observed and predicted BW by using the Bronson equation. It was possible to hypothesize that groups B and D present a greater El than M breeds, and from the three groups, the D individuals presented the highest brain mass mean.

Acknowledgments

The author thank Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Animal Health, CIISA, of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Lisbon (FMV-ULisboa), Portugal; and Anjos of Assis Veterinary Medicine Centre (CMVAA), Barreiro, Portugal.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declare that he has no conflict of interest. This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

  1. Lindstedt, S.L.; Schaeffer, P.J. Use of allometry in predicting anatomical and physiological parameters of mammals. Lab. Anim. 2002, 36, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Jerison, H.J. Evolution of the Brain and Intelligence; Academic: New York, NY, USA; London, UK, 1973; pp. 406–435. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bronson, R.T. Brain weight-body weight scaling in breeds of dogs and cats. Brain Behav. Evol. 1979, 16, 227–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Schoenemann, P.T. Brain size scaling and body composition in mammals. Brain Behav. Evol. 2004, 63, 47–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Kruska, D. Effects of domestication on brain structure and behavior in mammals. Hum. Evol. 1988, 3, 473–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Radinsky, L. Evolution of brain size in carnivores and ungulates. Am. Nat. 1978, 112, 815–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Röhrs, M. Cephalisation bei Caniden. Z. Zool. Syst. Evolutionsforsch. 1986, 24, 300–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Carrera, I.; Dennis, R.; Mellor, D.J.; Penderis, J.; Sullivan, M. Use of magnetic resonance imaging for morphometric analysis of the caudal cranial fossa in Cavalier King Charles Spaniels. Am. J. Vet. Res. 2009, 70, 340–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Carreira, L.M. Anatomotopography Cranioencephalic Relationships for Intracranial Neurosurgery Procedures in Dog. The Ultrasound as Neuronavigation Technique for Brain Surgery in Real Time. Ph.D. Thesis, Technical University of Lisbon (FMV/UTL), Lisbon, Portugal, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  10. Carreira, L.M.; Ferreira, A. Reference values for dog sagittal and transverse cephalic indices in different skull types and their importance. J. Anim. Vet. Adv. 2015, 14, 91–94. [Google Scholar]
  11. Hart, B.L.; Hart, L.A.; McCoy, M.; Sarath, C.R. Cognitive behaviour in Asian elephants: Use and modification of branches for fly switching. Anim. Behav. 2011, 62, 839–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Seid, M.A.; Castillo, A.; Wcislo, W.T. The allometry of brain miniaturization in ants. Brain Behav. Evol. 2011, 77, 5–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Armstrong, E. Relative brain size and metabolism in mammals. Science 1983, 4603, 1302–1304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Martin, R.D.; Harvey, P. Brain size allometry: Ontogeny and phylogeny. In Size and Scaling in Primate Biology; Jungers, W., Ed.; Plenum Press: New York, NY, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  15. Pagel, M.D.; Harvey, P.H. Taxonomic differences in the scaling of brain on body weight among mammals. Science 1989, 30, 1589–1593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wikswo, J.P.; Curtis, E.L.; Eagleton, Z.E.; Evans, B.C.; Kole, A.; Hofmeister, L.H.; Matloff, W.J. Scaling and systems biology for integrating multiple organs-on-a-chip. Lab Chip 2013, 13, 3496–3511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Conn, P.M. Handbook of Models for Human Aging; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  18. Gould, S.J. Ontogeny and Phylogeny; Harvard University Press: Estados Unidos, MA, USA, 1977. [Google Scholar]
  19. Gould, S.J. An allometric interpretation of species-area curves: The meaning of the coefficient. Am. Nat. 1979, 114, 335–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Jerison, H.J. Allometry, brain size, cortical surface, and convolutedness. In Primate Brain Evolution; Armstrong, E., Falk, D., Eds.; Plenum Press: New York, NY, USA, 1982. [Google Scholar]
  21. Jerison, H.J. The evolutionary biology of intelligence: Afterthoughts. In Intelligence and Evolutionary Biology; Jerison, H., Jerison, I., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  22. Jerison, H.J. The theory of Encephalization. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1977, 299, 146–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Gayon, J. History of the concept of allometry. Integr. Comp. Biol. (ICB) 2000, 40, 748–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Williams, M.F. Primate Encephalization and intelligence. Med. Hypotheses 2002, 58, 284–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Tan, U.; Caliskan, S. Allometry and asymmetry in the dog brain: The right hemisphere is heavier regardless of paw preference. Int. J. Neurosci. 1987, 35, 189–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Rushton, J.P.; Ankney, C.A. Whole brain size and general mental ability: A review. Int. J. Neurosci. 2009, 119, 692–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Bayat, P.D.; Ghanbari, A.; Sohouli, P.; Amiri, S.; Sari-aslani, P. Correlation of skull size and brain volume, with age, weight, height and body mass index of Arak Medical Sciences students. Int. J. Morphol. 2012, 30, 157–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Marino, L.; Sol, D.; Toren, K.; Lefebvre, L. Does diving limit brain size in cetaceans? Mar. Mammal Sci. 2006, 22, 413–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Su, M.Y.; Head, E.; Brooks, W.M.; Wang, Z.; Muggenburg, B.A.; Adam, G.E. Magnetic resonance imaging of anatomic and vascular characteristics in a canine model of human aging. Neurobiol. Aging 1988, 19, 479–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Anderton, B.H. Ageing of the brain. Mech. Ageing Dev. 2002, 123, 811–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Enzinger, C.; Fazekas, F.; Matthews, P.M.; Ropele, S.; Schmidt, H.; Smith, S.; Schmidt, R. Risk factors for progression of brain atrophy in aging: Six-year follow-up of normal subjects. Neurology 2005, 64, 1704–1711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Tapp, P.D.; Siwak, C.T.; Gao, F.Q.; Chiou, J.Y.; Black, S.E.; Head, E.; Muggenburg, B.A.; Cotman, C.W.; Milgram, N.W.; Su, M.Y. Frontal lobe volume, function, and beta-amyloid pathology in a canine model of aging. J. Neurosci. 2004, 24, 8205–8213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Conde, J.R.; Streit, W.J. Microglia in the aging brain. J. Neuropathol. Exp. Neurol. 2006, 65, 199–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Raz, N.; Rodrigue, K.M.; Head, D.; Kennedy, K.M.; Acker, J.D. Differential aging of the medial temporal lobe: A study of a five-year change. Neurology 2004, 62, 433–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Schmidt, M.J.; Amort, K.H.; Failing, K.; Klingler, M.; Kramer, M.; Ondreka, N. Comparison of the endocranial- and brain volumes in brachycephalic dogs, mesaticephalic dogs and Cavalier King Charles spaniels in relation to their body weight. Acta Vet. Scand. 2014, 56, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Hemmer, H. Domestication: The Decline of Environmental Appreciation, 2nd edition; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  37. Healy, S.D.; Harvey, P.H. Comparative studies of the brain and its components. Neth. J. Zool. 1990, 40, 203–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Rakic, P. Neurons in rhesus monkey visual cortex: Systematic relation between time of origin and eventual disposition. Science 2002, 183, 425–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Bush, E.C.; Allman, J.M. The scaling of frontal cortex in primates and carnivores. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2004, 101, 3962–3966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Hutsler, J.J.; Lee, D.G.; Porter, K.K. Comparative analysis of cortical layering and supragranular layer enlargement in rodent carnivore and primate species. Brain Res. 2005, 1052, 71–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Carreira, L.M.; Ferreira, A.; Burilo, F.L. The dorsal sagittal venous sinus anatomical variations in brachycephalic, dolichocephalic, and mesocephalic dogs and their significance for brain surgery. Anat. Rec. Adv. Integr. Anat. Evol. Biol. (Hoboken) 2011, 294, 1920–1929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Carreira, L.M.; Ferreira, A. The importance of the longitudinal cerebral fissure anatomy variations in brachy-, dolicho- and mesaticephalic dogs and their importance to brain surgery. Anat. Rec. Adv. Integr. Anat. Evol. Biol. (Hoboken) 2015, 298, 1612–1621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Workman, A.D.; Charvet, C.J.; Clancy, B.; Darlington, R.B.; Finlay, B.L. Modeling transformations of neurodevelopmental sequences across mammalian species. J. Neurosci. 2013, 33, 7368–7383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1. Descriptive statistics with mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum values, sigma and t, regarding the parameters of age, living weight, brain weight, and breeds in brachy (B), dolicho (D) and mesaticephalic (M) dogs.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics with mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum values, sigma and t, regarding the parameters of age, living weight, brain weight, and breeds in brachy (B), dolicho (D) and mesaticephalic (M) dogs.
GroupParametern x ¯ ± SD 95%CIσ for p > 0.05t
Min (mm)Max (mm)
Bage238.00 ± 1.65 ¥4.0010.00σ > 0.1020.13
bw2315.79 ± 6.46 §4.7026.10σ > 0.1011.71
BW2384.91 ± 31.29 *26.62147.27σ = 0.0813.02
Breed238French Bulldog
7Boxer
4Pekingese
2Pug Carlin
2Shitzu
Dage238.70 ± 2.40 ¥5.0014.00σ > 0.1017.46
bw2323.63 ± 2.59 §18.7029.39σ > 0.1037.79
BW2392.50 ± 8.60 *71.60102.10σ = 0.0050.60
Breed2311Doberman Pinsher
5Rough Collie
4Whippet
3Miniature Bull Terrier
Mage239.50 ± 2.50 ¥5.0015.00σ = 0.0217.70
bw2313.80 ± 7.20 §7.3031.50σ < 0.018.74
BW2369.90 ± 28.70 *35.70143.0σ = 0.0411.68
Breed237Beagle
6Golden Retriever
5Yorkshire Terrier
3Border Collie
2Dalmatian
Body weight (bw); brain weight (BW), minimum (min); maximum (max); confidence interval (CI). Measurements are in millimetres. ¥ Years, § kilograms, * grams.
Table 2. One-way ANOVA and post hoc Bonferroni corrected tests for differences in age, living weight, brain weight, maximum width, length and height between the brachy (B), dolicho (D) and mesaticephalic (M) dogs. The comparison between groups was made with an n = 46 (23 specimens within each group). Also, the comparison between observed and expected brain weight values obtained by using the Bronson equation in brachy (B), dolicho (D) and mesaticephalic (M) dogs. The correlation coefficient (Pearson’s product moment correlation) between both values in the three considered groups. The difference was significant at p-values < 0.05.
Table 2. One-way ANOVA and post hoc Bonferroni corrected tests for differences in age, living weight, brain weight, maximum width, length and height between the brachy (B), dolicho (D) and mesaticephalic (M) dogs. The comparison between groups was made with an n = 46 (23 specimens within each group). Also, the comparison between observed and expected brain weight values obtained by using the Bronson equation in brachy (B), dolicho (D) and mesaticephalic (M) dogs. The correlation coefficient (Pearson’s product moment correlation) between both values in the three considered groups. The difference was significant at p-values < 0.05.
Sample Characteristics
ParameterType of TestDifferences Between GroupsnDM
(I–J)
EPSSMSFSig.CI 95%
MinMax
AgeANOVA-69--28.1714.082.770.06--
BonferroniBD46–0.781.17---1.00–2.410.85
BM46–1.562.35---0.09–3.190.06
DM46–0.781.17---0.39–2.410.85
bwANOVA-69--3303447.712.270.00--
BonferroniBD46–6.62 *3.72---0.00–11.002.25
BM461.730.97---1.00–2.646.10
DM468.36 *4.69---0.00–3.9812.73
BWANOVA-69--473930264.830.01--
BonferroniBD46–7.621.03---1.00–25.7510.50
BM4614.922.02--->0.05–3.2033.06
DM4622.55 *3.05---0.004.4140.68
Brain Weight
GroupnObserved BW (g)Expected BW (g)prχ2 for
χ2c > 5.99
x ¯ minmax x ¯ minmax
B2384.9153.60116.2082.2071.3090.100.680.992.47
D2392.5083.90101.1091.3088.5094.000.350.811.28
M2369.9041.2098.6079.2064.6088.800.170.965.85
Body weight (bw); brain weight (BW); Mean Difference (I–J); confidence interval (CI); minimum (min); maximum (max); Pearson correlation coefficient (r); Chi-square (χc); Chi-square critical (χ2c); * statistically significant.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Carreira, L.M. Using Bronson Equation to Accurately Predict the Dog Brain Weight Based on Body Weight Parameter. Vet. Sci. 2016, 3, 36. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci3040036

AMA Style

Carreira LM. Using Bronson Equation to Accurately Predict the Dog Brain Weight Based on Body Weight Parameter. Veterinary Sciences. 2016; 3(4):36. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci3040036

Chicago/Turabian Style

Carreira, L. Miguel. 2016. "Using Bronson Equation to Accurately Predict the Dog Brain Weight Based on Body Weight Parameter" Veterinary Sciences 3, no. 4: 36. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci3040036

APA Style

Carreira, L. M. (2016). Using Bronson Equation to Accurately Predict the Dog Brain Weight Based on Body Weight Parameter. Veterinary Sciences, 3(4), 36. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci3040036

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop