SJMLS

Page 208 | Inaugural Edition: Volume 1: Number 1 July 2016

Sokoto Journal of Medical Laboratory Science 2016; 1(1): 208 – 214

Orginal Article

SJMLS-1-2016-30

Histological differentiation of Triceps brachii muscle in cattle and one-

humped camel: A comparative study

S.A. Hena*1, M.L. Sonfada1, S.A. Shehu1, M. Jibir2 and A. Bello1

Department of Veterinary Anatomy, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Usmanu Danfodiyo University, Sokoto,

Nigeria 1, Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Usmanu Danfodiyo University, Sokoto,

Nigeria 2.

Corresponding author: sundayhena@yahoo.co.uk; +234-806-052-4623

Abstract

In this study forelimbs obtained from 25 male camels (Camelus dromedarius) and 25 male cattle (Zebu type) slaughtered at Sokoto Municipal Modern abattoir were studied. Each animal was within the age brackets of 6 months to 7 years. The triceps brachii muscle was dissected out and used for histological studies. Generally, the triceps brachii muscles from both the camel and cattle showed typical features of skeletal muscle, but comparatively, it was demonstrated that the camel’s muscles have well outlined muscle fascicle with prominent endomysium surrounding the muscle fibres and prominent muscle fibres than what was obtained in the cattle. The muscle fibres (grains) observed from the triceps brachii of camel was finer and clearer than those observed for the cattle. This could probably be one of the attributes making the camel muscle (meat) to look so appealing grossly and hence a good potential to be utilized in meat industry. Further work is hereby being recommended to be performed in the same area using electron microscopy so as to be able to establish the ultrastructural details of this muscle in these animal species.

Key Words: Histological, Differentiation, Triceps Brachii, Cattle; One-humped Camel.

Introduction

The camel (Camelus dromedarius) is an important

multipurpose livestock species uniquely adapted to

harsh arid and semi-arid areas that can be used for

meat, milk, wool, and hide production (Al-Juboori

and Baker, 2012). Camels are greatly utilized as a

source of meat, and the demand for camel meat

appears to increase due to reasons related to human

health. They produce meat with relatively less fat

than other animals (Dawood and Alkanhal, 1995;

Kurtu, 2004). Meat from young camels has been

reported to be comparable in taste and texture to beef

(Elgasim and Alkanhal, 1992; Kadim et al., 2008).

Cattle are another important animal which is used as

the major source of milk, meat, hides as well as

draught power. Cattle can also be considered as

multi-purpose livestock (Agada et al., 2010). In

addition, they have played a major role in human

culture by participating in recreation and religious

ceremonies. Beef is an important animal husbandry

food product, contributing roughly 30% of meat

consumed in industrialized countries (Pelletier et al.,

2010). Majority of meat from these animals comes

from the skeletal muscles. Skeletal muscle tissue is

named due to its attachment to bones. It consists of

bundles of multinucleated fibres. Each fibre contains

longitudinally disposed myofibrils in a matrix of

sarcoplasm which is limited by a thin membrane, the

sarcolemma. The nuclei are peripherally placed. The

fibres appear to be cross-striated owing to alteration

of thick and thin myofilaments of the myofibrils.

Fibres usually do not extend the entire length of the

muscle. They terminate by attaching to the investing

connective tissue, although some of them may be

arranged more or less end to end (Sisson and

Grossman, 1975). Around each fibre external

to the sarcolemma, is a film of connective tissue, the

endomysium which is composed of fine reticular

fibers (Dyce et al., 2010). Each bundle of fibres

called fasciculus is surrounded by a greater quantity

of connective tissue-the perimysium. The external

sheath about the entire muscle is the epimysium

(Williams, 1991; Dyce et al., 2010). The connective

tissue dispersed in or about the muscles varies from

dense to loose in consistency. Literature searches

made in relation to the histological features of the

triceps brachii muscle in camel and cattle was not

SJMLS

Inaugural Edition: Volume 1: Number 1 July 2016 | Page 209

seen. Hence, the present work was aimed at bridging

the gap due to the paucity of information in this area.

Materials and Method

Forelimbs from 25 male camels (Camelus

dromedarius) and those of 25 male cattle (Zebu type)

each within the ages of 6 months to 7 years were

purchased from Sokoto Municipal Modern abattoir.

The age of each animal was determined, prior to

slaughter, using the method of Wilson (1984) and

Dyce et al. (2010), while evaluation to exclude any

animal with musculoskeletal deformity or diseases

was done through physical examination. The live

body weights of the animals were estimated using

linear body measurement based on the formula of

Yagil (1994).

The limbs obtained were wrapped in clean polythene

bags and transported in a clean cool box containing

ice cubes to the Laboratory in the Department of

Veterinary Anatomy, Usmanu Danfodiyo University,

Sokoto-Nigeria, where the triceps brachii muscles

were all carefully dissected out using the methods of

Chibuzo (2006) as slightly modified by Sonfada

(2008) after most of the connective tissues

ensheathing the muscle were trimmed off.

One centimeter (1cm2) of each muscle sample was

taken from the middle part of the muscle belly and

fixed in 10% formalin for normal H&E histological

preparation (Drury et al., 1967). The prepared slides

were viewed using a microscope (Olympus® CH 23,

Germany) at different magnifications (x40, x100,

x400) thereafter photomicrographs were obtained

using a Digital Camera (Samsung® ES10, 8.1 Mega

Pixels). The photomicrographs obtained were further

transferred into a computer (Compac® Laptop,

HDM, Presario CQ60) for further evaluation and

detailed histologic studies.

Results

The results presented the triceps brachii muscle

across different ages in both camel and cattle

studied. Histologically, the triceps brachii muscles

from both camel and cattle showed typical features

of skeletal muscle. In transverse section, the muscle

photomicrograph was seen showing the perimysium

encircling the muscle fascicle, and the endomysium

covering each muscle fibre (Plate 1). As presented

on the plates (Plates 2-13) below, the comparative

muscle photomicrographs generally demonstrated

that the camel’s muscles have well outlined muscle

fascicle, prominent endomysium surrounding the

muscle fibres and prominent muscle fibres than that

obtained in the cattle. However, all general structure

of muscle was seen among both camel and cattle.

Plate 1: A photomicrograph of a cross section of a normal skeletal muscle of a camel (H&E x150).

Muscle fascicle

Perimysium

Endomysium

Muscle fibre

SJMLS

Page 210 | Inaugural Edition: Volume 1: Number 1 July 2016

Plate 2: A photomicrograph of a Triceps brachii

from 6 months old camel showing clearly distinct

endomysium (arrow) surrounding muscle fibres (I)

(H&E x100).

Plate 3: Photomicrograph of a Triceps brachii of 6

months cattle showing less distinct endomysium

(arrow) around muscle fibre but with clear muscle

fascicles (F) outline (H&E x100).

Plate 4: A photomicrograph of triceps brachii from

1 year old camel showing perimysium (P) with

some faint endomysial outline (arrow) and some

clear muscle fascicles (F) (H&E x 100).

Plate 5: A photomicrograph of triceps brachii from

1 year old camel showing perimysium (P) with

indistinct endomysial outline (arrow) and some

clear muscle fascicles (F) (H&E x 100).

F I

I

I

P F

P

P

F

F

F

F

P

P

SJMLS

Inaugural Edition: Volume 1: Number 1 July 2016 | Page 211

Plate 6: A photomicrograph of triceps brachii

from 3 years old camel showing perimysium

(P) with some faint endomysial outline and

some clear muscle fascicles (F) (H&E x100).

Plate 7: A photomicrograph of triceps brachii

from 3 years old cattle showing perimysium (P)

with indistinct endomysial outline (arrow) and

some clear muscle fascicles (F) (H&E x100).

Plate 8: A photomicrograph of triceps brachii from

3 years old camel showing prominent perimysium

(P), clear endomysial outline (arrow) and clear

muscle fascicles (F) (H&E x100).

Plate 9: A photomicrograph of triceps brachii from

3 years old cattle showing prominent perimysium

(P), indistinct endomysial outline (arrow) and clear

muscle fascicles (F) (H&E x100).

F

P P

P

P

F

P F

F

F

P F

F

P F F F

P

SJMLS

Page 212 | Inaugural Edition: Volume 1: Number 1 July 2016

Plate 10: Photomicrograph of triceps brachii

from 5 years old camel showing muscle

fascicles (F), endomysium (arrow) and

perimysium (P) (H&E x100).

Plate 11: Photomicrograph of triceps brachii

from 5 years old cattle showing muscle

fascicles (F) with ill-defined endomysium

(arrow) and perimysium (P) (H&E x100).

Plate 12: Photomicrograph of triceps brachii

from 7 years old camel showing muscle fascicles

(F), with ill-defined endomysium (arrow) (H&E

x100).

Plate 13: Photomicrograph of triceps brachii

from 7 years old cattle showing muscle fascicles

(F), with no defined endomysium (H&E x100).

A

F

P

F

F

P

F F

P

F

F

F

F

F

F

SJMLS

Inaugural Edition: Volume 1: Number 1 July 2016 | Page 213

Discussion

The normal appearance of the muscles observed in

this study agreed with the report of Junqueira and

Carneiro (2005) on normal skeletal muscle

architectures. However, the observed prominent and

clear muscle architecture in the Camel (as compared

to those of Cattle) was in agreement with Kadim et

al. (2009) who reported that camel muscle had fine

muscle grain (muscle fibres) than cattle. This

attribute of the camel muscle could be an appealing

potential for utilizing this species in the meat

industry. According to Goldspink, (1972) and

Swatland, (1984), fibre architecture can have an

effect on the relative growth of gross muscle

dimensions during development this was however

noted in the course of this work, as it was grossly

noticed that the Camel’s triceps brachii was larger

and more massive than that of the Cattle.

Although ultrastructural evaluation of the studied

muscle was not part of the present study, available

information on skeletal muscles revealed that when

muscle tissues are viewed microscopically, very

regular transverse striations are seen. These

striations are caused by specialized contractile

organelles, the myofibrils, found in muscle. The

striations arise from alternating, protein dense A-

bands and less dense I-bands within the myofibril.

Bisecting the I-bands are dark lines known as Z-

lines. The area between two Z lines being known as

a sarcomere. The less dense I-band is made up

primarily of thin filaments while the A-band is made

up of thick filaments and some overlapping thin

filaments (Goll et al., 1984).

Skeletal muscle has a very complex organization, in

part to allow muscle to efficiently transmit force

originating in the myofibrils to the entire muscle and

ultimately to the limb or structure that is moved. A

relatively thick sheath of connective tissue, the

epimysium, encloses the entire muscle, in most

muscles; the epimysium is continuous with tendons

that link muscles to bones (Rahaman et al., 2010).

As seen in the present work, the muscle is

subdivided into bundles or groupings of muscle

cells. These bundles (also known as fasciculi) are

surrounded by another sheath of connective tissue,

the perimysium. A thin layer of connective tissue,

the endomysium, surrounds the muscle cells

themselves. The endomysium lies above the muscle

cell membrane (sarcolemma) and consists of a

basement membrane that is associated with an outer

layer (reticular layer) that is surrounded by a layer of

fine collagen fibrils imbedded in a matrix (Bailey

and Light, 1989). This study however, could not

capture the collagen fibrils associated with the

muscle.

The finer and clearer muscle fibres (grains) observed

from the triceps brachii of camel than those observed

for the cattle could be one of the attributes making

the camel muscle (meat) to look so appealing

grossly, and probably coupled with other factors

such as colour as observed previously by Kadim and

colleagues (2008) that camel meat has a raspberry

red to dark brown colouration with fine fibre grains.

This work was however able to reveal the

histological differentiation of the triceps brachii

muscle among cattle and camel, establishing that

though both had normal muscle architecture

histology, the camel had better oriented, clear and

fine muscle structural arrangement in terms of the

muscle fascicles as well as the muscle fibre outline.

Further work is hereby recommended to be

performed in the same area using electron

microscopy so as to be able to establish the

ultrastructural details of this muscle in these animal

species.

Conflict of Interests

The researchers wish to state that there is no conflict

of interest within or among the authors with regards

to the publication of this article.

References

1. Agada, C.A., Akombo, P.M. and Alabi, P.I. (2010).

Common diseases of cattle in Nasarawa State. In: The

proceedings of the 47th Annual congress of the

Nigerian Veterinary Medical Association: 151-153.

2. Al-Juboori, A. and Baker, M.M. (2012). Studies on

Common Reproductive Disorders in Dromedary

Camels (Camelus dromedarius) in United Arab

Emirates (UAE) Under Field Conditions. In:

Proceedings of the 3rd Conference of the International

Society of Camelid Research and Developmen: 127-

128.

3. Bailey, A. J. and Light, N. D. (1989). Connective

tissue in meat and meat products. Barking, England:

Elsevier Applied Science.

4. Chibuzo, G. A. (2006). Ruminant Dissection Guide:

A Regional Approach in the Goat. 2nd Edition. Beth-

Bekka Academic Publishers Limited, Maiduguri,

Nigeria.

5. Dawood, A. (1995). Physical and Sensory

characteristics of Najdi camel meat. Meat Science;

39:59–69.

SJMLS

Page 214 | Inaugural Edition: Volume 1: Number 1 July 2016

6. Drury, R.A.B., Wallington, E.A. and Camara, S.R.

(1967). Carleton’s Histological Technique. 4th ed.

Oxford University Press. New York: 48-66.

7. Dyce, K.M., Sack, W.O. and Wensing, C.J.G. (2010).

Textbook of Veterinary Anatomy. 4th ed. W.B.

Saunders Company. Philadelphia.

8. Elgasim, E. A. and Alkanhal, M. A. (1992).

Proximate composition, amino acids and inorganic

mineral content of Arabian camel meat: Comparative

study. Food Chemistry; 45:1–4.Goldspink, G. (1972).

Postembryonic growth and differentiation of striated

muscle. Pp.179-236. In: Bourne, G.H., editor. The

structure and full action of muscle. Volume I.

Structure. Part I. 2nd edition. New York: Academic

Press.

9. Goll, D. E., Robson, R. M. and Stromer, M. H.

(1984). Skeletal muscle, nervous system, temperature

regulation, and special senses. In M.J. Swensen (Ed.),

Duke’s physiology of domestic animals. Ithaca (NY):

Cornell University Press: 548–580.

10. Junqueira, L.C. and Carneiro, J. (2005). Basic

Histology. Text and Atlas. 11th Edition, McGraw –

Hill Medical Publishing division: 182-204.

11. Kadim, I.T., Mahgoub, O. and Purchas, R.W. (2008).

A review of the growth, and of the carcass and meat

quality characteristics of the one-humped camel

(Camelus dromedarius). Meat Science; 80: 555-569.

12. Kadim, I.T., Mahgoub, O., Al-Marzooq, W., Khalaf,

S.K., Mansour, M.H., Al-Sinani, S.S.H. and Al-

Amri, I.S. (2009). Effects of Electrical Stimulation on

Histochemical Muscle Fibre Staining, Quality, and

Composition of Camel and Cattle Longissimus

thoracis Muscles. Journal of Food Science: S44-S52.

13. Kurtu, M. Y. (2004). An assessment of the

productivity for meat and carcass yield of camel

(Camelus dromedarious) and the consumption o f

camel meat in the Eastern region of Ethiopia.

Tropical Animal Health and Production; 36:65–76.

14. Pelletier, N., Pirog, R. and Rasmussen, R. (2010).

Comparative life cycle environmental impacts of

three beef production strategies in the Upper

Midwestern United States. Agricultural Systems;

103:380–389.

15. Rahaman, M.T., Rahman, M.S., Hoque, M.F. and

Parvez, N.H. (2010). Age related muscle texture

variation between Cobb-500 and Ross broiler strain.

J. Bangladesh Agricultural University; 8(2):265–269.

16. Sisson, S. and Grossman, J. D. (1975). The Anatomy

of Domestic Animals. 5th Edition, W. B. Saunders

Company: 416-453.

17. Sonfada, M.L. (2008). Age related changes in

musculoskeletal Tissues of one-humped camel

(Camelus dromedarius) from foetal period to two

years old. A Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Veterinary

Anatomy, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Usmanu

Danfodio University, Sokoto, Nigeria.

18. Swatland, H.J. (1984). Structure and development of

meat animals. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall: 436.

19. Wilson, R.T. (1984). The Camel. First Edition.

Longman Group Ltd. Burnt Mill, Halow, Essex UK:

18.

20. William, F.G. (1991). Review of Medical Physiology

5th ed. (Jack, P and Lange, D.Eds). Prentice Hall

International, USA

21. Yagil, R. (1994). The camel in today’s world. A

handbook on camel management. Germany-Israel

Fund for Research and International Development

& Deutsche Welthungerhilfe, Bonn: 74.