Cargando…
Tools for quantitative form description; an evaluation of different software packages for semi-landmark analysis
The challenging complexity of biological structures has led to the development of several methods for quantitative analyses of form. Bones are shaped by the interaction of historical (phylogenetic), structural, and functional constrains. Consequently, bone shape has been investigated intensively in...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
PeerJ Inc.
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4655098/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26618086 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1417 |
_version_ | 1782402149996560384 |
---|---|
author | Botton-Divet, Léo Houssaye, Alexandra Herrel, Anthony Fabre, Anne-Claire Cornette, Raphael |
author_facet | Botton-Divet, Léo Houssaye, Alexandra Herrel, Anthony Fabre, Anne-Claire Cornette, Raphael |
author_sort | Botton-Divet, Léo |
collection | PubMed |
description | The challenging complexity of biological structures has led to the development of several methods for quantitative analyses of form. Bones are shaped by the interaction of historical (phylogenetic), structural, and functional constrains. Consequently, bone shape has been investigated intensively in an evolutionary context. Geometric morphometric approaches allow the description of the shape of an object in all of its biological complexity. However, when biological objects present only few anatomical landmarks, sliding semi-landmarks may provide good descriptors of shape. The sliding procedure, mandatory for sliding semi-landmarks, requires several steps that may be time-consuming. We here compare the time required by two different software packages (‘Edgewarp’ and ‘Morpho’) for the same sliding task, and investigate potential differences in the results and biological interpretation. ‘Morpho’ is much faster than ‘Edgewarp,’ notably as a result of the greater computational power of the ‘Morpho’ software routines and the complexity of the ‘Edgewarp’ workflow. Morphospaces obtained using both software packages are similar and provide a consistent description of the biological variability. The principal differences between the two software packages are observed in areas characterized by abrupt changes in the bone topography. In summary, both software packages perform equally well in terms of the description of biological structures, yet differ in the simplicity of the workflow and time needed to perform the analyses. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4655098 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | PeerJ Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-46550982015-11-27 Tools for quantitative form description; an evaluation of different software packages for semi-landmark analysis Botton-Divet, Léo Houssaye, Alexandra Herrel, Anthony Fabre, Anne-Claire Cornette, Raphael PeerJ Zoology The challenging complexity of biological structures has led to the development of several methods for quantitative analyses of form. Bones are shaped by the interaction of historical (phylogenetic), structural, and functional constrains. Consequently, bone shape has been investigated intensively in an evolutionary context. Geometric morphometric approaches allow the description of the shape of an object in all of its biological complexity. However, when biological objects present only few anatomical landmarks, sliding semi-landmarks may provide good descriptors of shape. The sliding procedure, mandatory for sliding semi-landmarks, requires several steps that may be time-consuming. We here compare the time required by two different software packages (‘Edgewarp’ and ‘Morpho’) for the same sliding task, and investigate potential differences in the results and biological interpretation. ‘Morpho’ is much faster than ‘Edgewarp,’ notably as a result of the greater computational power of the ‘Morpho’ software routines and the complexity of the ‘Edgewarp’ workflow. Morphospaces obtained using both software packages are similar and provide a consistent description of the biological variability. The principal differences between the two software packages are observed in areas characterized by abrupt changes in the bone topography. In summary, both software packages perform equally well in terms of the description of biological structures, yet differ in the simplicity of the workflow and time needed to perform the analyses. PeerJ Inc. 2015-11-19 /pmc/articles/PMC4655098/ /pubmed/26618086 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1417 Text en © 2015 Botton-Divet et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited. |
spellingShingle | Zoology Botton-Divet, Léo Houssaye, Alexandra Herrel, Anthony Fabre, Anne-Claire Cornette, Raphael Tools for quantitative form description; an evaluation of different software packages for semi-landmark analysis |
title | Tools for quantitative form description; an evaluation of different software packages for semi-landmark analysis |
title_full | Tools for quantitative form description; an evaluation of different software packages for semi-landmark analysis |
title_fullStr | Tools for quantitative form description; an evaluation of different software packages for semi-landmark analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Tools for quantitative form description; an evaluation of different software packages for semi-landmark analysis |
title_short | Tools for quantitative form description; an evaluation of different software packages for semi-landmark analysis |
title_sort | tools for quantitative form description; an evaluation of different software packages for semi-landmark analysis |
topic | Zoology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4655098/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26618086 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1417 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bottondivetleo toolsforquantitativeformdescriptionanevaluationofdifferentsoftwarepackagesforsemilandmarkanalysis AT houssayealexandra toolsforquantitativeformdescriptionanevaluationofdifferentsoftwarepackagesforsemilandmarkanalysis AT herrelanthony toolsforquantitativeformdescriptionanevaluationofdifferentsoftwarepackagesforsemilandmarkanalysis AT fabreanneclaire toolsforquantitativeformdescriptionanevaluationofdifferentsoftwarepackagesforsemilandmarkanalysis AT cornetteraphael toolsforquantitativeformdescriptionanevaluationofdifferentsoftwarepackagesforsemilandmarkanalysis |