Cargando…
Comparing Automated Morphology Quantification Software on Dendrites of Uninjured and Injured Drosophila Neurons
Dendrites shape inputs and integration of depolarization that controls neuronal activity in the nervous system. Neuron pathologies can damage dendrite architecture and cause abnormalities in morphologies after injury. Dendrite regeneration can be quantified by various parameters, including total den...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer US
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8566419/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34342808 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12021-021-09532-9 |
_version_ | 1784594006579085312 |
---|---|
author | Nguyen, Carolee Thompson-Peer, Katherine L. |
author_facet | Nguyen, Carolee Thompson-Peer, Katherine L. |
author_sort | Nguyen, Carolee |
collection | PubMed |
description | Dendrites shape inputs and integration of depolarization that controls neuronal activity in the nervous system. Neuron pathologies can damage dendrite architecture and cause abnormalities in morphologies after injury. Dendrite regeneration can be quantified by various parameters, including total dendrite length and number of dendrite branches using manual or automated image analysis approaches. However, manual quantification is tedious and time consuming and automated approaches are often trained using wildtype neurons, making them poorly suited for analysis of genetically manipulated or injured dendrite arbors. In this study, we tested how well automated image analysis software performed on class IV Drosophila neurons, which have several hundred individual dendrite branches. We applied each software to automatically quantify features of uninjured neurons and neurons that regenerated new dendrites after injury. Regenerated arbors exhibit defects across multiple features of dendrite morphology, which makes them challenging for automated pipelines to analyze. We compared the performances of three automated pipelines against manual quantification using Simple Neurite Tracer in ImageJ: one that is commercially available (Imaris) and two developed by independent research groups (DeTerm and Tireless Tracing Genie). Out of the three software tested, we determined that Imaris is the most efficient at reconstructing dendrite architecture, but does not accurately measure total dendrite length even after intensive manual editing. Imaris outperforms both DeTerm and Tireless Tracing Genie for counting dendrite branches, and is better able to recreate previous conclusions from this same dataset. This thorough comparison of strengths and weaknesses of each software demonstrates their utility for analyzing regenerated neuron phenotypes in future studies. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12021-021-09532-9. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8566419 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Springer US |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-85664192021-11-15 Comparing Automated Morphology Quantification Software on Dendrites of Uninjured and Injured Drosophila Neurons Nguyen, Carolee Thompson-Peer, Katherine L. Neuroinformatics Original Article Dendrites shape inputs and integration of depolarization that controls neuronal activity in the nervous system. Neuron pathologies can damage dendrite architecture and cause abnormalities in morphologies after injury. Dendrite regeneration can be quantified by various parameters, including total dendrite length and number of dendrite branches using manual or automated image analysis approaches. However, manual quantification is tedious and time consuming and automated approaches are often trained using wildtype neurons, making them poorly suited for analysis of genetically manipulated or injured dendrite arbors. In this study, we tested how well automated image analysis software performed on class IV Drosophila neurons, which have several hundred individual dendrite branches. We applied each software to automatically quantify features of uninjured neurons and neurons that regenerated new dendrites after injury. Regenerated arbors exhibit defects across multiple features of dendrite morphology, which makes them challenging for automated pipelines to analyze. We compared the performances of three automated pipelines against manual quantification using Simple Neurite Tracer in ImageJ: one that is commercially available (Imaris) and two developed by independent research groups (DeTerm and Tireless Tracing Genie). Out of the three software tested, we determined that Imaris is the most efficient at reconstructing dendrite architecture, but does not accurately measure total dendrite length even after intensive manual editing. Imaris outperforms both DeTerm and Tireless Tracing Genie for counting dendrite branches, and is better able to recreate previous conclusions from this same dataset. This thorough comparison of strengths and weaknesses of each software demonstrates their utility for analyzing regenerated neuron phenotypes in future studies. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12021-021-09532-9. Springer US 2021-08-03 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8566419/ /pubmed/34342808 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12021-021-09532-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Original Article Nguyen, Carolee Thompson-Peer, Katherine L. Comparing Automated Morphology Quantification Software on Dendrites of Uninjured and Injured Drosophila Neurons |
title | Comparing Automated Morphology Quantification Software on Dendrites of Uninjured and Injured Drosophila Neurons |
title_full | Comparing Automated Morphology Quantification Software on Dendrites of Uninjured and Injured Drosophila Neurons |
title_fullStr | Comparing Automated Morphology Quantification Software on Dendrites of Uninjured and Injured Drosophila Neurons |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparing Automated Morphology Quantification Software on Dendrites of Uninjured and Injured Drosophila Neurons |
title_short | Comparing Automated Morphology Quantification Software on Dendrites of Uninjured and Injured Drosophila Neurons |
title_sort | comparing automated morphology quantification software on dendrites of uninjured and injured drosophila neurons |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8566419/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34342808 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12021-021-09532-9 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT nguyencarolee comparingautomatedmorphologyquantificationsoftwareondendritesofuninjuredandinjureddrosophilaneurons AT thompsonpeerkatherinel comparingautomatedmorphologyquantificationsoftwareondendritesofuninjuredandinjureddrosophilaneurons |