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...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
PeerJ Inc.
2015-11-01
|
| Series: | PeerJ |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://peerj.com/articles/1417.pdf |
| _version_ | 1797418749882531840 |
|---|---|
| author | Léo Botton-Divet Alexandra Houssaye Anthony Herrel Anne-Claire Fabre Raphael Cornette |
| author_facet | Léo Botton-Divet Alexandra Houssaye Anthony Herrel Anne-Claire Fabre Raphael Cornette |
| author_sort | Léo Botton-Divet |
| collection | DOAJ |
| 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-09T06:38:28Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-a75b0d9883514fb1a6453e87d42282ce |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2167-8359 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-09T06:38:28Z |
| publishDate | 2015-11-01 |
| publisher | PeerJ Inc. |
| record_format | Article |
| series | PeerJ |
| spelling | doaj.art-a75b0d9883514fb1a6453e87d42282ce2023-12-03T10:55:18ZengPeerJ Inc.PeerJ2167-83592015-11-013e141710.7717/peerj.1417Tools for quantitative form description; an evaluation of different software packages for semi-landmark analysisLéo Botton-Divet0Alexandra Houssaye1Anthony Herrel2Anne-Claire Fabre3Raphael Cornette4UMR 7179, Mécadev, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris, FranceUMR 7179, Mécadev, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris, FranceUMR 7179, Mécadev, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris, FranceAnimal Locomotion Laboratory, Department of Evolutionary Anthropology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USAUMR 7205, Institut de Systématique, Évolution, Biodiversité, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Ecole Publique des Hautes Études, Paris, FranceThe 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.https://peerj.com/articles/1417.pdfGeometric morphometricsSliding semi-landmarkSoftware comparison |
| spellingShingle | Léo Botton-Divet Alexandra Houssaye Anthony Herrel Anne-Claire Fabre Raphael Cornette Tools for quantitative form description; an evaluation of different software packages for semi-landmark analysis PeerJ Geometric morphometrics Sliding semi-landmark Software comparison |
| 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 | Geometric morphometrics Sliding semi-landmark Software comparison |
| url | https://peerj.com/articles/1417.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT leobottondivet toolsforquantitativeformdescriptionanevaluationofdifferentsoftwarepackagesforsemilandmarkanalysis AT alexandrahoussaye toolsforquantitativeformdescriptionanevaluationofdifferentsoftwarepackagesforsemilandmarkanalysis AT anthonyherrel toolsforquantitativeformdescriptionanevaluationofdifferentsoftwarepackagesforsemilandmarkanalysis AT anneclairefabre toolsforquantitativeformdescriptionanevaluationofdifferentsoftwarepackagesforsemilandmarkanalysis AT raphaelcornette toolsforquantitativeformdescriptionanevaluationofdifferentsoftwarepackagesforsemilandmarkanalysis |