Tools for Quantitative Form Description; an Evaluation of Different Software Packages for Semi-landmark Analysis

Overview

Journal PeerJ

Specialties Biology
Environmental Health
General Medicine

Date 2015 Dec 1

PMID 26618086

Citations 16

Authors

Leo Botton-Divet

Alexandra Houssaye

Anthony Herrel

Anne-Claire Fabre

Raphael Cornette

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

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.

Citing Articles

Brain shapes of large-bodied, flightless ratites (Aves: Palaeognathae) emerge through distinct developmental allometries.

Forcellati M, Green T, Watanabe A R Soc Open Sci. 2024; 11(9):240765.

PMID: 39263457 PMC: 11387061. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.240765.

The evolution of femoral morphology in giant non-avian theropod dinosaurs.

Pintore R, Hutchinson J, Bishop P, Tsai H, Houssaye A Paleobiology. 2024; 50(2):308-329.

PMID: 38846629 PMC: 7616063. DOI: 10.1017/pab.2024.6.

Elbow dimensions in quadrupedal mammals driven by lubrication regime.

Marquez-Florez K, Arroyave-Tobon S, Tadrist L, Linares J Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):2177.

PMID: 38272957 PMC: 10810906. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-50619-x.

Initial Steps towards a Multilevel Functional Principal Components Analysis Model of Dynamical Shape Changes.

Farnell D, Claes P J Imaging. 2023; 9(4).

PMID: 37103237 PMC: 10144090. DOI: 10.3390/jimaging9040086.

Foot adaptation to climbing in ovenbirds and woodcreepers (Furnariida).

Leblanc K, Pintore R, Galvao A, Heitz E, Provini P J Anat. 2022; 242(4):607-626.

PMID: 36525307 PMC: 10008296. DOI: 10.1111/joa.13805.

References

Bass S, Saxon L, Daly R, Turner C, Robling A, Seeman E . The effect of mechanical loading on the size and shape of bone in pre-, peri-, and postpubertal girls: a study in tennis players. J Bone Miner Res. 2002; 17(12):2274-80. DOI: 10.1359/jbmr.2002.17.12.2274. View

Currey J . The many adaptations of bone. J Biomech. 2003; 36(10):1487-95. DOI: 10.1016/s0021-9290(03)00124-6. View

Cubo J . Pattern and process in constructional morphology. Evol Dev. 2004; 6(3):131-3. DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-142X.2004.04018.x. View

Perez S, Bernal V, Gonzalez P . Differences between sliding semi-landmark methods in geometric morphometrics, with an application to human craniofacial and dental variation. J Anat. 2006; 208(6):769-84. PMC: 2100233. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-7580.2006.00576.x. View

Cubo J, Legendre P, de Ricqles A, Montes L, de Margerie E, Castanet J . Phylogenetic, functional, and structural components of variation in bone growth rate of amniotes. Evol Dev. 2008; 10(2):217-27. DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-142X.2008.00229.x. View

Kulemeyer C, Asbahr K, Gunz P, Frahnert S, Bairlein F . Functional morphology and integration of corvid skulls - a 3D geometric morphometric approach. Front Zool. 2009; 6:2. PMC: 2651141. DOI: 10.1186/1742-9994-6-2. View

Monteiro L, Nogueira M . Adaptive radiations, ecological specialization, and the evolutionary integration of complex morphological structures. Evolution. 2009; 64(3):724-44. DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00857.x. View

De Groote I, Lockwood C, Aiello L . Technical note: A new method for measuring long bone curvature using 3D landmarks and semi-landmarks. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2010; 141(4):658-64. DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.21225. View

Skinner M, Gunz P . The presence of accessory cusps in chimpanzee lower molars is consistent with a patterning cascade model of development. J Anat. 2010; 217(3):245-53. PMC: 2972538. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-7580.2010.01265.x. View

10.

Pizzo A, Mazzone F, Rolando A, Palestrini C . Combination of geometric morphometric and genetic approaches applied to a debated taxonomical issue: the status of Onthophagus massai (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae) as an endemic species vicarious to Onthophagus fracticornis in Sicily. Zoology (Jena). 2011; 114(4):199-212. DOI: 10.1016/j.zool.2011.03.003. View

11.

Parr W, Wroe S, Chamoli U, Richards H, McCurry M, Clausen P . Toward integration of geometric morphometrics and computational biomechanics: new methods for 3D virtual reconstruction and quantitative analysis of Finite Element Models. J Theor Biol. 2012; 301:1-14. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2012.01.030. View

12.

Fabre A, Cornette R, Slater G, Argot C, Peigne S, Goswami A . Getting a grip on the evolution of grasping in musteloid carnivorans: a three-dimensional analysis of forelimb shape. J Evol Biol. 2013; 26(7):1521-35. DOI: 10.1111/jeb.12161. View

13.

Beaupre G, ORR T, Carter D . An approach for time-dependent bone modeling and remodeling-application: a preliminary remodeling simulation. J Orthop Res. 1990; 8(5):662-70. DOI: 10.1002/jor.1100080507. View

14.

Cornette R, Baylac M, Souter T, Herrel A . Does shape co-variation between the skull and the mandible have functional consequences? A 3D approach for a 3D problem. J Anat. 2013; 223(4):329-36. PMC: 3791126. DOI: 10.1111/joa.12086. View

15.

Alvarez A, Ercoli M, Prevosti F . Locomotion in some small to medium-sized mammals: a geometric morphometric analysis of the penultimate lumbar vertebra, pelvis and hindlimbs. Zoology (Jena). 2013; 116(6):356-71. DOI: 10.1016/j.zool.2013.08.007. View

16.

Fabre A, Goswami A, Peigne S, Cornette R . Morphological integration in the forelimb of musteloid carnivorans. J Anat. 2014; 225(1):19-30. PMC: 4089343. DOI: 10.1111/joa.12194. View

17.

Martin-Serra A, Figueirido B, Palmqvist P . A three-dimensional analysis of the morphological evolution and locomotor behaviour of the carnivoran hind limb. BMC Evol Biol. 2014; 14:129. PMC: 4065579. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2148-14-129. View

18.

Cornette R, Tresset A, Herrel A . The shrew tamed by Wolff's law: do functional constraints shape the skull through muscle and bone covariation?. J Morphol. 2014; 276(3):301-9. DOI: 10.1002/jmor.20339. View

19.

Peres-Neto P, Jackson D . How well do multivariate data sets match? The advantages of a Procrustean superimposition approach over the Mantel test. Oecologia. 2017; 129(2):169-178. DOI: 10.1007/s004420100720. View

20.

Lanyon L, Goodship A, Pye C, MacFie J . Mechanically adaptive bone remodelling. J Biomech. 1982; 15(3):141-54. DOI: 10.1016/0021-9290(82)90246-9. View