z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Tools for quantitative form description; an evaluation of different software packages for semi-landmark analysis
Author(s) -
Léo BottonDivet,
Alexandra Houssaye,
Anthony Herrel,
AnneClaire Fabre,
Raphaël Cornette
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
peerj
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.927
H-Index - 70
ISSN - 2167-8359
DOI - 10.7717/peerj.1417
Subject(s) - workflow , computer science , software , morpho , context (archaeology) , landmark , biological data , principal component analysis , artificial intelligence , data mining , pattern recognition (psychology) , bioinformatics , biology , paleontology , botany , database , programming language
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.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom