Search bioRxiv⌕ Search

Biology subjects

Roston, R. A.

Publications and source records attributed to Roston, R. A..

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Morphological simulation tests the limits on phenotype discovery in 3D image analysis

In the past few decades, advances in 3D imaging have created new opportunities for reverse genetic screens. Rapidly growing datasets of 3D images of genetic knockouts require high-throughput, automated computational approaches for identifying and characterizing new phenotypes. However, exploratory, discovery-oriented image analysis pipelines used to discover these phenotypes can be difficult to validate because, by their nature, the expected outcome is not known a priori. Introducing known morphological variation through simulation can help distinguish between real phenotypic differences and random variation; elucidate the effects of sample size; and test the sensitivity and reproducibility of morphometric analyses. Here we present a novel approach for 3D morphological simulation that uses open-source, open-access tools available in 3D Slicer, SlicerMorph, and Advanced Normalization Tools in R (ANTsR). While we focus on diffusible-iodine contrast-enhanced micro-CT (diceCT) images, this approach can be used on any volumetric image. We then use our simulated datasets to test whether tensor-based morphometry (TBM) can recover our introduced differences; to test how effect size and sample size affect detectability; and to determine the reproducibility of our results. In our approach to morphological simulation, we first generate a simulated deformation based on a reference image and then propagate this deformation to subjects using inverse transforms obtained from the registration of subjects to the reference. This produces a new dataset with a shifted population mean while retaining individual variability because each sample deforms more or less based on how different or similar it is from the reference. TBM is a widely-used technique that statistically compares local volume differences associated with local deformations. Our results showed that TBM recovered our introduced morphological differences, but that detectability was dependent on the effect size, the sample size, and the region of interest (ROI) included in the analysis. Detectability of subtle phenotypes can be improved both by increasing the sample size and by limiting analyses to specific body regions. However, it is not always feasible to increase sample sizes in screens of essential genes. Therefore, methodical use of ROIs is a promising way to increase the power of TBM to detect subtle phenotypes. Generating known morphological variation through simulation has broad applicability in developmental, evolutionary, and biomedical morphometrics and is a useful way to distinguish between a failure to detect morphological difference and a true lack of morphological difference. Morphological simulation can also be applied to AI-based supervised learning to augment datasets and overcome dataset limitations.

zoology↗

A cautionary note on quantitative measures of phenotypic convergence

Tests of phenotypic convergence can provide evidence of adaptive evolution, and the popularity of such studies has grown in recent years due to the development of novel, quantitative methods for identifying and measuring convergence. These methods include the commonly applied C1-C4 measures of Stayton (2015), which measure morphological distances between lineages, and Ornstein-Uhlenbeck (OU) evolutionary model-fitting analyses, which test whether lineages convergently evolved toward adaptive peaks. We test the performance of C-measures and other convergence measures under various evolutionary scenarios and reveal a critical issue with C-measures: they often misidentify divergent lineages as convergent. We address this issue by developing novel convergence measures--Ct1-Ct4-measures--that measure distances between lineages at specific points in time, minimizing the possibility of misidentifying divergent taxa as convergent. Ct-measures are most appropriate when focal lineages are of the same or similar geologic ages (e.g., extant taxa), meaning that the lineages evolutionary histories include considerable overlap in time. Beyond C-measures, we find that all convergence measures are influenced by the position of focal taxa in phenotypic space, with morphological outliers often statistically more likely to be measured as strongly convergent by chance. Further, we mimic scenarios in which researchers assess convergence using OU models with a priori regime assignments (e.g., classifying taxa by ecological traits), and we find that multiple-regime OU models with phenotypically divergent lineages assigned to a shared selective regime often outperform simpler models. This highlights that model support for these multiple-regime OU models should not be assumed to always reflect convergence among focal lineages of a shared regime. Our new Ct1-Ct4-measures provide researchers with an improved comparative tool, but we emphasize that all available convergence measures are imperfect, and researchers should recognize the limitations of these methods and use multiple lines of evidence when inferring and measuring convergence.

evolutionary biology↗