Aditya Srinivasan1, Jesús Muñoz-Estrada2, Justin R Bourgeois2, Julia W Nalwalk2, Kevin M Pumiglia3, Volney L Sheen4, Russell J Ferland5. 1. Department of Neuroscience and Experimental Therapeutics, Albany Medical College, Albany, NY 12208, United States. Electronic address: sriniva1@amc.edu. 2. Department of Neuroscience and Experimental Therapeutics, Albany Medical College, Albany, NY 12208, United States. 3. Department of Regenerative Cell and Cancer Cell Biology, Albany Medical College, Albany, NY 12208, United States. 4. Department of Neurology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, United States. 5. Department of Neuroscience and Experimental Therapeutics, Albany Medical College, Albany, NY 12208, United States; Department of Neurology, Albany Medical College, Albany, NY 12208, United States. Electronic address: ferlanr@amc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Morphometric analyses of biological features have become increasingly common in recent years with such analyses being subject to a large degree of observer bias, variability, and time consumption. While commercial software packages exist to perform these analyses, they are expensive, require extensive user training, and are usually dependent on the observer tracing the morphology. NEW METHOD: To address these issues, we have developed a broadly applicable, no-cost ImageJ plugin we call 'BranchAnalysis2D/3D', to perform morphometric analyses of structures with branching morphologies, such as neuronal dendritic spines, vascular morphology, and primary cilia. RESULTS: Our BranchAnalysis2D/3D algorithm allows for rapid quantification of the length and thickness of branching morphologies, independent of user tracing, in both 2D and 3D data sets. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHODS: We validated the performance of BranchAnalysis2D/3D against pre-existing software packages using trained human observers and images from brain and retina. We found that the BranchAnalysis2D/3D algorithm outputs results similar to available software (i.e., Metamorph, AngioTool, Neurolucida), while allowing faster analysis times and unbiased quantification. CONCLUSIONS: BranchAnalysis2D/3D allows inexperienced observers to output results like a trained observer but more efficiently, thereby increasing the consistency, speed, and reliability of morphometric analyses.
BACKGROUND: Morphometric analyses of biological features have become increasingly common in recent years with such analyses being subject to a large degree of observer bias, variability, and time consumption. While commercial software packages exist to perform these analyses, they are expensive, require extensive user training, and are usually dependent on the observer tracing the morphology. NEW METHOD: To address these issues, we have developed a broadly applicable, no-cost ImageJ plugin we call 'BranchAnalysis2D/3D', to perform morphometric analyses of structures with branching morphologies, such as neuronal dendritic spines, vascular morphology, and primary cilia. RESULTS: Our BranchAnalysis2D/3D algorithm allows for rapid quantification of the length and thickness of branching morphologies, independent of user tracing, in both 2D and 3D data sets. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHODS: We validated the performance of BranchAnalysis2D/3D against pre-existing software packages using trained human observers and images from brain and retina. We found that the BranchAnalysis2D/3D algorithm outputs results similar to available software (i.e., Metamorph, AngioTool, Neurolucida), while allowing faster analysis times and unbiased quantification. CONCLUSIONS: BranchAnalysis2D/3D allows inexperienced observers to output results like a trained observer but more efficiently, thereby increasing the consistency, speed, and reliability of morphometric analyses.
Authors: Johannes Schindelin; Ignacio Arganda-Carreras; Erwin Frise; Verena Kaynig; Mark Longair; Tobias Pietzsch; Stephan Preibisch; Curtis Rueden; Stephan Saalfeld; Benjamin Schmid; Jean-Yves Tinevez; Daniel James White; Volker Hartenstein; Kevin Eliceiri; Pavel Tomancak; Albert Cardona Journal: Nat Methods Date: 2012-06-28 Impact factor: 28.547
Authors: Russell J Ferland; Xiaoyu Li; Janet E Buhlmann; Xia Bu; Christopher A Walsh; Bing Lim Journal: Brain Res Date: 2005-08-23 Impact factor: 3.252
Authors: Dara L Dickstein; Daniel R Dickstein; William G M Janssen; Patrick R Hof; Jacob R Glaser; Alfredo Rodriguez; Nate O'Connor; Paul Angstman; Susan J Tappan Journal: Curr Protoc Neurosci Date: 2016-10-03
Authors: Hanchuan Peng; Jianyong Tang; Hang Xiao; Alessandro Bria; Jianlong Zhou; Victoria Butler; Zhi Zhou; Paloma T Gonzalez-Bellido; Seung W Oh; Jichao Chen; Ananya Mitra; Richard W Tsien; Hongkui Zeng; Giorgio A Ascoli; Giulio Iannello; Michael Hawrylycz; Eugene Myers; Fuhui Long Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2014-07-11 Impact factor: 14.919