| Literature DB >> 32932900 |
Luis M Gallego-Sánchez1, Francisco J Canales1, Gracia Montilla-Bascón1, Elena Prats1.
Abstract
Recently, phenotyping has become one of the main bottlenecks in plant breeding and fundamental plant science. This is particularly true for plant disease assessment, which has to deal with time-consuming evaluations and the subjectivity of visual assessments. In this work, we have developed an open source Robust, User-friendy Script Tool (RUST) for semi-automated evaluation of leaf rust diseases. RUST runs under the free Fiji imaging software (developed from ImageJ), which is a well-recognized software among the scientific community. The script enables the evaluation of leaf rust diseases using a color transformation tool and provides three different automation modes. The script opens images sequentially and records infection frequency (pustules per area) (semi-)automatically for high-throughput analysis. Furthermore, it can manage several scanned leaf segments in the same image, consecutively selecting the desired segments. The script has been validated with nearly 900 samples from 80 oat genotypes ranging from resistant to susceptible and from very light to heavily infected leaves showing a high accuracy with a Lin's concordance correlation coefficient of 0.99. The analysis show a high repeatability as indicated by the low variation coefficients obtained when repeating the measurement of the same samples. The script also has optional steps for calibration and training to ensure accuracy, even in low-resolution images. This script can evaluate efficiently hundreds of leaves facilitating the screening of novel sources of resistance to this important cereal disease.Entities:
Keywords: Fiji; ImageJ; disease severity; image analysis; infection frequency; rust
Year: 2020 PMID: 32932900 PMCID: PMC7576472 DOI: 10.3390/plants9091182
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Figure 1Scheme of the process followed by the Robust, User-Friendly Script Tool (RUST) to evaluate and record rust diseases.
Figure 2Screenshot of the Fiji application running RUST. (a). Screenshot for selecting crop, mode of evaluation, training/calibration option, and resolution. (b) and (c) Screenshot of the area selection step through the (b) automated wand tool or (c) manual selection. (d). Screenshot of the color transformation step that identifies rust pustules.
Figure 3Discrimination of pustules from healthy tissue by RUST script. (a) Detection of primary rust pustules. (b) Detection and counting of a ring of secondary pustules surrounding a primary pustule.
Agreement and reliability parameters of the comparison of infection frequency measured visually or with the RUST script under different conditions. Bias correction factor or generalized bias (Cb), Pearson (r), and Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient (LCCC), regression statistics, and model parameters for linear regression were calculated with SPSS software. The full dataset was obtained from n = 892 samples. The effect of training on high-resolution (HR) or low-resolution (LR) images was estimated from a set of n = 30 samples.
| Samples | Cb a | r b | LCCC c |
| Slope | Intercept |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Complete set | 0.999 | 0.989 | 0.989 | 0.98 | 0.99 | 1.46 | <0.001 |
| Training HR | 0.998 | 0.982 | 0.980 | 0.96 | 0.97 | 0.12 | <0.001 |
| No Training HR | 0.998 | 0.964 | 0.962 | 0.93 | 0.97 | 0.08 | <0.001 |
| Training LR | 0.986 | 0.921 | 0.908 | 0.84 | 0.95 | 0.7 | <0.001 |
| No Training LR | 0.126 | 0.619 | 0.078 | 0.38 | 0.18 | 0.09 | <0.001 |
a Generalized bias or bias correction factor (Cb) measures how far the best-fit line deviates from 45° (measure of accuracy). b The Pearson correlation coefficient (r) measures how far each observation deviated from the best-fit line (measure of precision). c Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient (LCCC) combines both measures of precision (r) and accuracy (Cb). d The coefficient of determination (R2), explains the proportion of the variance in the dependent variable that is predictable from the independent variable and is a quantitative measure of reliability [35,36,37].
Figure 4Linear relationship between the number of pustules estimated visually or with RUST.
Figure 5Linear relationship between the number of pustules estimated visually or with RUST under different scenarios. At 1200 ppi with (a) or without (b) the training step or at 300 ppi with (c) or without training step (d).