Development and Assessment of Fully Automated and Globally Transitive Geometric Morphometric Methods, With Application to a Biological Comparative Dataset With High Interspecific Variation.

Automated geometric morphometric methods are promising tools for shape analysis in comparative biology, improving researchers' abilities to quantify variation extensively (by permitting more specimens to be analyzed) and intensively (by characterizing shapes with greater fidelity). Although use of these methods has increased, published automated methods have some notable limitations: pairwise correspondences are frequently inaccurate and pairwise mappings are not globally consistent (i.e., they lack transitivity across the full sample). Here, we reassess the accuracy of published automated methods-cPDist (Boyer et al. Proc Nat Acad Sci 108 () 18221-18226) and auto3Dgm (Boyer et al.: Anat Rec 298 () 249-276)-and evaluate several modifications to these methods. We show that a substantial percentage of alignments and pairwise maps between specimens of dissimilar geometries were inaccurate in the study of Boyer et al. (Proc Nat Acad Sci 108 () 18221-18226), despite a taxonomically partitioned variance structure of continuous Procrustes distances. We show these inaccuracies are remedied using a globally informed methodology within a collection of shapes, rather than relying on pairwise comparisons (c.f. Boyer et al.: Anat Rec 298 () 249-276). Unfortunately, while global information generally enhances maps between dissimilar objects, it can degrade the quality of correspondences between similar objects due to the accumulation of numerical error. We explore a number of approaches to mitigate this degradation, quantify their performance, and compare the generated pairwise maps (and the shape space characterized by these maps) to a "ground truth" obtained from landmarks manually collected by geometric morphometricians. Novel methods both improve the quality of the pairwise correspondences relative to cPDist and achieve a taxonomic distinctiveness comparable to auto3Dgm. Anat Rec, 301:636-658, 2018. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

A new fully automated approach for aligning and comparing shapes.

Three-dimensional geometric morphometric (3DGM) methods for placing landmarks on digitized bones have become increasingly sophisticated in the last 20 years, including greater degrees of automation. One aspect shared by all 3DGM methods is that the researcher must designate initial landmarks. Thus, researcher interpretations of homology and correspondence are required for and influence representations of shape. We present an algorithm allowing fully automatic placement of correspondence points on samples of 3D digital models representing bones of different individuals/species, which can then be input into standard 3DGM software and analyzed with dimension reduction techniques. We test this algorithm against several samples, primarily a dataset of 106 primate calcanei represented by 1,024 correspondence points per bone. Results of our automated analysis of these samples are compared to a published study using a traditional 3DGM approach with 27 landmarks on each bone. Data were analyzed with morphologika(2.5) and PAST. Our analyses returned strong correlations between principal component scores, similar variance partitioning among components, and similarities between the shape spaces generated by the automatic and traditional methods. While cluster analyses of both automatically generated and traditional datasets produced broadly similar patterns, there were also differences. Overall these results suggest to us that automatic quantifications can lead to shape spaces that are as meaningful as those based on observer landmarks, thereby presenting potential to save time in data collection, increase completeness of morphological quantification, eliminate observer error, and allow comparisons of shape diversity between different types of bones. We provide an R package for implementing this analysis.

Using genetic networks and homology to understand the evolution of phenotypic traits.

Homology can have different meanings for different kinds of biologists. A phylogenetic view holds that homology, defined by common ancestry, is rigorously identified through phylogenetic analysis. Such homologies are taxic homologies (=synapomorphies). A second interpretation, "biological homology" emphasizes common ancestry through the continuity of genetic information underlying phenotypic traits, and is favored by some developmental geneticists. A third kind of homology, deep homology, was recently defined as "the sharing of the genetic regulatory apparatus used to build morphologically and phylogenetically disparate features." Here we explain the commonality among these three versions of homology. We argue that biological homology, as evidenced by a conserved gene regulatory network giving a trait its "essential identity" (a Character Identity Network or "ChIN") must also be a taxic homology. In cases where a phenotypic trait has been modified over the course of evolution such that homology (taxic) is obscured (e.g. jaws are modified gill arches), a shared underlying ChIN provides evidence of this transformation. Deep homologies, where molecular and cellular components of a phenotypic trait precede the trait itself (are phylogenetically deep relative to the trait), are also taxic homologies, undisguised. Deep homologies inspire particular interest for understanding the evolutionary assembly of phenotypic traits. Mapping these deeply homologous building blocks on a phylogeny reveals the sequential steps leading to the origin of phenotypic novelties. Finally, we discuss how new genomic technologies will revolutionize the comparative genomic study of non-model organisms in a phylogenetic context, necessary to understand the evolution of phenotypic traits.