4.6 Article

Powerful and interpretable behavioural features for quantitative phenotyping of Caenorhabditis elegans

Publisher

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2017.0375

Keywords

computational ethology; C. elegans; phenotyping; worm tracking

Categories

Funding

  1. European Research Council [PHENOSPACE 714853]
  2. Medical Research Council [MC-A658-5TY30]
  3. NIH Office of Research Infrastructure Programs [P40 OD010440]
  4. MRC [MC_UP_1102/6] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Behaviour is a sensitive and integrative readout of nervous system function and therefore an attractive measure for assessing the effects of mutation or drug treatment on animals. Video data provide a rich but high-dimensional representation of behaviour, and so the first step of analysis is often some form of tracking and feature extraction to reduce dimensionality while maintaining relevant information. Modern machine-learning methods are powerful but notoriously difficult to interpret, while handcrafted features are interpretable but do not always perform as well. Here, we report a new set of handcrafted features to compactly quantify Caenorhabditis elegans behaviour. The features are designed to be interpretable but to capture as much of the phenotypic differences between worms as possible. We show that the full feature set is more powerful than a previously defined feature set in classifying mutant strains. We then use a combination of automated and manual feature selection to define a core set of interpretable features that still provides sufficient power to detect behavioural differences between mutant strains and the wild-type. Finally, we apply the new features to detect time-resolved behavioural differences in a series of optogenetic experiments targeting different neural subsets. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue 'Connectome to behaviour: modelling C. elegans at cellular resolution'.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available