4.6 Article

TRiP: Tracking Rhythms in Plants, an automated leaf movement analysis program for circadian period estimation

期刊

PLANT METHODS
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13007-015-0075-5

关键词

Leaf movement; Circadian period; Motion estimation; Imaging

资金

  1. National Science Foundation (NSF) National Plant Genome Initiative Postdoctoral Fellowship [IOS-1202779]
  2. NSF [IOS-0923752, IOS-1025965, CNS-0708209]
  3. Division Of Integrative Organismal Systems
  4. Direct For Biological Sciences [0923752] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: A well characterized output of the circadian clock in plants is the daily rhythmic movement of leaves. This process has been used extensively in Arabidopsis to estimate circadian period in natural accessions as well as mutants with known defects in circadian clock function. Current methods for estimating circadian period by leaf movement involve manual steps throughout the analysis and are often limited to analyzing one leaf or cotyledon at a time. Results: In this study, we describe the development of TRiP (Tracking Rhythms in Plants), a new method for estimating circadian period using a motion estimation algorithm that can be applied to whole plant images. To validate this new method, we apply TRiP to a Recombinant Inbred Line (RIL) population in Arabidopsis using our high-throughput imaging platform. We begin imaging at the cotyledon stage and image through the emergence of true leaves. TRiP successfully tracks the movement of cotyledons and leaves without the need to select individual leaves to be analyzed. Conclusions: TRiP is a program for analyzing leaf movement by motion estimation that enables high-throughput analysis of large populations of plants. TRiP is also able to analyze plant species with diverse leaf morphologies. We have used TRiP to estimate period for 150 Arabidopsis RILs as well as 5 diverse plant species, highlighting the broad applicability of this new method.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据