4.8 Article

RootNav: Navigating Images of Complex Root Architectures

期刊

PLANT PHYSIOLOGY
卷 162, 期 4, 页码 1802-1814

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1104/pp.113.221531

关键词

-

资金

  1. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
  2. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council Centre for Integrative Systems Biology program
  3. BBSRC [BB/G023972/1, BB/D019613/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/D019613/1, BB/G023972/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present a novel image analysis tool that allows the semiautomated quantification of complex root system architectures in a range of plant species grown and imaged in a variety of ways. The automatic component of RootNav takes a top-down approach, utilizing the powerful expectation maximization classification algorithm to examine regions of the input image, calculating the likelihood that given pixels correspond to roots. This information is used as the basis for an optimization approach to root detection and quantification, which effectively fits a root model to the image data. The resulting user experience is akin to defining routes on a motorist's satellite navigation system: RootNav makes an initial optimized estimate of paths from the seed point to root apices, and the user is able to easily and intuitively refine the results using a visual approach. The proposed method is evaluated on winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) images (and demonstrated on Arabidopsis [Arabidopsis thaliana], Brassica napus, and rice [Oryza sativa]), and results are compared with manual analysis. Four exemplar traits are calculated and show clear illustrative differences between some of the wheat accessions. RootNav, however, provides the structural information needed to support extraction of a wider variety of biologically relevant measures. A separate viewer tool is provided to recover a rich set of architectural traits from RootNav's core representation.

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

4.8
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