A subscription to JoVE is required to view this content. Sign in or start your free trial.
Method Article
Many biological structures lack easily definable landmarks, making it difficult to apply modern morphometric methods. Here we illustrate methods to study the mouse baculum (a bone in the penis), including dissection and microCT scanning, followed by computational methods to define semi-landmarks that are used to quantify size and shape variation.
Modern morphometrics provides powerful methods to quantify size and shape variation. A basic requirement is a list of coordinates that define landmarks; however such coordinates must represent homologous structures across specimens. While many biological objects consist of easily identified landmarks to satisfy the assumption of homology, many lack such structures. One potential solution is to mathematically place semi-landmarks on an object that represent the same morphological region across specimens. Here, we illustrate a recently developed pipeline to mathematically define semi-landmarks from the mouse baculum (penis bone). Our methods should be applicable to a wide range of objects.
The field of morphometrics includes a diversity of methods to quantify the size and shape of the biological form, a fundamental step in scientific inquiry1,2,3,4,5,6. Traditionally, the statistical analysis of size and shape begins by identifying landmarks on a biological structure, and then measuring linear distances, angles and ratios, which could be analyzed in a multivariate framework. Landmark-based Geometric Morphometrics is an approach that retains the spatial position of landmarks, preserving geometric information from data collection through analysis and visualization5. Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA) can be applied to remove variation in location, scale, and rotation of landmarks to produce an alignment between specimens that minimizes their squared differences - what remains is shape dissimilarity7.
An important concept of any morphometric analysis is homology, or the idea that one can reliably identify landmarks representing biologically meaningful and discrete features that correspond between specimens or structures. For example, human skulls have homologous processes, foramina, sutures, and ducts that can enable morphometric analyses. Unfortunately, the identification of corresponding landmarks is difficult across many biological structures, especially those with smooth surfaces or curves8,9,10.
We approach this problem below using computational geometry. The general workflow is to generate a three dimensional scan of the object that can be represented as a cloud of points, and then rotate and transform that point cloud so that all specimens are oriented on a common coordinate system. Then we mathematically define semi-landmarks from specific regions of the object. Discrete semi-landmarks placed on such regions are biologically arbitrary11. Conducting GPA and subsequent statistical analyses can produce undesirable artifacts8,12 because arbitrarily placed landmarks may not be biologically homologous. Therefore, we allow these semi-landmarks to mathematically "slide". This procedure minimizes the potential difference between structures. As argued elsewhere the sliding algorithm used here is appropriate to quantify similar anatomical regions lacking easily identified corresponding landmarks3,6,8,10,11,12. These methods have their limitations13, but should be adaptable to objects of different size and shape.
Here, we illustrate how this method was applied in a recent study of the mouse baculum14, a bone in the penis that has been gained and lost multiple independent times during mammalian evolution15. We discuss the dissection and preparation of a specific bone, the baculum (Protocol 1), the generation of microCT images (Protocol 2), and the conversion of these images to a format that enables all downstream computational geometry (Protocols 3 and 4). After these steps, each specimen is represented by ~100K x-y-z coordinates. We then walk through a series of transformations that effectively align all specimens into a common orientation (Protocol 5), then define semi-landmarks from aligned specimens (Protocol 6). Protocols 1-4 should be similar regardless of the object being analyzed. Protocol 5 and Protocol 6 are specifically designed for a baculum, but it is our hope that by detailing these steps, investigators can imagine modifications that would be relevant for their object of interest. For example, modifications of these methods were applied to study whale pelvic bones and rib bones16.
All procedures and personnel were approved by the University of Southern California's Institute for Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), protocol #11394.
1. Baculum Dissection and Preparation
2. MicroCT Scanning
3. MicroCT Processing: Converting a .DCM Stack to a Single .xyz File
NOTE: Each microCT scan produces a stack of .DCM, or "dicom", files that represent image slices taken through the object. All downstream computational geometry requires flat .xyz files, which is simply a text file that contains four columns – the x, y, and z coordinates of each pixel, and the intensity of the pixel, ranging from -5,000 (black) to +5,000 (white). A pixel threshold above 3,000 generally works well as a threshold for defining bones.
4. MicroCT processing: Segmenting-out Individual Specimen .xyz Files
5. "Aligning" Specimen .xyz Files to Common Coordinates.
6. "Slicing" Aligned Specimen .xyz Files to Identify Semi-landmarks.
The x-y-z coordinates of the semi-landmarks produced in Protocol 6 can be directly imported into any landmark-based geometric morphometrics analysis17. The computational pipeline above has been applied to study mouse bacula14, as well as whale pelvic and rib bones16. More details on the computational definition of semi-landmarks are presented here, in an attempt to help researchers visualize steps that might be modifi...
The critical steps in the above protocol are 1) dissecting the bacula, 2) gathering the microCT images, 3) converting the microCT output to a flat file of x-y-z coordinates, 4) segmenting out each specimen's point cloud, 5) transforming each specimen to a standardized coordinate system, and 6) defining semi-landmarks. These steps are easily modified to accommodate different objects.
These methods can likely be applied to any object that is essentially "rod-shaped", or at least not ...
The authors declare that they have no competing financial interests.
Tim Daley and Andrew Smith provided many useful computational discussions during the early days; Tim Daley wrote the program rotate_translate_cylindrical necessary for Protocol 5. Computational resources were provided by the High Performance Computing Cluster at the University of Southern California. This work was supported by NIH grant #GM098536 (MDD).
Name | Company | Catalog Number | Comments |
Dissecting scissors | VWR | 470106-338 | Most sizes should work |
Dissecting Forceps, Fine Tip, Curved | VWR | 82027-406 | |
1.7 mL microcentrifuge tube | VWR | 87003-294 | |
Absolute Ethanol | Fisher Scientific | CAS 64-17-5 | To be diluted to 70% for dissections |
Floral Foam | Wholesale Floral | 6002-48-07 | |
uCT50 scanner | Scanco Medical AG, Bruttisellen, Switzerland |
Request permission to reuse the text or figures of this JoVE article
Request PermissionThis article has been published
Video Coming Soon
Copyright © 2025 MyJoVE Corporation. All rights reserved