A resistant method for landmark-based analysis of individual asymmetry in two dimensions

Abstract

Background: Symmetry of biological structures can be thought as the repetition of their parts in different positions and orientations. Asymmetry analyses, therefore, focuses on identifying and measuring the location and extent of symmetry departures in such structures. In the context of geometric morphometrics, a key step when studying morphological variation is the estimation of the symmetric shape. The standard procedure uses the least-squares Procrustes superimposition, which by averaging shape differences often underestimates the symmetry departures thus leading to an inaccurate description of the asymmetry pattern. Moreover, the corresponding asymmetry values are neither geometrically intuitive nor visually perceivable.

Methods: In this work, a resistant method for landmark-based asymmetry analysis of individual bilateral symmetric structures in 2D is introduced. A geometrical derivation of this new approach is offered, while its advantages in comparison with the standard method are examined and discussed through a few illustrative examples.

Results: Experimental tests on both artificial and real data show that asymmetry is more effectively measured by using the resistant method because the underlying symmetric shape is better estimated. Therefore, the most asymmetric (respectively symmetric) landmarks are better determined through their large (respectively small) residuals. The percentage of asymmetry that is accounted for by each landmark is an additional revealing measure the new method offers which agrees with the displayed results while helping in their biological interpretation.

Conclusions: The resistant method is a useful exploratory tool for analyzing shape asymmetry in 2D, and it might be the preferable method whenever a non homogeneous deformation of bilateral symmetric structures is possible. By offering a more detailed and rather exhaustive explanation of the asymmetry pattern, this new approach will hopefully contribute to improve the quality of biological or developmental inferences.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

resistant procrustes method / shape asymmetry / matching and object symmetry / landmarks

References

[1] Debat, V., Milton, C. C., Rutherford, S., Klingenberg, C. P. and Hoffmann, A. A. (2006) Hsp90 and the quantitative variation of wing shape in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution, 60, 2529–2538

[2] Gonzalez, P. N., Lotto, F. P. and Hallgrímsson, B. (2014) Canalization and developmental instability of the fetal skull in a mouse model of maternal nutritional stress. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol., 154, 544–553

[3] Willmore, K. E., Leamy, L. and Hallgrímsson, B. (2006) Effects of developmental and functional interactions on mouse cranial variability through late ontogeny. Evol. Dev., 8, 550–567

[4] Palmer, A. R. and Strobeck, C. (1986) Fluctuating asymmetry: measurement, analysis, patterns. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 17, 391–421

[5] Adams, D. C., Rohlf, F. J. and Slice, D. E. (2004) Geometric morphometrics: ten years of progress following the ‘revolution’. Ital. J. Zool., 71, 5–16

[6] Adams, D. C., Rohlf, F. J. and Slice, D. E. (2013) A field comes of age: geometric morphometrics in the twenty first century. Hystrix, 24, 7–14

[7] Auffray, J. C., Alibert, P., Renaud, S., Orth, A. and Bonhomme, F. (1996). Fluctuating asymmetry in mus musculus sub-specific hybridization: traditional and Procrustes comparative approach. In Advances in Morphometrics. Marcus, L. F. et al. eds., 275–283. New York: Plenum Press

[8] Auffray, J. C., Debat, V. and Alibert, P. (1999) Shape asymmetry and developmental stability. In On Growth and Form: Spatio-temporal Pattern Formation in Biology. Chaplain, M. A. J. et al. eds., 309–324. Chichester: Wiley

[9] Bookstein, F. L. (1996a) Biometrics, biomathematics and the morphometric synthesis. Bull. Math. Biol., 58, 313–365

[10] Bookstein, F. L. (1996b). Combining the tools of geometric morphometrics. In Advances in Morphometrics. L. F. Marcus, L. F. et al. eds., 131–151, New York: Plenum Press

[11] Klingenberg, C. P., Barluenga, M. and Meyer, A. (2002) Shape analysis of symmetric structures: quantifying variation among individuals and asymmetry. Evolution, 56, 1909–1920

[12] Klingenberg, C. P. (2015) Analyzing fluctuating asymmetry with geometric morphometrics: concepts, methods, and applications. Symmetry, 7, 843–934

[13] Mardia, K. V., Bookstein, F. L. and Moreton, I. J. (2000) Statistical assessment of bilateral symmetry of shapes. Biometrika, 87, 285–300.

[14] Mitteroecker, P. and Gunz, P. (2009) Advances in geometric morphometrics. Evol. Biol., 36, 235–247

[15] Smith, D. R., Crespi, B. J. and Bookstein, F. L. (1997) Fluctuating asymmetry in the honey bee, Apis mellifera: effects of ploidy and hybridization. J. Evol. Biol., 10, 551–574

[16] Catalano, S. A. and Goloboff, P. A. (2012) Simultaneously mapping and superimposing landmark configurations with parsimony as optimality criterion. Syst. Biol., 61, 392–400

[17] Richtsmeier, J. T., DeLeon, V. B. and Lele, S. R. (2002) The promise of geometric morphometrics. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol., 119, 63–91

[18] Theobald, D. L. and Wuttke, D. S. (2006) Empirical Bayes hierarchical models for regularizing maximum likelihood estimation in the matrix Gaussian Procrustes problem. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 103, 18521–18527

[19] Van der Linde, K. and Houle, D. (2009) Inferring the nature of allometry from geometric data. Evol. Biol., 36, 311–322

[20] Siegel, A. F. and Benson, R. H. (1982) A robust comparison of biological shapes. Biometrics, 38, 341–350

[21] Slice, D. E. (1996). Three-dimensional generalized resistant fitting and the comparison of least-squares and resistant fit residuals. In Advances in Morphometrics, Marcus, L. F. et al. eds., 179–199, New York: Plenum Press

[22] Torcida, S., Perez, I. and Gonzalez, P. N. (2014) An integrated approach for landmark-based resistant shape analysis in 3D. Evol. Biol., 41, 351–366

[23] Hampel, F. R., Ronchetti, E. M., Rouseeuw, P. J. and Stahel, W. A. (1986) Robust Statistics: The Approach Based on Influence Functions. New York: Wiley

[24] Huber, P. (1981) Robust Statistics. New York: Wiley

[25] Siegel, A. F. (1982) Robust regression using repeated medians. Biometrika, 69, 242–244

[26] Klingenberg, C. P. and McIntyre, G. S. (1998) Geometric morphometrics of developmental instability: analyzing patterns of fluctuating asymmetry with Procrustes methods. Evolution, 52, 1363–1375

[27] Cheverud, J. (1995) Morphological integration in the saddleback tamarin (Saguinus fuscicollis) cranium. Am. Nat., 145, 63–89

[28] Hallgrímsson, B. and Lieberman, D. E. (2008) Mouse models and the evolutionary developmental biology of the skull. Integr. Comp. Biol., 48, 373–384

[29] Zelditch, M. L., Swiderski, D. L., Sheets, H. D. and Fink, W. L. (2004) Geometric Morphometric for Biologists. London: Academic Press

[30] Slice, D. E. (2001) Landmark coordinates aligned by procrustes analysis do not lie in Kendall’s shape space. Syst. Biol., 50, 141–149.

[31] Gower, J. C. (1975) Generalized procrustes analysis. Psychometrika, 40, 33–51

[32] Rohlf, F. J. and Slice, D. E. (1990) Extensions of the Procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Syst. Zool., 39, 40–59

[33] Bookstein, F. L. (1991) Morphometric Tools for Landmark Data: Geometry and Biology. New York: Cambridge University Press

[34] Weiszfeld, E. (1937) On the point for which the sum of the distances to n given points is minimum. Tohoku Math. J., 43, 355–386

[35] Xue, G. L. (1994) A globally convergent algorithm for facility location on a sphere. Comput. Math. Appl., 27, 37–50

COMPLIANCE WITH ETHICS GUIDELINES

Sebastián Torcida, Paula Gonzalez and Federico Lotto declare that they have no conflict of interest.

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Funding

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2016 Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg