Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34342808›Full record

ArticleNeuroinformatics2021

Comparing Automated Morphology Quantification Software on Dendrites of Uninjured and Injured Drosophila Neurons.

Carolee Nguyen, Katherine L Thompson-Peer

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuroinformatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Analysis of Neurite and Spine Formation in Neurons In Vitro.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Carolee NguyenDepartment of Developmental and Cell Biology, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, 92697, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9181-3303
Katherine L Thompson-PeerDepartment of Developmental and Cell Biology, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, 92697, USA. ktpeer@uci.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-4200-3870
University of California, Irvine · US

Funding

Univ.of Calif., Irvine Cancer Center Support GrantP30CA062203 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI Melanie Funes · 1994 to 2026
$57.9M
Uncover Strategies Used By Biological SystemsP50GM076516 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI NIE, QING · 2007 to 2016
$25.1M
Mechanisms of Dendrite Regeneration after InjuryR00NS097627 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI THOMPSON-PEER, KATHERINE LOUISE · 2019 to 2021
$744k
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA062203NIGMS NIH HHS P50 GM076516NINDS NIH HHS R00 NS097627
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dendrites shape inputs and integration of depolarization that controls neuronal activity in the nervous system. Neuron pathologies can damage dendrite architecture and cause abnormalities in morphologies after injury. Dendrite regeneration can be quantified by various parameters, including total dendrite length and number of dendrite branches using manual or automated image analysis approaches. However, manual quantification is tedious and time consuming and automated approaches are often trained using wildtype neurons, making them poorly suited for analysis of genetically manipulated or injured dendrite arbors. In this study, we tested how well automated image analysis software performed on class IV Drosophila neurons, which have several hundred individual dendrite branches. We applied each software to automatically quantify features of uninjured neurons and neurons that regenerated new dendrites after injury. Regenerated arbors exhibit defects across multiple features of dendrite morphology, which makes them challenging for automated pipelines to analyze. We compared the performances of three automated pipelines against manual quantification using Simple Neurite Tracer in ImageJ: one that is commercially available (Imaris) and two developed by independent research groups (DeTerm and Tireless Tracing Genie). Out of the three software tested, we determined that Imaris is the most efficient at reconstructing dendrite architecture, but does not accurately measure total dendrite length even after intensive manual editing. Imaris outperforms both DeTerm and Tireless Tracing Genie for counting dendrite branches, and is better able to recreate previous conclusions from this same dataset. This thorough comparison of strengths and weaknesses of each software demonstrates their utility for analyzing regenerated neuron phenotypes in future studies.

Indexed as

DendritesDrosophilaAnimalsNeuritesNeuronsSoftwareAutomated analysisDendrite arborDendrite injuryDendrite regenerationDendritesDrosophilaSoftware comparison

Identifiers

PMID34342808
PMCPMC8566419
OpenAlexW3190971135

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.