1/8/2024 0 Comments Meshlab move mesh![]() Structures of interest can still be annotated and highlighted in the same way as traditional 2D‐figures, and if prepared well, such figures can provide accurate representations of the subject's three‐dimensional form. ![]() Although preparation of videos and 3D‐PDFs requires a set of skills and software that would be unfamiliar to many authors, these formats can more effectively convey 3D‐data. Unfortunately, most 3D‐figures are currently published in supplementary files, which require separate downloads and thus often go unseen. There appear to be two main reasons for this: relative ease of preparation, and inertia to incorporate multimedia figures in main texts, even from digital‐only journals. Presently, still images are the most commonly used format, despite providing the most limited representation of 3D‐data. The three primary modes of 3D‐data visualisation currently available for scientific publication are still images, videos, and interactive 3D‐files (most commonly 3D‐PDFs). However, methods for visualising 3D‐data have fallen behind the rapid technological development of tools for gathering such data, and thus the potential of the field is yet to be fully realised.Īs 3D‐data generation increases and scientific journals become primarily electronic, new presentation tools can be adopted that compliment the electronic format and allow us to more efficiently and effectively communicate science. To highlight the growth of this field, the number of published studies has almost doubled in the last 5 years (Web of Science search for Topics including ‘micro‐CT’, ‘nano‐CT’ or ‘computed tomography’ in Biology: 393 from 2013 to 2017 compared to 201 from 2008 to 2012, accessed June 2018). Invertebrate studies utilising 3D‐imaging tools now encompass a broad range of topics, including neuro‐anatomy (Greco, Tong, Soleimani, Bell, & Schäfer, 2012 Ribi, Senden, Sakellariou, Limaye, & Zhang, 2008), developmental biology (Lowe, Garwood, Simonsen, Bradley, & Withers, 2013 Martin‐Vega, Simonsen, & Hall, 2017 Richards et al., 2012), descriptions of extant (Akkari, Enghoff, & Metscher, 2015) and extinct fossilized invertebrates (Barden, Herhold, & Grimaldi, 2017 Garwood & Sutton, 2010 van de Kamp et al., 2018), morphology and evolution of arthropod genitalia (McPeek, Shen, Torrey, & Farid, 2008 Schmitt & Uhl, 2015 Simonsen & Kitching, 2014 Tatarnic & Cassis, 2013 Wojcieszek, Austin, Harvey, Simmons, & Hayssen, 2012 Woller & Song, 2017 Wulff, Lehmann, Hipsley, & Lehmann, 2015), and 3D‐anatomical atlases (Bicknell, Klinkhamer, Flavel, Wroe, & Paterson, 2018). Indeed, 3D‐imaging has great potential for invertebrate research by improving morphological study through 3D‐geometric morphometrics, expediting taxonomy by alleviating the need for physical viewing of holotypes, and enhancing our understanding of evolution by allowing high‐resolution visualisation of external and internal anatomy. Modern, non‐destructive imaging methods such as X‐ray micro‐computed tomography (μCT) are particularly well suited to invertebrate research, mostly overcoming the traditional challenges associated with the small size and fragility of these organisms. High‐resolution 3D‐imaging tools are providing new ways of looking at the external and internal morphology of organisms in the millimetre to micrometre size range (Friedrich & Beutel, 2008). As more biology journals adopt 3D‐PDFs as a standard option, research on microscopic invertebrates and other organisms can be presented in high‐resolution 3D‐figures, enhancing the way we communicate science. We discuss the importance of visualisation for quantitative analysis of invertebrate morphology from 3D‐data, and provide example figures illustrating the different options for generating 3D‐figures for publication. Here, we present a comprehensive workflow for manipulating and visualising 3D‐data, including basic and advanced options for producing images, videos and interactive 3D‐PDFs, from both volume and surface‐mesh renderings. Our aim in this article is to make the processing, visualisation and presentation of 3D‐data easier, thereby encouraging more researchers to utilise 3D‐imaging. However, methods for visualising 3D‐data are trailing behind the development of tools for generating such data. These techniques are inherently suited to small subjects and can simultaneously image both external and internal morphology, thus offering considerable benefits for invertebrate research. Methods for 3D‐imaging of biological samples are experiencing unprecedented development, with tools such as X‐ray micro‐computed tomography (μCT) becoming more accessible to biologists.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |