Back

Influential landmarks

Dujardin, J.-P.; Sriwichai, P.; Samung, Y.; Ruangsittichai, J.; Sumruayphol, S.; Dujardin, S.

2025-07-14 bioinformatics
10.1101/2025.07.14.664645 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Geometric morphometrics based on two-dimensional landmarks is a powerful tool for distinguishing morphologically similar or cryptic taxa, an important asset in the fight against medically and veterinary important arthropods. While it is commonly assumed that increasing the number of landmarks should improve discriminatory power by capturing more shape information, our findings challenge this assumption. In terms of shape discrimination, we demonstrate that small subsets of landmarks can outperform full sets of landmarks. Examples are given in 6 insect families: Culicidae, Glossinidae, Muscidae, Psychodidae, Reduviidae and Tabanidae. In all of these examples where landmark-based geometric morphometry was effective in separating morphologically close taxa, the total number of landmarks was not as effective as some significantly smaller subsets. To find such performing subsets, we used a random approach. Thus, for each number of landmarks (subsets), we examined a random sample of their many possible combinations. This random search was compared to a simpler approach, called the hierarchical method, based on the contribution of each landmark to the overall distance between shapes. Both procedures have been integrated into the XYOM online software, providing accessible tools for efficient landmark selection and improved morphometric analysis. Author summaryLandmark-based geometric morphometrics describes shape in direct relation to the number of landmarks used. It is commonly assumed that increasing the number of landmarks allows for more information about shape, and when discriminating between groups or taxa, this strategy is expected to improve classification accuracy. Our results challenge this assumption. We demonstrate that subsets of landmarks, as small as three or four, can outperform the species classification obtained by the full set of landmarks, and we propose two methods for identifying them. We analyze the possible causes of these counter-intuitive results and the perspectives they could open for morphometric studies.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 22%
8.4%
2
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
8.4%
3
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
160 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
8.4%
4
Systematic Entomology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.2%
5
Ecological Informatics
29 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.4%
6
Peer Community Journal
254 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
6.3%
7
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.3%
8
Insects
36 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.0%
50% of probability mass above
9
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 31%
4.0%
10
BMC Bioinformatics
383 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.6%
11
Parasites & Vectors
57 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.1%
12
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 11%
2.9%
13
Ecology and Evolution
232 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.7%
14
BMC Ecology and Evolution
49 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.7%
15
Molecular Ecology Resources
161 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.3%
16
Journal of Experimental Biology
249 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
17
Bioinformatics
1061 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.2%
18
Systematic Biology
121 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
19
Journal of Computational Biology
37 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
20
Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.7%
21
Sensors
39 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
22
Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation
10 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.6%
23
Bioinspiration & Biomimetics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.6%
24
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
378 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%