Cell to whole-plant phenotyping: The best is yet to come

Trends in Plant Science

Volumn 18, Issue 8, 2013, Pages 428-439

  Dhondt, Stijn ^a,b   Wuyts, Nathalie ^a,b   Inzé, Dirk ^a,b  

^a DEPARTMENT OF PLANT SYSTEMS BIOLOGY   (Belgium)

^b GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Image processing; Non invasive sensor; Physiology; Plant growth; Plant phenomics

Indexed keywords

ANATOMY AND HISTOLOGY; CLASSIFICATION; COMPUTER PROGRAM; IMAGE PROCESSING; PHENOTYPE; PLANT; PLANT CELL; PLANT PHYSIOLOGY; PROCEDURES;

IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; PHENOTYPE; PLANT CELLS; PLANT PHYSIOLOGICAL PHENOMENA; PLANTS; SOFTWARE;

EID: 84893401756     PISSN: 13601385     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tplants.2013.04.008     Document Type: Review

References (130)

1. Houle D., et al. Phenomics: the next challenge. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2010, 11:855-866.
2. Granier C., Tardieu F. Multi-scale phenotyping of leaf expansion in response to environmental changes: the whole is more than the sum of parts. Plant Cell Environ. 2009, 32:1175-1184.
3. Furbank R.T., Tester M. Phenomics - technologies to relieve the phenotyping bottleneck. Trends Plant Sci. 2011, 16:635-644.
4. Kuromori T., et al. Phenome analysis in plant species using loss-of-function and gain-of-function mutants. Plant Cell Physiol. 2009, 50:1215-1231.
5. Tanabata T., et al. SmartGrain: high-throughput phenotyping software for measuring seed shape through image analysis. Plant Physiol. 2012, 160:1871-1880.
6. Jiang N., et al. Acceleration of CT reconstruction for wheat tiller inspection based on adaptive minimum enclosing rectangle. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2012, 85:123-133.
7. Moore C.R., et al. Mapping quantitative trait loci affecting Arabidopsis thaliana seed morphology features extracted computationally from images. G3 (Bethesda) 2013, 3:109-118.
8. Rymen B., et al. Cold nights impair leaf growth and cell cycle progression in maize through transcriptional changes of cell cycle genes. Plant Physiol. 2007, 143:1429-1438.
9. Sadok W., et al. Leaf growth rate per unit thermal time follows QTL-dependent daily patterns in hundreds of maize lines under naturally fluctuating conditions. Plant Cell Environ. 2007, 30:135-146.
10. Tester M., Langridge P. Breeding technologies to increase crop production in a changing world. Science 2010, 327:818-822.
11. Walter A., et al. Dynamics of seedling growth acclimation towards altered light conditions can be quantified via GROWSCREEN: a setup and procedure designed for rapid optical phenotyping of different plant species. New Phytol. 2007, 174:447-455.
12. Arvidsson S., et al. A growth phenotyping pipeline for Arabidopsis thaliana integrating image analysis and rosette area modeling for robust quantification of genotype effects. New Phytol. 2011, 191:895-907.
13. De Vylder J., et al. Rosette tracker: an open source image analysis tool for automatic quantification of genotype effects. Plant Physiol. 2012, 160:1149-1159.
14. Leister D., et al. Large-scale evaluation of plant growth in Arabidopsis thaliana by non-invasive image analysis. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 1999, 37:671-678.
15. Fabre J., et al. PHENOPSIS DB: an information system for Arabidopsis thaliana phenotypic data in an environmental context. BMC Plant Biol. 2011, 11:77.
16. Skirycz A., et al. Survival and growth of Arabidopsis plants given limited water are not equal. Nat. Biotechnol. 2011, 29:212-214.
17. Nagel K.A., et al. GROWSCREEN-Rhizo is a novel phenotyping robot enabling simultaneous measurements of root and shoot growth for plants grown in soil-filled rhizotrons. Funct. Plant Biol. 2012, 39:891-904.
18. Golzarian M.R., et al. Accurate inference of shoot biomass from high-throughput images of cereal plants. Plant Methods 2011, 7:2.
19. Granier C., et al. PHENOPSIS, an automated platform for reproducible phenotyping of plant responses to soil water deficit in Arabidopsis thaliana permitted the identification of an accession with low sensitivity to soil water deficit. New Phytol. 2006, 169:623-635.
20. Pereyra-Irujo G.A., et al. GlyPh: a low-cost platform for phenotyping plant growth and water use. Funct. Plant Biol. 2012, 39:905-913.
21. Reuzeau C., et al. TraitMill: a discovery engine for identifying yield-enhancement genes in cereals. Mol. Plant Breed. 2005, 3:753-759.
22. Hartmann A., et al. HTPheno: an image analysis pipeline for high-throughput plant phenotyping. BMC Bioinformatics 2011, 12:148.
23. Miller N.D., et al. Computer-vision analysis of seedling responses to light and gravity. Plant J. 2007, 52:374-381.
24. Wang L., et al. HYPOTrace: image analysis software for measuring hypocotyl growth and shape demonstrated on Arabidopsis seedlings undergoing photomorphogenesis. Plant Physiol. 2009, 149:1632-1637.
25. Cole B., et al. Automated analysis of hypocotyl growth dynamics during shade avoidance in Arabidopsis. Plant J. 2011, 65:991-1000.
26. Armengaud P., et al. EZ-RHIZO: integrated software for the fast and accurate measurement of root system architecture. Plant J. 2009, 57:945-956.
27. Hund A., et al. Growth of axile and lateral roots of maize: I development of a phenotying platform. Plant Soil 2009, 325:335-349.
28. Lobet G., et al. A novel image-analysis toolbox enabling quantitative analysis of root system architecture. Plant Physiol. 2011, 157:29-39.
29. Clark R.T., et al. High-throughput two-dimensional root system phenotyping platform facilitates genetic analysis of root growth and development. Plant Cell Environ. 2013, 36:454-466.
30. Iyer-Pascuzzi A.S., et al. Imaging and analysis platform for automatic phenotyping and trait ranking of plant root systems. Plant Physiol. 2010, 152:1148-1157.
31. Galkovskyi T., et al. GiA Roots: software for the high throughput analysis of plant root system architecture. BMC Plant Biol. 2012, 12:116.
32. Clark R.T., et al. Three-dimensional root phenotyping with a novel imaging and software platform. Plant Physiol. 2011, 156:455-465.
33. Singh V., et al. Genetic control of nodal root angle in sorghum and its implications on water extraction. Eur. J. Agron. 2012, 42:3-10.
34. Jansen M., et al. Simultaneous phenotyping of leaf growth and chlorophyll fluorescence via GROWSCREEN FLUORO allows detection of stress tolerance in Arabidopsis thaliana and other rosette plants. Funct. Plant Biol. 2009, 36:902-914.
35. Pérez-Pérez J.M., et al. Whole organ, venation and epidermal cell morphological variations are correlated in the leaves of Arabidopsis mutants. Plant Cell Environ. 2011, 34:2200-2211.
36. Li Y-F., et al. An ontology-centric architecture for extensible scientific data management systems. Future Gener. Comp. Syst. 2013, 29:641-653.
37. Hannemann J., et al. Xeml Lab: a tool that supports the design of experiments at a graphical interface and generates computer-readable metadata files, which capture information about genotypes, growth conditions, environmental perturbations and sampling strategy. Plant Cell Environ. 2009, 32:1185-1200.
38. Poorter H., et al. The art of growing plants for experimental purposes: a practical guide for the plant biologist. Funct. Plant Biol. 2012, 39:821-838.
39. Tardieu F. Why work and discuss the basic principles of plant modelling 50 years after the first plant models?. J. Exp. Bot. 2010, 61:2039-2041.
40. Goff S.A., et al. The iPlant collaborative: cyberinfrastructure for plant biology. Front. Plant Sci. 2011, 2:34.
41. Ferjani A., et al. Analysis of leaf development in fugu mutants of Arabidopsis reveals three compensation modes that modulate cell expansion in determinate organs. Plant Physiol. 2007, 144:988-999.
42. Cookson S.J., et al. Day length affects the dynamics of leaf expansion and cellular development in Arabidopsis thaliana partially through floral transition timing. Ann. Bot. 2007, 99:703-711.
43. Gonzalez N., et al. Leaf size control: complex coordination of cell division and expansion. Trends Plant Sci. 2012, 17:332-340.
44. Pieruschka R., Poorter H. Phenotyping plants: genes, phenes and machines. Funct. Plant Biol. 2012, 39:813-820.
45. Gonzalez N., et al. Increased leaf size: different means to an end. Plant Physiol. 2010, 153:1261-1279.
46. Baerenfaller K., et al. Systems-based analysis of Arabidopsis leaf growth reveals adaptation to water deficit. Mol. Syst. Biol. 2012, 8:606.
47. Andriankaja M., et al. Exit from proliferation during leaf development in Arabidopsis thaliana: a not-so-gradual process. Dev. Cell 2012, 22:64-78.
48. Nelissen H., et al. A local maximum in gibberellin levels regulates maize leaf growth by spatial control of cell division. Curr. Biol. 2012, 22:1183-1187.
49. Lièvre M., et al. Phenotyping the kinematics of leaf development in flowering plants: recommendations and pitfalls. WIREs Dev. Biol. 2013, 10.1002/wdev.119.
50. Schmundt D., et al. Quantitative analysis of the local rates of growth of dicot leaves at a high temporal and spatial resolution, using image sequence analysis. Plant J. 1998, 16:505-514.
51. Reddy G.V., et al. Real-time lineage analysis reveals oriented cell divisions associated with morphogenesis at the shoot apex of Arabidopsis thaliana. Development 2004, 131:4225-4237.
52. Campilho A., et al. Time-lapse analysis of stem-cell divisions in the Arabidopsis thaliana root meristem. Plant J. 2006, 48:619-627.
53. Wuyts N., et al. Automated motion estimation of root responses to sucrose in two Arabidopsis thaliana genotypes using confocal microscopy. Planta 2011, 234:769-784.
54. Vanhaeren H., et al. Hide and seek: uncloaking the vegetative shoot apex of Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant J. 2010, 63:541-548.
55. Wuyts N., et al. High-contrast three-dimensional imaging of the Arabidopsis leaf enables the analysis of cell dimensions in the epidermis and mesophyll. Plant Methods 2010, 6:17.
56. Cookson S.J., et al. Phenotyping the development of leaf area in Arabidopsis thaliana. Methods in Molecular Biology 2010, Vol. 655:89-103. Humana Press. L. (Hennig, C. Köhler (Eds.).
57. Rymen B., et al. Kinematic analysis of cell division and expansion. Methods in Molecular Biology 2010, Vol. 655:203-227. Humana Press. L. Hennig, C. Köhler (Eds.).
58. Bylesjö M., et al. LAMINA: a tool for rapid quantification of leaf size and shape parameters. BMC Plant Biol. 2008, 8:82.
59. Backhaus A., et al. LEAFPROCESSOR: a new leaf phenotyping tool using contour bending energy and shape cluster analysis. New Phytol. 2010, 187:251-261.
60. Rolland-Lagan A-G., et al. Quantifying leaf venation patterns: two-dimensional maps. Plant J. 2009, 57:195-205.
61. Price C.A., et al. Leaf extraction and analysis framework graphical user interface: segmenting and analyzing the structure of leaf veins and areoles. Plant Physiol. 2011, 155:236-245.
62. Dhondt S., et al. Quantitative analysis of venation patterns of Arabidopsis leaves by supervised image analysis. Plant J. 2012, 69:553-563.
63. French A., et al. High-throughput quantification of root growth using a novel image-analysis tool. Plant Physiol. 2009, 150:1784-1795.
64. Yazdanbakhsh N., Fisahn J. High throughput phenotyping of root growth dynamics, lateral root formation, root architecture and root hair development enabled by PlaRoM. Funct. Plant Biol. 2009, 36:938-946.
65. Naeem A., et al. High-throughput feature counting and measurement of roots. Bioinformatics 2011, 27:1337-1338.
66. Subramanian R., et al. A high throughput robot system for machine vision based plant phenotype studies. Mach. Vis. Appl. 2013, 24:619-636.
67. Walter A., et al. Environmental effects on spatial and temporal patterns of leaf and root growth. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2009, 60:279-304.
68. Basu P., Pal A. A new tool for analysis of root growth in the spatio-temporal continuum. New Phytol. 2012, 195:264-274.
69. Remmler L., Rolland-Lagan A-G. Computational method for quantifying growth patterns at the adaxial leaf surface in three dimensions. Plant Physiol. 2012, 159:27-39.
70. Pyke K.A., et al. Temporal and spatial development of the cells of the expanding first leaf of Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh. J. Exp. Bot. 1991, 42:1407-1416.
71. Smillie I.R.A., et al. Variation in vein density and mesophyll cell architecture in a rice deletion mutant population. J. Exp. Bot. 2012, 63:4563-4570.
72. Wuyts N., et al. Structural assessment of the impact of environmental constraints on Arabidopsis thaliana leaf growth: a 3D approach. Plant Cell Environ. 2012, 35:1631-1646.
73. Savaldi-Goldstein S., et al. The epidermis both drives and restricts plant shoot growth. Nature 2007, 446:199-202.
74. Horiguchi G., et al. Large-scale histological analysis of leaf mutants using two simple leaf observation methods: identification of novel genetic pathways governing the size and shape of leaves. Plant J. 2006, 48:638-644.
75. Tisné S., et al. Combined genetic and modeling approaches reveal that epidermal cell area and number in leaves are controlled by leaf and plant developmental processes in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 2008, 148:1117-1127.
76. Asl L.K., et al. Model-based analysis of Arabidopsis leaf epidermal cells reveals distinct division and expansion patterns for pavement and guard cells. Plant Physiol. 2011, 156:2172-2183.
77. Tardieu F., et al. Spatial distributions of expansion rate, cell division rate and cell size in maize leaves: a synthesis of the effects of soil water status, evaporative demand and temperature. J. Exp. Bot. 2000, 51:1505-1514.
78. Marcuzzo M., et al. Automated Arabidopsis plant root cell segmentation based on SVM classification and region merging. Comput. Biol. Med. 2009, 39:785-793.
79. French A.P., et al. Identifying biological landmarks using a novel cell measuring image analysis tool: Cell-o-Tape. Plant Methods 2012, 8:7.
80. Pound M.P., et al. CellSeT: novel software to extract and analyze structured networks of plant cells from confocal images. Plant Cell 2012, 24:1353-1361.
81. Heisler M.G., et al. Patterns of auxin transport and gene expression during primordium development revealed by live imaging of the Arabidopsis inflorescence meristem. Curr. Biol. 2005, 15:1899-1911.
82. Schiessl K., et al. JAGGED controls growth anisotropy and coordination between cell size and cell cycle during plant organogenesis. Curr. Biol. 2012, 22:1739-1746.
83. Sijacic P., Liu Z. Novel insights from live-imaging in shoot meristem development. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 2010, 52:393-399.
84. Crowell E.F., et al. Regulation of anisotropic cell expansion in higher plants. C. R. Biol. 2010, 333:320-324.
85. Truernit E., et al. High-resolution whole-mount imaging of three-dimensional tissue organization and gene expression enables the study of phloem development and structure in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 2008, 20:1494-1503.
86. Vos J., et al. Functional-structural plant modelling: a new versatile tool in crop science. J. Exp. Bot. 2010, 61:2101-2115.
87. Bours R., et al. OSCILLATOR: a system for analysis of diurnal leaf growth using infrared photography combined with wavelet transformation. Plant Methods 2012, 8:29.
88. Dornbusch T., et al. Measuring the diurnal pattern of leaf hyponasty and growth in Arabidopsis - a novel phenotyping approach using laser scanning. Funct. Plant Biol. 2012, 39:860-869.
89. Kaminuma E., et al. Automatic quantification of morphological traits via three-dimensional measurement of Arabidopsis. Plant J. 2004, 38:358-365.
90. Omasa K., et al. 3D lidar imaging for detecting and understanding plant responses and canopy structure. J. Exp. Bot. 2007, 58:881-898.
91. Hosoi F., et al. 3-D modeling of tomato canopies using a high-resolution portable scanning lidar for extracting structural information. Sensors 2011, 11:2166-2174.
92. Alenya G., et al. 3D modelling of leaves from color and ToF data for robotized plant measuring. 2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) 2011, 3408-3414. 10.1109/ICRA.2011.5980092.
93. Chéné Y., et al. On the use of depth camera for 3D phenotyping of entire plants. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2012, 82:122-127.
94. Van der Heijden G., et al. SPICY: towards automated phenotyping of large pepper plants in the greenhouse. Funct. Plant Biol. 2012, 39:870-877.
95. Andersen H.J., et al. Geometric plant properties by relaxed stereo vision using simulated annealing. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2005, 49:219-232.
96. Biskup B., et al. A stereo imaging system for measuring structural parameters of plant canopies. Plant Cell Environ. 2007, 30:1299-1308.
97. Biskup B., et al. Diel growth cycle of isolated leaf discs analyzed with a novel, high-throughput three-dimensional imaging method is identical to that of intact leaves. Plant Physiol. 2009, 149:1452-1461.
98. Paproki A., et al. A novel mesh processing based technique for 3D plant analysis. BMC Plant Biol. 2012, 12:63.
99. Hettinger J.W., et al. Optical coherence microscopy. A technology for rapid, in vivo, non-destructive visualization of plants and plant cells. Plant Physiol. 2000, 123:3-15.
100. Stuppy W.H., et al. Three-dimensional analysis of plant structure using high-resolution X-ray computed tomography. Trends Plant Sci. 2003, 8:2-6.
101. Lee K., et al. Visualizing plant development and gene expression in three dimensions using optical projection tomography. Plant Cell 2006, 18:2145-2156.
102. Dhondt S., et al. Plant structure visualization by high-resolution X-ray computed tomography. Trends Plant Sci. 2010, 15:419-422.
103. Mairhofer S., et al. RooTrak: automated recovery of three-dimensional plant root architecture in soil from X-ray microcomputed tomography images using visual tracking. Plant Physiol. 2012, 158:561-569.
104. Tracy S.R., et al. The X-factor: visualizing undisturbed root architecture in soils using X-ray computed tomography. J. Exp. Bot. 2010, 61:311-313.
105. Jahnke S., et al. Combined MRI-PET dissects dynamic changes in plant structures and functions. Plant J. 2009, 59:634-644.
106. Windt C.W., et al. MRI of long-distance water transport: a comparison of the phloem and xylem flow characteristics and dynamics in poplar, castor bean, tomato and tobacco. Plant Cell Environ. 2006, 29:1715-1729.
107. Van As H., Van Duynhoven J. MRI of plants and foods. J. Magn. Reson. 2013, 229:25-34.
108. Berger B., et al. High-throughput shoot imaging to study drought responses. J. Exp. Bot. 2010, 61:3519-3528.
109. Tardieu F. Any trait or trait-related allele can confer drought tolerance: just design the right drought scenario. J. Exp. Bot. 2012, 63:25-31.
110. Bock C.H., et al. Plant disease severity estimated visually, by digital photography and image analysis, and by hyperspectral imaging. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2010, 29:59-107.
111. Maes W.H., Steppe K. Estimating evapotranspiration and drought stress with ground-based thermal remote sensing in agriculture: a review. J. Exp. Bot. 2012, 63:4671-4712.
112. Fiorani F., et al. Imaging plants dynamics in heterogenic environments. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2012, 23:227-235.
113. Mahlein A-K., et al. Hyperspectral imaging for small-scale analysis of symptoms caused by different sugar beet diseases. Plant Methods 2012, 8:3.
114. Jackson R.D., et al. Canopy temperature as a crop water stress indicator. Water Resour. Res. 1981, 17:1133-1138.
115. Merlot S., et al. Use of infrared thermal imaging to isolate Arabidopsis mutants defective in stomatal regulation. Plant J. 2002, 30:601-609.
116. Grant O.M., et al. Optimizing thermal imaging as a technique for detecting stomatal closure induced by drought stress under greenhouse conditions. Physiol. Plant. 2006, 127:507-518.
117. Sirault X.R.R., et al. A new screening method for osmotic component of salinity tolerance in cereals using infrared thermography. Funct. Plant Biol. 2009, 36:970-977.
118. Matsuda O., et al. Hyperspectral imaging techniques for rapid identification of Arabidopsis mutants with altered leaf pigment status. Plant Cell Physiol. 2012, 53:1154-1170.
119. Borzuchowski J., Schulz K. Retrieval of leaf area index (LAI) and soil water content (WC) using hyperspectral remote sensing under controlled glass house conditions for spring barley and sugar beet. Remote Sens. 2010, 2:1702-1721.
120. Baker N.R. Chlorophyll fluorescence: a probe of photosynthesis in vivo. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2008, 59:89-113.
121. Munns R., et al. New phenotyping methods for screening wheat and barley for beneficial responses to water deficit. J. Exp. Bot. 2010, 61:3499-3507.
122. Leinonen I., Jones H.G. Combining thermal and visible imagery for estimating canopy temperature and identifying plant stress. J. Exp. Bot. 2004, 55:1423-1431.
123. Jones H.G., et al. Thermal infrared imaging of crop canopies for the remote diagnosis and quantification of plant responses to water stress in the field. Funct. Plant Biol. 2009, 36:978-989.
124. Salomon S., et al. High-throughput confocal imaging of intact live tissue enables quantification of membrane trafficking in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 2010, 154:1096-1104.
125. Fitzgibbon J., et al. A developmental framework for complex plasmodesmata formation revealed by large-scale imaging of the Arabidopsis leaf epidermis. Plant Cell 2013, 25:57-70.
126. Pridmore T.P., et al. What lies beneath: underlying assumptions in bioimage analysis. Trends Plant Sci. 2012, 17:688-692.
127. Schneider C.A., et al. NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat. Methods 2012, 9:671-675.
128. Kennedy D.N., Haselgrove C. The internet analysis tools registry: a public resource for image analysis. Neuroinformatics 2006, 4:263-270.
129. Pradal C., et al. OpenAlea: a visual programming and component-based software platform for plant modelling. Funct. Plant Biol. 2008, 35:751-760.
130. Digital Image Processing 2005, Springer. B. Jähne (Ed.).