Table 1

Comparison of analysis of treatment groups by both the automated motion analysis technique and observer quantification
a) Danio rerio
Developmental stage Treatment 5 salinity Control
Automated Manual Automated Manual
    19 hpf
Control ns ns
1.5% EtOH ns ns ns ns
    21.5 hpf
Control ns ns
1.5% EtOH * * ns ns
    33 hpf
Control ns ns
1.5% EtOH * ns *** **
b) Xenopus laevis
Developmental stage Treatment 20 salinity
Automated Manual
    St. 24
Control *** *
    St. 32
Control *** ns
    St. 34
Control *** ns
c) Radix balthica
Dev. stage Treatment Control 5 salinity 10 salinity
Automated Manual Automated Manual Automated Manual
    E3
5 salinity * ns
10 salinity ** *** ns ns
15 salinity ** *** ** * ** *
    E4
5 salinity * *
10 salinity ** *** ** ns
15 salinity ** *** ** *** * *
    E6
5 salinity ** ***
10 salinity ** *** ns ns
15 salinity ** *** ** ns ** ns
    E9
5 salinity ns ns
10 salinity ** * * ns
15 salinity ** * ** ns * ns
    E11
5 salinity * ns
10 salinity ** * * ns
15 salinity ** *** ** * ** *

ANOSIM of Bray-Curtis similarity matrices calculated from the results of Discrete Fourier Transform on frame-to-frame motion parameters. Manual quantification of movement patterns: number of tail flicks for Danio rerio (19 hpf - F17 = 1.23, P = 0.321; 21.5 hpf - F17 = 4.70, P = 0.026; 33 hpf - F17 = 11.83, P = 0.001) and Xenopus laevis (St. 24 – F11 = 8.98, P = 0.013; St. 32 – F11 = 3.38, P = 0.096; St. 34 – F11 = 3.16, P = 0.106) and number of embryo rotations for Radix balthica (E3 – F23 = 9.36, P = ≤ 0.001; E4 – F23 = 26.33, P = ≤ 0.001; E6 – F23 = 58.25, P = ≤ 0.001; E9 – F23 = 8.40, P = 0.001; E11 – F23 = 7.88, P = 0.001); ANOVA between treatment groups to tests for differences in the manual quantification of embryonic movement for (a) Danio rerio, (b) Xenopus laevis and (c) Radix balthica. *** - p ≤ 0.001, ** - p ≤ 0.01, * - p ≤ 0.05, ns – not significant.

Tills et al.

Tills et al. BMC Bioinformatics 2013 14:37   doi:10.1186/1471-2105-14-37

Open Data