Alternatively, if size optimization is at issue, the relationships between selection on size overall and on size of particular morphological features need to be taken into account [3], [39].
However, as outlined above, the morphological features need to be explored as well.
To our knowledge, this is the first detailed characterization that describes both the critical observation period and the critical number of time-points needed for morphological features to adequately model osteogenic potential.
The work began when John Mercer and V. Louise Roth of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, were examining morphological features in different-sized squirrel species and needed to determine how the species were related.
In this study we reduced the data needed to be extracted from morphological features in order to predict both ALP activity (day 14) and calcium deposition rate (day 21) as compared to our previous report, in which we used a total of 666 morphological features (18 morphological features measured at 37 time-points, covering 14 days of differentiation culture) (Fig. 1).
As population structure can result in restricted gene flow, color variation and local adaptation in particular morphological features that indicate a rapid population divergence, population studies need to address both genetic and phenotypic divergence.
Many of these endeavours have been driven by advances in the field of nanotechnology and the need to investigate the morphological features of sub-micron size materials.
Analyses of morphological features are left to the radiologist, and then all information needs to be integrated by the radiologist to make a final diagnostic impression.
In addition to the morphological features, the nanostructural variation with the electrical conditions needs to be examined to understand the optical and electrical properties.
Therefore, further taxonomic studies are needed to evaluate the consistency of species concepts and interpretations of morphological features in a more global context.
