2014
DOI: 10.1002/jez.b.22561
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Iodine‐enhanced micro‐CT imaging: Methodological refinements for the study of the soft‐tissue anatomy of post‐embryonic vertebrates

Abstract: The now widespread use of non-destructive X-ray computed tomography (CT) and micro-CT (µCT) has greatly augmented our ability to comprehensively detail and quantify the internal hard-tissue anatomy of vertebrates. However, the utility of X-ray imaging for gaining similar insights into vertebrate soft-tissue anatomy has yet to be fully realized due to the naturally low X-ray absorption of non-mineralized tissues. In this study, we show how a wide diversity of soft-tissue structures within the vertebrate head-in… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
241
2
2

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 191 publications
(246 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
1
241
2
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Gignac & Kley, 2014) of a separate individual, which had died for reasons unrelated to this study. Body mass was reasonably close to that of our kinematics specimen (1.65 kg).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Gignac & Kley, 2014) of a separate individual, which had died for reasons unrelated to this study. Body mass was reasonably close to that of our kinematics specimen (1.65 kg).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This pairing was quickly adopted by numerous other morphologists, who applied it to increasingly wider ranges of animal taxa and body sizes [Degenhardt et al, 2010;Herdina et al, 2010;Tobita et al, 2010;Tsai and Holliday, 2011;Gignac and Kley, 2014]. In 2015, various successful protocols for iodine-enhanced µCT imaging were formalized as "diceCT" by the Austin Working Group .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The higher error for type II landmarks compared to type I Landmarks 3,5,6,7,9,10,11,12,15,16 and 20 presented higher discrepancies in the landmarks for DIG when compared to the micro-CT resolutions (boldface in Table 4 …”
Section: Landmark Precision With Distinct Methodsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…The higher error for type II landmarks compared to type I landmarks is expected when working with the real skulls [17]. Landmarks 3,5,6,7,9,10,11,12,15,16 and 20 presented higher discrepancies in the landmarks for DIG when compared to the micro-CT resolutions (boldface in Table 3). For the landmarks expected to have higher error in the 3D images because of their positions in the skull or because they were located in thinner bones, only landmarks 4, 8 and 12 corresponded to the expectation.…”
Section: Landmark Precision With Distinct Methodsmentioning
confidence: 98%
See 1 more Smart Citation