The genetic basis for complex phenotypes is currently of great interest for both clinical investigators and basic scientists. In order to acquire a thorough understanding of the translation from genotype to phenotype, highly precise measures of phenotypic variation are required. New technologies, such as 3D photogrammetry are being implemented in phenotypic studies due to their ability to collect data rapidly and non-invasively. Before these systems can be broadly implemented the error associated with data collected from images acquired using these technologies must be assessed. This study investigates the precision, error, and repeatability associated with anthropometric landmark coordinate data collected from 3D digital photogrammetric images acquired with the 3dMDface System. Precision, error due to the imaging system, error due to digitization of the images, and repeatability are assessed in a sample of children and adults (N=15). Results show that data collected from images with the 3dMDface System are highly repeatable and precise. The average error associated with the placement of landmarks is sub-millimeter; both the error due to digitization and to the imaging system are very low. The few measures showing a higher degree of error include those crossing the labial fissure, which are influenced by even subtle movement of the mandible. These results suggest that 3D anthropometric data collected using the 3dMDface System are highly reliable and therefore useful for evaluation of clinical dysmorphology and surgery, analyses of genotype-phenotype correlations, and inheritance of complex phenotypes.

Nontraditional or geometric morphometric methods have found wide application in the biological sciences, especially in anthropology, a field with a strong history of measurement of biological form. Controversy has arisen over which method is the "best" for quantifying the morphological difference between forms and for making proper statistical statements about the detected differences. This paper explains that many of these arguments are superfluous to the real issues that need to be understood by those wishing to apply morphometric methods to biological data. Validity, the ability of a method to find the correct answer, is rarely discussed and often ignored. We explain why demonstration of validity is a necessary step in the evaluation of methods used in morphometrics.Focusing specifically on landmark data, we discuss the concepts of size and shape, and reiterate that since no unique definition of size exists, shape can only be recognized with reference to a chosen surrogate for size. We explain why only a limited class of information related to the morphology of an object can be known when landmark data are used. This observation has genuine consequences, as certain morphometric methods are based on models that require specific assumptions, some of which exceed what can be known from landmark data. We show that orientation of an object with reference to other objects in a sample can never be known, because this information is not included in landmark data. Consequently, a descriptor of form difference that contains information on orientation is flawed because that information does not arise from evidence within the data, but instead is a product of a chosen orientation scheme.To illustrate these points, we apply superimposition, deformation, and linear distance-based morphometric methods to the analysis of a simulated data set for which the true differences are known. This analysis demonstrates the relative efficacy of various methods to reveal the true difference between forms. Our discussion is intended to be fair, but it will be obvious to the reader that we favor a particular approach. Our bias comes from the realization that morphometric methods should operate with a definition of form and form difference consistent with the limited class of information that can be known from landmark data. Answers based on information that can be known from the data are of more use to biological inquiry than those based on unjustifiable assumptions.

Evolutionary history of Mammalia provides strong evidence that the morphology of skull and brain change jointly in evolution. Formation and development of brain and skull co-occur and are dependent upon a series of morphogenetic and patterning processes driven by genes and their regulatory programs. Our current concept of skull and brain as separate tissues results in distinct analyses of these tissues by most researchers. In this study, we use 3D computed tomography and magnetic resonance images of pediatric individuals diagnosed with premature closure of cranial sutures (craniosynostosis) to investigate phenotypic relationships between the brain and skull. It has been demonstrated previously that the skull and brain acquire characteristic dysmorphologies in isolated craniosynostosis, but relatively little is known of the developmental interactions that produce these anomalies. Our comparative analysis of phenotypic integration of brain and skull in premature closure of the sagittal and the right coronal sutures demonstrates that brain and skull are strongly integrated and that the significant differences in patterns of association do not occur local to the prematurely closed suture. We posit that the current focus on the suture as the basis for this condition may identify a proximate, but not the ultimate cause for these conditions. Given that premature suture closure reduces the number of cranial bones, and that a persistent loss of skull bones is demonstrated over the approximately 150 million years of synapsid evolution, craniosynostosis may serve as an informative model for evolution of the mammalian skull.