Sed the pairwise Hotelling’s T2 test to test whether there were significant differences between the bivariate means of the distributions between cell lines. Because there is strong purchase 94-09-7 imbalance of the number of cells among different cell lines, we repeated the pairwise testing 100 times 1379592 each for subsamples of 35 cells (the minimum number of cells for a cell line) for every cell line and then theminimum p-values from the repeats (after Bonferroni correction) were reported. All the pairwise p-values were then adjusted using family-wise Bonferroni correction for multiple testing [10]. We show the p-values in the lower triangular part of Table 3, and the ones denoted with “*” indicate significant differences. In addition, given the Hotelling’s T2 statistics, we built a hierarchical clustering tree shown in Figure 7 (A), and the rows and columns of the lower triangular part of Table 3 are sorted according to the tree.Comparing multivariate distributions of numerical features on real images. As a comparison to these statisticaltests of indirect parameter estimates, we repeated the calculations mentioned above using features calculated directly from real cell images. We used the first two principal components, which accounted for 99.99 of the total variance in feature space, to BTZ043 site represent the multivariate features. The p-value for covarianceTable 1. Comparisons of estimated parameters of distribution of microtubules between original 3D HeLa images and their 2D central slices.Number of microtubules 23.9619.Mean of length distribution 43.1623.Collinearity (cosa) 1.9662.Cell Height 21.4613.The values in the second row are MAPEs of the recoveries of parameters from the 2D slices, assuming that the parameter estimates from the 3D images are correct. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0050292.tComparison of Microtubule DistributionsTable 2. Estimated accuracies of recovery of model parameters from synthetic 2D images in the simulation experiment.Library 1 2 3 4Number of microtubules 4.3269.95 4.89611.9 3.9669.53 4.10610.6 3.6268.Mean of length distribution 5.52611.1 8.52624.2 6.24617.9 4.63610.6 5.08611.Collinearity 0.6160.82 0.5860.78 0.6860.86 0.5760.76 0.6160.Numbers shown for the parameters are MAPEs between the values used to synthesize an image in the validation bed and the estimated values obtained from matching of that image in the testing libraries. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0050292.thomogeneity test was<0. The p-values for the pairwise Hotelling's T2 test of bivariate means of distribution of the first two principal components (to represent multivariate means of the distribution of features) are in the upper triangular part of Table 3. The hierarchical tree on the basis of the statistics is displayed in Figure 7 (B), but the rows and columns of the upper triangular part of Table 3 are 1527786 also sorted according to the tree in Figure 7 (A) for consistency with the lower triangular part. The comparison using image features indicates that 44 out of 55 show statistically significant differences (of which 27 were comparisons involving HeLa, A-431 and U-2OS). However, when the estimated model parameters were compared (in the lower triangular part of Table 3 and Figure 7 (A)), 31 out of 55 comparisons showed statisticalsignificance. Of these, 24 were comparisons involving HeLa, A431 and U-2OS cells. Thus when these cells are subtracted (since they are clearly different from the rest of the cell lines), the number of presumed differences dropped from 31 to only 7.Sed the pairwise Hotelling’s T2 test to test whether there were significant differences between the bivariate means of the distributions between cell lines. Because there is strong imbalance of the number of cells among different cell lines, we repeated the pairwise testing 100 times 1379592 each for subsamples of 35 cells (the minimum number of cells for a cell line) for every cell line and then theminimum p-values from the repeats (after Bonferroni correction) were reported. All the pairwise p-values were then adjusted using family-wise Bonferroni correction for multiple testing [10]. We show the p-values in the lower triangular part of Table 3, and the ones denoted with “*” indicate significant differences. In addition, given the Hotelling’s T2 statistics, we built a hierarchical clustering tree shown in Figure 7 (A), and the rows and columns of the lower triangular part of Table 3 are sorted according to the tree.Comparing multivariate distributions of numerical features on real images. As a comparison to these statisticaltests of indirect parameter estimates, we repeated the calculations mentioned above using features calculated directly from real cell images. We used the first two principal components, which accounted for 99.99 of the total variance in feature space, to represent the multivariate features. The p-value for covarianceTable 1. Comparisons of estimated parameters of distribution of microtubules between original 3D HeLa images and their 2D central slices.Number of microtubules 23.9619.Mean of length distribution 43.1623.Collinearity (cosa) 1.9662.Cell Height 21.4613.The values in the second row are MAPEs of the recoveries of parameters from the 2D slices, assuming that the parameter estimates from the 3D images are correct. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0050292.tComparison of Microtubule DistributionsTable 2. Estimated accuracies of recovery of model parameters from synthetic 2D images in the simulation experiment.Library 1 2 3 4Number of microtubules 4.3269.95 4.89611.9 3.9669.53 4.10610.6 3.6268.Mean of length distribution 5.52611.1 8.52624.2 6.24617.9 4.63610.6 5.08611.Collinearity 0.6160.82 0.5860.78 0.6860.86 0.5760.76 0.6160.Numbers shown for the parameters are MAPEs between the values used to synthesize an image in the validation bed and the estimated values obtained from matching of that image in the testing libraries. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0050292.thomogeneity test was<0. The p-values for the pairwise Hotelling's T2 test of bivariate means of distribution of the first two principal components (to represent multivariate means of the distribution of features) are in the upper triangular part of Table 3. The hierarchical tree on the basis of the statistics is displayed in Figure 7 (B), but the rows and columns of the upper triangular part of Table 3 are 1527786 also sorted according to the tree in Figure 7 (A) for consistency with the lower triangular part. The comparison using image features indicates that 44 out of 55 show statistically significant differences (of which 27 were comparisons involving HeLa, A-431 and U-2OS). However, when the estimated model parameters were compared (in the lower triangular part of Table 3 and Figure 7 (A)), 31 out of 55 comparisons showed statisticalsignificance. Of these, 24 were comparisons involving HeLa, A431 and U-2OS cells. Thus when these cells are subtracted (since they are clearly different from the rest of the cell lines), the number of presumed differences dropped from 31 to only 7.