Fig 2

Fig 2

a. Surface meshes of synthetic epithelia for validating the Origami analysis pipeline. Alongside, 3D rendering of one of the synthetic epithelia (top) and a single 2D slice through it (bottom). Each image volume was corrupted with three levels of noise. b. The relationship between surface geometry/noise and segmentation quality. Error bars represent the standard deviation. Tukey’s pairwise comparisons with significant values depicted with asterisks: Dice score at radius of curvature of 200 μm (1000 pixels) compared to that at 106 μm (530 pixels)–p = 0.0004, Dice score at largest noise level compared to the lowest: p = 0.0045. c. Effect of segmentation quality on errors in orientation flipping (left) and direction offset in the computed polarity vectors (error bars in grey represent standard deviation). Dashed lines represent quadratic and linear fit to data respectively. d. Probability density of errors in polarity direction in real fluorescence data from zebrafish embryos. Each dot represents the percentage error from a 3D segmented volume (n = 27; total of 949 segmented cells across all the images). The dashed line shows the mean error in the dataset (<4%). e. Sensitivity of cell shape metrics to errors in polarity orientation. Data points in the graphs are depicted with the same colour as the corresponding synthetic cell alongside. Tukey’s pairwise comparisons with significant values depicted with asterisks; Longitudinal spread: 1–2 p = 0.039, 1–3 p < 0.0001, 2–3 p < 0.0001; Transversal Spread: 1–2 p < 0.0001, 1–3 p < 0.0001, 2–3 p < 0.0001; Skewness: 1–2 p < 0.0001, 1–3 p < 0.0001, 2–3 p < 0.0001.