Well, look at what I just saw on twitter:
tlemberger omics mania: ‘ethomics’ http://is.gd/wOcg – should be added to http://omics.org/ but perhaps also nominated for this http://is.gd/g2Bc
That is from Thomas Lemberger and so I followed the last link first, since I thought I might be to, well me. And indeed it was a link to my “Worst new omics word award” for museumomics.
And so then I went to the link on ethomics: High-throughput ethomics in large groups of : Drosophila : Abstract : Nature Methods.
And indeed they use “ethomics” – what is clearly a quite new omics word (only 62 google hits as of this PM). I confess, I stopped reading at the abstract because it was just too much:
Abstract
We present a camera-based method for automatically quantifying the individual and social behaviors of fruit flies, Drosophila melanogaster, interacting in a planar arena. Our system includes machine-vision algorithms that accurately track many individuals without swapping identities and classification algorithms that detect behaviors. The data may be represented as an ethogram that plots the time course of behaviors exhibited by each fly or as a vector that concisely captures the statistical properties of all behaviors displayed in a given period. We found that behavioral differences between individuals were consistent over time and were sufficient to accurately predict gender and genotype. In addition, we found that the relative positions of flies during social interactions vary according to gender, genotype and social environment. We expect that our software, which permits high-throughput screening, will complement existing molecular methods available in Drosophila, facilitating new investigations into the genetic and cellular basis of behavior.
For trying to extend omics to ethogram and beahvioral plots I am giving my second coveted “worst new omics word award” to Kristin Branson, Alice A Robie, John Bender, Pietro Perona & Michael H Dickinson. Here is a prediction – ethomics will not become widely used – not soon – not ever. Thanks for pointing this one out Thomas.
