Cited by 69Cell Image Analysis TechniquesSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomicsAdvanced Fluorescence Microscopy Techniques

An approach for extensibly profiling the molecular states of cellular subpopulations

Open access
Loo, Lit-Hsin, Lin, Hai-Jui, Steininger, Robert J, Wang, Yanqin, Wu, Lani F, Altschuler, Steven J·2009·Nature Methods

Abstract

Microscopy often reveals the existence of phenotypically distinct cellular subpopulations. However, additional characterization of observed subpopulations can be limited by the number of biomolecular markers that can be simultaneously monitored. Here we present a computational approach for extensibly profiling cellular subpopulations by freeing one or more imaging channels to monitor additional probes. In our approach, we trained classifiers to re-identify subpopulations accurately based on an enhanced collection of phenotypic features extracted from only a subset of the original markers. Then we constructed subpopulation profiles step-wise from replicate experiments, in which cells were labeled with different but overlapping marker sets. We applied our approach to identify molecular differences among subpopulations and to identify functional groupings of markers, in populations of differentiating mouse preadipocytes, polarizing human neutrophil-like cells and dividing human cancer cells.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nmeth.1375

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The Z-score oversimplifies interpretation and fails to capture changes in the modality of population-level feature distributions or subpopulations with different responses.

    “While the Z-score is commonly used to quantify phenotypic differences between treatment and control conditions23,28, it oversimplifies interpretation and will fail to capture changes in the modality of population-level feature distributions or subpopulations with different responses11.”

    From A statistical framework for high-content phenotypic profiling using cellular feature distributions (2022) · cites this paper as [11]

    The Results (Validation of Virtual Phenotypic Profiling; page unavailable) show that distinct subpopulation profiles can differ significantly from a population-averaged profile, supporting the concern that a population-level summary can miss heterogeneity. The paper does not evaluate Z-scores, changes in distribution modality, or subpopulations with different treatment responses, so those specific claims are not established by this source. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Loo, L.-H., Lin, H.-J., Steininger, R. J., Wang, Y., Wu, L. F., & Altschuler, S. J.
Affiliations
The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
  • Wu, Lani F
  • Altschuler, Steven J
Venue
Nature Methods
Published
2009-09-20
Volume
6
Issue
10
Pages
759-765
ISSN
  • 1548-7091 (ISSN-L)
  • 1548-7105
OpenAlex
W2056344676
Cited by
69
References
30
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 7
FWCI
3.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM081549, R01GM085442)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biophysics › Cell Image Analysis Techniques
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biophysics › Advanced Fluorescence Microscopy Techniques
Keywords
cell subpopulations, fluorescence imaging, cellular heterogeneity, phenotypic traits, preadipocyte differentiation, neutrophil polarization, cancer cell division
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence, Cells, Cultured, Pattern Recognition, Automated, Biomarkers, Gene Expression Profiling

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review