Cited by 196Cell Image Analysis TechniquesDigital Imaging for Blood DiseasesImmune cells in cancer

Image based Machine Learning for identification of macrophage subsets

Open access
Rostam, Hassan M., Reynolds, Paul M., Alexander, Morgan R., Gadegaard, Nikolaj, Ghaemmaghami, Amir M.·2017·Scientific Reports

Abstract

Macrophages play a crucial rule in orchestrating immune responses against pathogens and foreign materials. Macrophages have remarkable plasticity in response to environmental cues and are able to acquire a spectrum of activation status, best exemplified by pro-inflammatory (M1) and anti-inflammatory (M2) phenotypes at the two ends of the spectrum. Characterisation of M1 and M2 subsets is usually carried out by quantification of multiple cell surface markers, transcription factors and cytokine profiles. These approaches are time-consuming, require large numbers of cells and are resource intensive. In this study, we used machine learning algorithms to develop a simple and fast imaging-based approach that enables automated identification of different macrophage functional phenotypes using their cell size and morphology. Fluorescent microscopy was used to assess cell morphology of different cell types which were stained for nucleus and actin distribution using DAPI and phalloidin respectively. By only analysing their morphology we were able to identify M1 and M2 phenotypes effectively and could distinguish them from naïve macrophages and monocytes with an average accuracy of 90%. Thus we suggest high-content and automated image analysis can be used for fast phenotyping of functionally diverse cell populations with reasonable accuracy and without the need for using multiple markers.

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/s41598-017-03780-z

Cites

56 of 56 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?

  • Pro-inflammatory M1 macrophages appear large and round-shaped, while anti-inflammatory M2 macrophages show an elongated shape.

    “Previous studies indicated that pro-inflammatory M1 macrophages appeared large, round-shape morphology, while anti-inflammatory M2 macrophages showed elongated shape [49, 50].”

    From A tailored bioactive 3D porous poly(lactic-acid)-exosome scaffold with osteo-immunomodulatory and osteogenic differentiation properties (2022) · cites this paper as [49]

    The Introduction reports a prior study of murine macrophages in which M1 cells were large and rounded and M2 cells were stretched and elongated. The claim omits that population qualifier; the paper’s own Results describe human M1 cells as smaller and M2 cells as the largest, so the pattern should not be presented as a general finding. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    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
Rostam, H. M., Reynolds, P. M., Alexander, M. R., Gadegaard, N., & Ghaemmaghami, A. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
  • University of Glasgow (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Gadegaard, Nikolaj
  • Ghaemmaghami, Amir M.
Venue
Scientific Reports
Published
2017-06-14
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
3521-3521
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2624032785
Cited by
196
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2
FWCI
5.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Nottingham ePrints (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • European Commission (648892, 602694)
  • University of Glasgow
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/N006615/1)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biophysics › Cell Image Analysis Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Digital Imaging for Blood Diseases
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Immune cells in cancer
Keywords
macrophage polarization, M1 macrophages, M2 macrophages, cell morphology, cell size, automated image analysis, high-content imaging, monocytes, macrophage plasticity, machine learning classification
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Cytological Techniques, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Macrophages, Microscopy, Fluorescence, Staining and Labeling, Cell Size, Cell Shape

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