PreprintCited by 6Cell Image Analysis TechniquesMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesAdvanced Neural Network Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

3DCellComposer - A Versatile Pipeline Utilizing 2D Cell Segmentation Methods for 3D Cell Segmentation

Open access

Preprint — published as 10.1016/j.ymeth.2025.07.007

Abstract

Background: Cell segmentation is crucial in bioimage informatics, as its accuracy directly impacts conclusions drawn from cellular analyses. While many approaches to 2D cell segmentation have been described, 3D cell segmentation has received much less attention. 3D segmentation faces significant challenges, including limited training data availability due to the difficulty of the task for human annotators, and inherent three-dimensional complexity. As a result, existing 3D cell segmentation methods often lack broad applicability across different imaging modalities. Results: To address this, we developed a generalizable approach for using 2D cell segmentation methods to produce accurate 3D cell segmentations. We implemented this approach in 3DCellComposer, a versatile, open-source package that allows users to choose any existing 2D segmentation model appropriate for their tissue or cell type(s) without requiring any additional training. Importantly, we have enhanced our open source CellSegmentationEvaluator quality evaluation tool to support 3D images. It provides metrics that allow selection of the best approach for a given imaging source and modality, without the need for human annotations to assess performance. Using these metrics, we demonstrated that our approach produced high-quality 3D segmentations of tissue images, and that it could outperform an existing 3D segmentation method on the cell culture images with which it was trained. Conclusions: 3DCellComposer, when paired with well-trained 2D segmentation models, provides an important alternative to acquiring human-annotated 3D images for new sample types or imaging modalities and then training 3D segmentation models using them. It is expected to be of significant value for large scale projects such as the Human BioMolecular Atlas Program.

Overview

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 · 10.1101/2024.03.08.584082

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1. Overview of the 3DCellComposer pipeline for 3D cell segmentation. (A) A 3D multiplexed image serves as the input for segmentation. The image channels for the nucleus, cytoplasm, and cell membrane are shown in different colors. (B) A 2D cell segmentation method of user’s choice is applied to every slice along all three axes. Adjacent cells are colored differently for distinction. (C) 2D cell matching is conducted on each axis to generate 3D cell candidates. (D) The final 3D cell regions are obtained by performing linear indexing reconstruction and subsequent refinement.
Fig. 1. Overview of the 3DCellComposer pipeline for 3D cell segmentation. (A) A 3D multiplexed image serves as the input for segmentation. The image channels for the nucleus, cytoplasm, and cell membrane are shown in different colors. (B) A 2D cell segmentation method of user’s choice is applied to every slice along all three axes. Adjacent cells are colored differently for distinction. (C) 2D cell matching is conducted on each axis to generate 3D cell candidates. (D) The final 3D cell regions are obtained by performing linear indexing reconstruction and subsequent refinement.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 2. Comparison of 3D cell segmentation using different methods on the Spleen IMC image. Panels A to D display the segmentation outcomes obtained from each respective method. Visualization was carried out using Blender software, utilizing mesh output from 3DCellComposer. To ensure visual distinction, adjacent 3D cells are colored differently.
Fig. 2. Comparison of 3D cell segmentation using different methods on the Spleen IMC image. Panels A to D display the segmentation outcomes obtained from each respective method. Visualization was carried out using Blender software, utilizing mesh output from 3DCellComposer. To ensure visual distinction, adjacent 3D cells are colored differently.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 3. Evaluation of 3D cell segmentation quality on 3D multiplexed tissue images without manual annotations. (A) The top two principal components (PCs) of the segmentation quality metrics for 3DCellComposer, based on different 2D segmentation methods across three organs. The percentages next to PC denote the variance that each corresponding PC accounts for. These results are compared against Cellpose 2D to 3D and two direct 3D methods ACSS, and 3DCellSeg. Each method is represented by a unique color and distinct marker, while filled markers correspond to original images. Hollow marker trajectories illustrate varying levels of Gaussian noise perturbation, arranged in ascending order from low to high. The suffixes “mem” and “cyto” after DeepCell denote the cell membrane and cytoplasmic input channels, respectively. (B) A ranking of 3D segmentation methods by overall segmentation quality score. The green bars are 2D methods through 3DCellComposer whereas blue ones are other methods.
Fig. 3. Evaluation of 3D cell segmentation quality on 3D multiplexed tissue images without manual annotations. (A) The top two principal components (PCs) of the segmentation quality metrics for 3DCellComposer, based on different 2D segmentation methods across three organs. The percentages next to PC denote the variance that each corresponding PC accounts for. These results are compared against Cellpose 2D to 3D and two direct 3D methods ACSS, and 3DCellSeg. Each method is represented by a unique color and distinct marker, while filled markers correspond to original images. Hollow marker trajectories illustrate varying levels of Gaussian noise perturbation, arranged in ascending order from low to high. The suffixes “mem” and “cyto” after DeepCell denote the cell membrane and cytoplasmic input channels, respectively. (B) A ranking of 3D segmentation methods by overall segmentation quality score. The green bars are 2D methods through 3DCellComposer whereas blue ones are other methods.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 4. Comparison of cell segmentations for AICS image. For 3DcellComposer results, lines connect results for increasing Jaccard Index thresholds from 0 (filled symbol) to 0.9. Note the dramatically reduced performance of ACSS with even modest noise, compared to the reasonable performance of 3DcellComposer with DeepCell even for the highest noise level. 3DcellComposer with CellPose failed to produce a segmentation for any of the noise levels.
Fig. 4. Comparison of cell segmentations for AICS image. For 3DcellComposer results, lines connect results for increasing Jaccard Index thresholds from 0 (filled symbol) to 0.9. Note the dramatically reduced performance of ACSS with even modest noise, compared to the reasonable performance of 3DcellComposer with DeepCell even for the highest noise level. 3DcellComposer with CellPose failed to produce a segmentation for any of the noise levels.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. 10.1002/anbr.202100084 · DOI
  2. 10.1038/s41592-021-01316-y · DOI
  3. 10.1038/s41551-022-00891-5 · DOI
  4. 10.1038/s41698-020-0114-1 · DOI
  5. 2022, Three-dimensional imaging mass cytometry for highly multiplexed molecular and cellular mapping of tissues and the tumor microenvironment, Nature Cancer, 3, 122
  6. 10.1186/s13041-023-01027-9 · DOI
  7. 10.1186/s12859-022-04737-4 · DOI
  8. 10.1038/s41598-021-88966-2 · DOI
  9. 10.1186/1471-2121-8-1 · DOI
  10. 2007, A multi-model approach to simultaneous segmentation and classification of heterogeneous populations of cell nuclei in 3D confocal microscope images, Cytometry Part A: The Journal of the International Society for Analytical Cytology, 71, 724
  11. 10.1038/s41598-019-54244-5 · DOI
  12. 10.1038/s41540-020-00152-8 · DOI
  13. 10.7554/eLife.59187 · DOI
  14. Weigert, M. , et al. Star-convex polyhedra for 3D object detection and segmentation in microscopy. in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of computer vision. 2020. · DOI
  15. Eschweiler, D. , et al. Spherical harmonics for shape-constrained 3D cell segmentation. in 2021 IEEE 18th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI). 2021. IEEE. · DOI
  16. 10.7554/eLife.57613 · DOI
  17. 10.1038/s41598-021-04048-3 · DOI
  18. Chen, J. , et al., The Allen Cell and Structure Segmenter: a new open source toolkit for segmenting 3D intracellular structures in fluorescence microscopy images. BioRxiv, 2018: p. 491035. · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1038/s41587-021-01094-0 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1186/s12859-019-2880-8 · DOI
  21. 10.1186/s12859-016-1452-4 · DOI
  22. 10.1038/s41587-021-01094-0 · DOI · Paper page
  23. 10.1038/s41592-021-01249-6 · DOI · Paper page
  24. 10.1038/s41592-022-01663-4 · DOI · Paper page
  25. 10.1038/s41592-020-01018-x · DOI · Paper page
  26. 10.1091/mbc.E22-08-0364 · DOI
  27. 10.1002/cyto.a.23053 · DOI
  28. 10.1038/nmeth.2869 · DOI · Paper page
  29. 10.1038/s41586-019-1629-x · DOI · Paper page
  30. 10.1080/14786440109462720 · DOI
  31. Jolliffe, I.T. , Principal component analysis for special types of data. 2002: Springer.
  32. 2011, Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python, the Journal of machine Learning research, 12, 2825
  33. 10.1016/j.cell.2018.07.010 · DOI · Paper page
  34. 10.1016/j.cell.2022.12.028 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Chen, H., & Murphy, R. F.
Affiliations
Carnegie Mellon University (US)
Corresponding author
Murphy, Robert F.
Venue
Methods
Publisher
openRxiv
Published
2024-03-12
Volume
242
Pages
113-122
ISSN
1046-2023 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4412823348
Cited by
6
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1
FWCI
1.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Methods (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (OT2OD033761, OT2OD026682, EB-009403)
  • National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (T32EB009403)
  • Common Fund
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biophysics › Cell Image Analysis Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
Keywords
3D cell segmentation, segmentation quality assessment, HuBMAP, limited training data

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