Cited by 557Cell Image Analysis TechniquesAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsDigital Imaging for Blood Diseases

Deep Learning Automates the Quantitative Analysis of Individual Cells in Live-Cell Imaging Experiments

Open access
Van Valen, David A., Kudo, Takamasa, Lane, Keara M., Macklin, Derek N., Quach, Nicolas T., DeFelice, Mialy M., Maayan, Inbal, Tanouchi, Yu +2 more·2016·PLoS Computational Biology

Abstract

Live-cell imaging has opened an exciting window into the role cellular heterogeneity plays in dynamic, living systems. A major critical challenge for this class of experiments is the problem of image segmentation, or determining which parts of a microscope image correspond to which individual cells. Current approaches require many hours of manual curation and depend on approaches that are difficult to share between labs. They are also unable to robustly segment the cytoplasms of mammalian cells. Here, we show that deep convolutional neural networks, a supervised machine learning method, can solve this challenge for multiple cell types across the domains of life. We demonstrate that this approach can robustly segment fluorescent images of cell nuclei as well as phase images of the cytoplasms of individual bacterial and mammalian cells from phase contrast images without the need for a fluorescent cytoplasmic marker. These networks also enable the simultaneous segmentation and identification of different mammalian cell types grown in co-culture. A quantitative comparison with prior methods demonstrates that convolutional neural networks have improved accuracy and lead to a significant reduction in curation time. We relay our experience in designing and optimizing deep convolutional neural networks for this task and outline several design rules that we found led to robust performance. We conclude that deep convolutional neural networks are an accurate method that require less curation time, are generalizable to a multiplicity of cell types, from bacteria to mammalian cells, and expand live-cell imaging capabilities to include multi-cell type systems.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005177

Cites

71 of 71 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?

  • Nuclear segmentation was performed with DeepCell using in-house training and validation MIBI imaging datasets from a variety of human clinical tissue types to ensure reproducibility.

    “Nuclear segmentation was performed with DeepCell (Van Valen et al., 2016) (https://github.com/vanvalenlab/deepcell-tf) as previously described (Keren et al., 2018), using in-house training and validation MIBI imaging datasets from a variety of human clinical tissue types to ensure reproducibility.”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [44]Tieleman T, Hinton G. Lecture 6.5-rmsprop: Divide the gradient by a running average of its recent magnitude. COURSERA: Neural Networks for Machine Learning. 2012; 4: 2.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Van Valen, D. A., Kudo, T., Lane, K. M., Macklin, D. N., Quach, N. T., DeFelice, M. M., Maayan, I., Tanouchi, Y., Ashley, E. A., & Covert, M. W.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
Covert, Markus W.
Venue
PLoS Computational Biology
Published
2016-11-04
Volume
12
Issue
11
Pages
e1005177
ISSN
  • 1553-734X (ISSN-L)
  • 1553-7358
OpenAlex
W2548342201
Cited by
557
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 65 · 2023: 64 · 2022: 75 · 2021: 101 · 2020: 64 · 2019: 60 · 2018: 41 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 1
FWCI
24.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS Computational Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
  • CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Paul G. Allen Family Foundation (US) (Allen Distinguished Investigator, Allen Discovery Center)
  • NIH Office of the Director (US) (5DP1LM01150)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (P50 GM107615, 1F32GM119319-01)
  • U.S. Department of Energy (US) (DE-FG02-97ER25308)
  • Siebel Foundation (Graduate Scholarship)
  • Stanford University School of Medicine (US) (Stanford Biomedical Big Data Science Postdoctoral Fellowship)
  • Burroughs Wellcome Fund (Postdoctoral Enrichment Program)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biophysics › Cell Image Analysis Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Digital Imaging for Blood Diseases
Keywords
cell segmentation, live-cell imaging, convolutional neural networks, image segmentation, cellular heterogeneity, phase contrast imaging, cytoplasm segmentation, nuclei segmentation, bacterial cells, co-culture, automated image analysis, cell type annotation
MeSH terms
Intravital Microscopy, Machine Learning, Image Enhancement, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Pattern Recognition, Automated, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Neural Networks, Computer, Cell Tracking

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