Validation and tuning of in situ transcriptomics image processing workflows with crowdsourced annotations
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Recent advancements in in situ methods, such as multiplexed in situ RNA hybridization and in situ RNA sequencing, have deepened our understanding of the way biological processes are spatially organized in tissues. Automated image processing and spot-calling algorithms for analyzing in situ transcriptomics images have many parameters which need to be tuned for optimal detection. Having ground truth datasets (images where there is very high confidence on the accuracy of the detected spots) is essential for evaluating these algorithms and tuning their parameters. We present a first-in-kind open-source toolkit and framework for in situ transcriptomics image analysis that incorporates crowdsourced annotations, alongside expert annotations, as a source of ground truth for the analysis of in situ transcriptomics images. The kit includes tools for preparing images for crowdsourcing annotation to optimize crowdsourced workers’ ability to annotate these images reliably, performing quality control (QC) on worker annotations, extracting candidate parameters for spot-calling algorithms from sample images, tuning parameters for spot-calling algorithms, and evaluating spot-calling algorithms and worker performance. These tools are wrapped in a modular pipeline with a flexible structure that allows users to take advantage of crowdsourced annotations from any source of their choice. We tested the pipeline using real and synthetic in situ transcriptomics images and annotations from the Amazon Mechanical Turk system obtained via Quanti.us. Using real images from in situ experiments and simulated images produced by one of the tools in the kit, we studied worker sensitivity to spot characteristics and established rules for annotation QC. We explored and demonstrated the use of ground truth generated in this way for validating spot-calling algorithms and tuning their parameters, and confirmed that consensus crowdsourced annotations are a viable substitute for expert-generated ground truth for these purposes.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Global quantification of mammalian gene expression control
Schwanhäusser, B., Busse, D., Li, N., Dittmar, G., Schuchhardt, J., Wolf, J., Chen, W., & Selbach, M. (2011) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature10098 · Cited by 6,566 · cited 1× · see citing works
“If the average number of spots per cell for one gene is instead 16 (Fig 2B in [43,44]), the same worker would be able to annotate 7.”
BackgroundIn situ sequencing for RNA analysis in preserved tissue and cells
Ke, R., Mignardi, M., Pacureanu, A., Svedlund, J., Botling, J., Wählby, C., & Nilsson, M. (2013) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth.2563 · Cited by 934 · see citing works
Spatially resolved transcriptomics and beyond
Crosetto, N., Bienko, M., & van Oudenaarden, A. (2015) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg3832 · Cited by 509 · see citing works
Optical Pooled Screens in Human Cells
Feldman, D., Singh, A., Schmid-Burgk, J. L., Carlson, R. J., Mezger, A., Garrity, A. J., Zhang, F., & Blainey, P. C. (2019) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2019.09.016 · Cited by 321 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Vo-Phamhi, J. M., Yamauchi, K. A., & Gómez-Sjöberg, R.
- Affiliations
- Chan Zuckerberg Biohub San Francisco (US)
- Corresponding author
- Vo-Phamhi, Jenny M.
- Yamauchi, Kevin A.
- Gómez-Sjöberg, Rafael
- Venue
- PLOS Computational Biology
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2021-08-09
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- e1009274
- ISSN
- 1553-734X (ISSN-L)
- 1553-7358
- PMC
- PMC8376178
- OpenAlex
- W3188267830
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- new_version (2021-08-19)
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- PLoS Computational Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Chan Zuckerberg Initiative
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biophysics › Cell Image Analysis Techniques
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
- Keywords
- image processing workflow, crowdsourced annotation, ground truth, parameter tuning, annotation quality control, consensus annotation, Amazon Mechanical Turk, synthetic images, open-source software toolkit
- MeSH terms
- Automation, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, RNA, In Situ Hybridization, Sequence Analysis, RNA, Workflow, Transcriptome, Crowdsourcing
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