Cited by 7Cell Image Analysis TechniquesAdvanced Fluorescence Microscopy TechniquesAdvanced Neural Network Applications

Pixel-level multimodal fusion deep networks for predicting subcellular organelle localization from label-free live-cell imaging

Open access
Wei, Zhihao, Liu, Xi, Yan, Ruiqing, Sun, Guocheng, Yu, Weiyong, Liu, Qiang, Guo, Qianjin·2022·Frontiers in Genetics

Abstract

Complex intracellular organizations are commonly represented by dividing the metabolic process of cells into different organelles. Therefore, identifying sub-cellular organelle architecture is significant for understanding intracellular structural properties, specific functions, and biological processes in cells. However, the discrimination of these structures in the natural organizational environment and their functional consequences are not clear. In this article, we propose a new pixel-level multimodal fusion (PLMF) deep network which can be used to predict the location of cellular organelle using label-free cell optical microscopy images followed by deep-learning-based automated image denoising. It provides valuable insights that can be of tremendous help in improving the specificity of label-free cell optical microscopy by using the Transformer–Unet network to predict the ground truth imaging which corresponds to different sub-cellular organelle architectures. The new prediction method proposed in this article combines the advantages of a transformer’s global prediction and CNN’s local detail analytic ability of background features for label-free cell optical microscopy images, so as to improve the prediction accuracy. Our experimental results showed that the PLMF network can achieve over 0.91 Pearson’s correlation coefficient (PCC) correlation between estimated and true fractions on lung cancer cell-imaging datasets. In addition, we applied the PLMF network method on the cell images for label-free prediction of several different subcellular components simultaneously, rather than using several fluorescent labels. These results open up a new way for the time-resolved study of subcellular components in different cells, especially for 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 · 10.3389/fgene.2022.1002327

Cites

58 of 58 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 unsupervised autoencoder models do not utilize any ground truth information during training, in contrast with previous supervised machine learning approaches for Raman cell imaging.

    “Finally, we remark that our unsupervised autoencoder models do not utilize any ground truth information during training, in contrast with previous supervised machine learning approaches for Raman cell imaging and characterization where specific target concentrations are used as labels to train the model (e.g., using separately acquired fluorescence images) (90–93).”

    From Hyperspectral unmixing for Raman spectroscopy via physics-constrained autoencoders (2024) · cites this paper as [92]

    Methods §2.1 describes training a Raman-imaging model with a cell-image dataset, and Results §3.4 identifies fluorescence images as ground truth for predicting organelle locations. This supports the contrast with supervised Raman imaging, but the paper does not say that specific target concentrations were used as training labels. The citing authors’ statement about their own unsupervised autoencoders is not attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Boslaugh S. Watters P. A. (2008). Statistics in a nutshell: A desktop quick reference. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly Media. Google Scholar

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wei, Z., Liu, X., Yan, R., Sun, G., Yu, W., Liu, Q., & Guo, Q.
Affiliations
Beijing Institute of Petrochemical Technology (CN)
Corresponding author
Guo, Qianjin
Venue
Frontiers in Genetics
Published
2022-10-26
Volume
13
Pages
1002327-1002327
ISSN
1664-8021 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4309361287
Cited by
7
References
58
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3
FWCI
0.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Genetics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Beijing Institute of Petrochemical Technology (22019821001, BIPTAAI-2021007)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biophysics › Cell Image Analysis Techniques
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biophysics › Advanced Fluorescence Microscopy Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
Keywords
label-free live-cell imaging, image denoising, intracellular organization, lung cancer cells, cancer cell imaging

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