Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25547324›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2014

FogBank: a single cell segmentation across multiple cell lines and image modalities.

Joe Chalfoun, Michael Majurski, Alden Dima, Christina Stuelten, Adele Peskin, Mary Brady

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. In Situ Single-Cell Western Blot on Adherent Cell Culture.Angewandte Chemie (International ed. in English) · 2019
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Automated Cell Segmentation for Quantitative Phase Microscopy.IEEE transactions on medical imaging · 2018
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Joe ChalfounInformation Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, USA. joe.chalfoun@nist.gov.
Michael MajurskiInformation Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, USA. michael.majurski@nist.gov.
Alden DimaInformation Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, USA. alden.dima@nist.gov.
Christina StueltenLaboratory of Cellular and Molecular Biology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. chrisstu@mail.nih.gov.
Adele PeskinInformation Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, USA. adele.peskin@nist.gov.
Mary BradyInformation Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, USA. mary.brady@nist.gov.
National Institute of Standards and Technology · USNational Institutes of Health · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany cell lines currently used in medical research, such as cancer cells or stem cells, grow in confluent sheets or colonies. The biology of individual cells provide valuable information, thus the separation of touching cells in these microscopy images is critical for counting, identification and measurement of individual cells. Over-segmentation of single cells continues to be a major problem for methods based on morphological watershed due to the high level of noise in microscopy cell images. There is a need for a new segmentation method that is robust over a wide variety of biological images and can accurately separate individual cells even in challenging datasets such as confluent sheets or colonies.

resultsWe present a new automated segmentation method called FogBank that accurately separates cells when confluent and touching each other. This technique is successfully applied to phase contrast, bright field, fluorescence microscopy and binary images. The method is based on morphological watershed principles with two new features to improve accuracy and minimize over-segmentation. First, FogBank uses histogram binning to quantize pixel intensities which minimizes the image noise that causes over-segmentation. Second, FogBank uses a geodesic distance mask derived from raw images to detect the shapes of individual cells, in contrast to the more linear cell edges that other watershed-like algorithms produce. We evaluated the segmentation accuracy against manually segmented datasets using two metrics. FogBank achieved segmentation accuracy on the order of 0.75 (1 being a perfect match). We compared our method with other available segmentation techniques in term of achieved performance over the reference data sets. FogBank outperformed all related algorithms. The accuracy has also been visually verified on data sets with 14 cell lines across 3 imaging modalities leading to 876 segmentation evaluation images.

conclusionsFogBank produces single cell segmentation from confluent cell sheets with high accuracy. It can be applied to microscopy images of multiple cell lines and a variety of imaging modalities. The code for the segmentation method is available as open-source and includes a Graphical User Interface for user friendly execution.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAnimalsBreastCellsComputational BiologyFemaleHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMiceMicroscopy, FluorescenceMicroscopy, Phase-ContrastNIH 3T3 CellsSaccharomyces cerevisiae

Identifiers

PMID25547324
PMCPMC4301455
OpenAlexW2003345727

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.