Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31449531›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Caveolae and scaffold detection from single molecule localization microscopy data using deep learning.

Ismail M Khater, Stephane T Aroca-Ouellette, Fanrui Meng, Ivan Robert Nabi, Ghassan Hamarneh

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Caveolae mechanics in cellular functions and disease.Nature reviews. Molecular cell biology · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. SuperResNET: Model-Free Single-Molecule Network Analysis Software Achieves Molecular Resolution of Nup96.Advanced intelligent systems (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ismail M KhaterMedical Image Analysis Lab, School of Computing Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-7827-7745
Stephane T Aroca-OuelletteMedical Image Analysis Lab, School of Computing Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5880-8430
Fanrui MengDepartment of Cellular and Physiological Sciences, LSI Imaging, Life Sciences Institute, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z3, Canada.
Ivan Robert NabiDepartment of Cellular and Physiological Sciences, LSI Imaging, Life Sciences Institute, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z3, Canada.
Ghassan HamarnehMedical Image Analysis Lab, School of Computing Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, Canada.
Simon Fraser University · CAUniversity of British Columbia · CA

Funding

CIHR PJT-156424CIHR PJT-159845
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Caveolae are plasma membrane invaginations whose formation requires caveolin-1 (Cav1), the adaptor protein polymerase I, and the transcript release factor (PTRF or CAVIN1). Caveolae have an important role in cell functioning, signaling, and disease. In the absence of CAVIN1/PTRF, Cav1 forms non-caveolar membrane domains called scaffolds. In this work, we train machine learning models to automatically distinguish between caveolae and scaffolds from single molecule localization microscopy (SMLM) data. We apply machine learning algorithms to discriminate biological structures from SMLM data. Our work is the first that is leveraging machine learning approaches (including deep learning models) to automatically identifying biological structures from SMLM data. In particular, we develop and compare three binary classification methods to identify whether or not a given 3D cluster of Cav1 proteins is a caveolae. The first uses a random forest classifier applied to 28 hand-crafted/designed features, the second uses a convolutional neural net (CNN) applied to a projection of the point clouds onto three planes, and the third uses a PointNet model, a recent development that can directly take point clouds as its input. We validate our methods on a dataset of super-resolution microscopy images of PC3 prostate cancer cells labeled for Cav1. Specifically, we have images from two cell populations: 10 PC3 and 10 CAVIN1/PTRF-transfected PC3 cells (PC3-PTRF cells) that form caveolae. We obtained a balanced set of 1714 different cellular structures. Our results show that both the random forest on hand-designed features and the deep learning approach achieve high accuracy in distinguishing the intrinsic features of the caveolae and non-caveolae biological structures. More specifically, both random forest and deep CNN classifiers achieve classification accuracy reaching 94% on our test set, while the PointNet model only reached 83% accuracy. We also discuss the pros and cons of the different approaches.

Indexed as

Deep LearningSingle Molecule ImagingCaveolaeHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedPC-3 Cells

Identifiers

PMID31449531
PMCPMC6709882
OpenAlexW2970262822

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.