Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31877128›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2019

A novel machine learning based approach for iPS progenitor cell identification.

Haishan Zhang, Ximing Shao, Yin Peng, Yanning Teng, Konda Mani Saravanan, Huiling Zhang, Hongchang Li, Yanjie Wei

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Machine Learning in Stem Cell Research: From Biological Data to Clinical Translation.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2026
    Review
  5. Advancements in theFrontiers in toxicology · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Haishan ZhangJoint Engineering Research Center for Health Big Data Intelligent Analysis Technology, Center for High Performance Computing, Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.
Ximing ShaoShenzhen Key Laboratory for Molecular Biology of Neural Development, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nanomedicine, Institute of Biomedicine and Biotechnology, Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.
Yin PengDepartment of Pathology, Shenzhen University School of Medicine, Shenzhen, Guangdong, PR China.ORCID 0000-0001-9649-249X
Yanning TengJoint Engineering Research Center for Health Big Data Intelligent Analysis Technology, Center for High Performance Computing, Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.ORCID 0000-0001-6740-5596
Konda Mani SaravananJoint Engineering Research Center for Health Big Data Intelligent Analysis Technology, Center for High Performance Computing, Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.ORCID 0000-0002-5541-234X
Huiling ZhangJoint Engineering Research Center for Health Big Data Intelligent Analysis Technology, Center for High Performance Computing, Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.
Hongchang LiShenzhen Key Laboratory for Molecular Biology of Neural Development, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nanomedicine, Institute of Biomedicine and Biotechnology, Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.ORCID 0000-0003-0072-4706
Yanjie WeiJoint Engineering Research Center for Health Big Data Intelligent Analysis Technology, Center for High Performance Computing, Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.ORCID 0000-0002-4791-7540
Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology · CNChinese Academy of Sciences · CNShenzhen University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Identification of induced pluripotent stem (iPS) progenitor cells, the iPS forming cells in early stage of reprogramming, could provide valuable information for studying the origin and underlying mechanism of iPS cells. However, it is very difficult to identify experimentally since there are no biomarkers known for early progenitor cells, and only about 6 days after reprogramming initiation, iPS cells can be experimentally determined via fluorescent probes. What is more, the ratio of progenitor cells during early reprograming period is below 5%, which is too low to capture experimentally in the early stage. In this paper, we propose a novel computational approach for the identification of iPS progenitor cells based on machine learning and microscopic image analysis. Firstly, we record the reprogramming process using a live cell imaging system after 48 hours of infection with retroviruses expressing Oct4, Sox2 and Klf4, later iPS progenitor cells and normal murine embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs) within 3 to 5 days after infection are labeled by retrospectively tracing the time-lapse microscopic image. We then calculate 11 types of cell morphological and motion features such as area, speed, etc., and select best time windows for modeling and perform feature selection. Finally, a prediction model using XGBoost is built based on the selected six types of features and best time windows. Our model allows several missing values/frames in the sample datasets, thus it is applicable to a wide range of scenarios. Cross-validation, holdout validation and independent test experiments show that the minimum precision is above 52%, that is, the ratio of predicted progenitor cells within 3 to 5 days after viral infection is above 52%. The results also confirm that the morphology and motion pattern of iPS progenitor cells is different from that of normal MEFs, which helps with the machine learning methods for iPS progenitor cell identification.

Indexed as

Machine LearningAnimalsCells, CulturedCellular ReprogrammingComputational BiologyFibroblastsHumansInduced Pluripotent Stem CellsKruppel-Like Factor 4MiceModels, BiologicalMouse Embryonic Stem CellsTime-Lapse ImagingKruppel-Like Factor 4

Identifiers

PMID31877128
PMCPMC6932749
OpenAlexW2997365146

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.