The analysis of fluorescence microscopy of cells often requires the determination of cell edges. This is typically done using segmentation techniques that separate the cell objects in an image from the surrounding background. This study compares segmentation results from nine different segmentation techniques applied to two different cell lines and five different sets of imaging conditions. Significant variability in the results of segmentation was observed that was due solely to differences in imaging conditions or applications of different algorithms. We quantified and compared the results with a novel bivariate similarity index metric that evaluates the degree of underestimating or overestimating a cell object. The results show that commonly used threshold-based segmentation techniques are less accurate than k-means clustering with multiple clusters. Segmentation accuracy varies with imaging conditions that determine the sharpness of cell edges and with geometric features of a cell. Based on this observation, we propose a method that quantifies cell edge character to provide an estimate of how accurately an algorithm will perform. The results of this study will assist the development of criteria for evaluating interlaboratory comparability. Published 2011 Wiley-Liss, Inc.y Key terms fluorescence microscopy; k-means cluster; image segmentation; cell edge; bivariate similarity index NUMEROUS areas of biomedical research rely on imaging of cells to provide information about molecular and phenotypic responses of cells to pharmaceuticals, toxins, and other environmental factors (1,2). Cell imaging is widely used in biological experiments because it can provide information on several relevant scales simultaneously. Molecular and supramolecular scales can be probed with the use of antibody and other specific affinity reagents and with fluorescent proteins. Gross phenotypic characteristics of cells that characterize their ultimate functional state can be examined in the same experiment, and often the temporal regime can be probed simultaneously. Together, these applications of cell imaging allow inference about the molecular details and the complex outcomes of the cellular biochemistry.Because of the enormous number of parameters that may influence a biological outcome, cell imaging experiments are often done in a ''high content '' mode (3,4), where large numbers of paired and replicate experiments are carried out simultaneously and result in very large (often gigabyte) image datasets. Such a large volume of image data precludes visual inspection of every image, and automated image processing and analysis is the only viable approach to data analysis.Segmentation of cell objects is a common image analysis operation that provides spatial and other features of identified objects and often precedes other operations to quantify parameters such as intracellular fluorescence. Segmentation can pose significant challenges to automated image processing and analysis. Because morphological features are often important in...

BackgroundThe goal of this survey paper is to overview cellular measurements using optical microscopy imaging followed by automated image segmentation. The cellular measurements of primary interest are taken from mammalian cells and their components. They are denoted as two- or three-dimensional (2D or 3D) image objects of biological interest. In our applications, such cellular measurements are important for understanding cell phenomena, such as cell counts, cell-scaffold interactions, cell colony growth rates, or cell pluripotency stability, as well as for establishing quality metrics for stem cell therapies. In this context, this survey paper is focused on automated segmentation as a software-based measurement leading to quantitative cellular measurements.MethodsWe define the scope of this survey and a classification schema first. Next, all found and manually filteredpublications are classified according to the main categories: (1) objects of interests (or objects to be segmented), (2) imaging modalities, (3) digital data axes, (4) segmentation algorithms, (5) segmentation evaluations, (6) computational hardware platforms used for segmentation acceleration, and (7) object (cellular) measurements. Finally, all classified papers are converted programmatically into a set of hyperlinked web pages with occurrence and co-occurrence statistics of assigned categories.ResultsThe survey paper presents to a reader: (a) the state-of-the-art overview of published papers about automated segmentation applied to optical microscopy imaging of mammalian cells, (b) a classification of segmentation aspects in the context of cell optical imaging, (c) histogram and co-occurrence summary statistics about cellular measurements, segmentations, segmented objects, segmentation evaluations, and the use of computational platforms for accelerating segmentation execution, and (d) open research problems to pursue.ConclusionsThe novel contributions of this survey paper are: (1) a new type of classification of cellular measurements and automated segmentation, (2) statistics about the published literature, and (3) a web hyperlinked interface to classification statistics of the surveyed papers at https://isg.nist.gov/deepzoomweb/resources/survey/index.html.

No abstract

SummaryWe present a new method for segmenting phase contrast images of NIH 3T3 fibroblast cells that is accurate even when cells are physically in contact with each other. The problem of segmentation, when cells are in contact, poses a challenge to the accurate automation of cell counting, tracking and lineage modelling in cell biology. The segmentation method presented in this paper consists of (1) background reconstruction to obtain noise-free foreground pixels and (2) incorporation of biological insight about dividing and nondividing cells into the segmentation process to achieve reliable separation of foreground pixels defined as pixels associated with individual cells. The segmentation results for a time-lapse image stack were compared against 238 manually segmented images (8219 cells) provided by experts, which we consider as reference data. We chose two metrics to measure the accuracy of segmentation: the 'Adjusted Rand Index' which compares similarities at a pixel level between masks resulting from manual and automated segmentation, and the 'Number of Cells per Field' (NCF) which compares the number of cells identified in the field by manual versus automated analysis. Our results show that the automated segmentation compared to manual segmentation has an average adjusted rand index of 0.96 (1 being a perfect match), with a standard deviation of 0.03, and an average difference of the two numbers of cells per field equal to 5.39% with a standard deviation of 4.6%.

No abstract