The importance of scoring recognition fitness in spheroid morphological analysis for robust label-free quality evaluation.
Cell manufacturing
Label-free quality evaluation
Object recognition
Spheroid
Spheroid morphology
Journal
Regenerative therapy
ISSN: 2352-3204
Titre abrégé: Regen Ther
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101709085
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2020
Jun 2020
Historique:
received:
25
12
2019
revised:
06
02
2020
accepted:
20
02
2020
entrez:
22
5
2020
pubmed:
22
5
2020
medline:
22
5
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Because of the growing demand for human cell spheroids as functional cellular components for both drug development and regenerative therapy, the technology to non-invasively evaluate their quality has emerged. Image-based morphology analysis of spheroids enables high-throughput screening of their quality. However, since spheroids are three-dimensional, their images can have poor contrast in their surface area, and therefore the total spheroid recognition by image processing is greatly dependent on human who design the filter-set to fit for their own definition of spheroid outline. As a result, the reproducibility of morphology measurement is critically affected by the performance of filter-set, and its fluctuation can disrupt the subsequent morphology-based analysis. Although the unexpected failure derived from the inconsistency of image processing result is a critical issue for analyzing large image data for quality screening, it has been tackled rarely. To achieve robust analysis performances using morphological features, we investigated the influence of filter-set's reproducibility for various types of spheroid data. We propose a new scoring index, the "recognition fitness deviation (RFD)," as a measure to quantitatively and comprehensively evaluate how reproductively a designed filter-set can work with data variations, such as the variations in replicate samples, in time-course samples, and in different types of cells (a total of six normal or cancer cell types). Our result shows that RFD scoring from 5000 images can automatically rank the best robust filter-set for obtaining the best 6-cell type classification model (94% accuracy). Moreover, the RFD score reflected the differences between the worst and the best classification models for morphologically similar spheroids, 60% and 89% accuracy respectively. In addition to RFD scoring, we found that using the time-course of morphological features can augment the fluctuations in spheroid recognitions leading to robust morphological analysis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32435672
doi: 10.1016/j.reth.2020.02.004
pii: S2352-3204(20)30030-4
pmc: PMC7229423
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
205-214Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Japanese Society for Regenerative Medicine. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
A collaboration research support from Nikon Corporation was funded to Ryuji Kato. The first author Kazuhide Shirai is the employee of Nikon Corporation, who have been administrated as PhD candidate in the Graduate School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Nagoya University.
Références
SLAS Discov. 2019 Jan;24(1):47-56
pubmed: 30102873
J Biosci Bioeng. 2018 Nov;126(5):653-660
pubmed: 29895430
J Biotechnol. 2015 Jul 10;205:14-23
pubmed: 25746901
Sci Rep. 2017 Jul 4;7(1):4566
pubmed: 28676704
Stem Cells. 2016 Apr;34(4):935-47
pubmed: 26865267
Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2007 Oct;8(10):839-45
pubmed: 17684528
Sci Rep. 2016 May 04;6:25187
pubmed: 27143246
Biotechnol Bioeng. 2019 Jan;116(1):206-226
pubmed: 30367820
Bioinformatics. 2016 Jun 15;32(12):i52-i59
pubmed: 27307644
Tissue Eng Part C Methods. 2015 Aug;21(8):852-61
pubmed: 25654582
Stem Cell Res Ther. 2018 Jan 10;9(1):6
pubmed: 29321040
Stem Cell Res Ther. 2017 Apr 26;8(1):94
pubmed: 28446248
J Biosci Bioeng. 2019 Aug;128(2):209-217
pubmed: 30738731
PLoS Comput Biol. 2016 Nov 4;12(11):e1005177
pubmed: 27814364
Biotechnol J. 2017 Oct;12(10):
pubmed: 28786556
Sci Rep. 2019 Jul 22;9(1):10601
pubmed: 31332221
Sci Rep. 2016 Sep 26;6:34009
pubmed: 27667091
Biotechnol Adv. 2017 Nov 1;35(6):782-791
pubmed: 28694177
PLoS One. 2014 Apr 04;9(4):e93952
pubmed: 24705458
PLoS One. 2016 Aug 2;11(8):e0160795
pubmed: 27483384
J Lab Autom. 2014 Oct;19(5):454-60
pubmed: 24888327
Pharmacol Ther. 2018 Apr;184:201-211
pubmed: 29097309
Bioconjug Chem. 2017 Mar 15;28(3):846-856
pubmed: 28122451
Front Oncol. 2017 Sep 11;7:203
pubmed: 28955656
J Cell Mol Med. 2018 Jun;22(6):2964-2969
pubmed: 29536627
Cancers (Basel). 2018 Dec 24;11(1):
pubmed: 30586936
ACS Biomater Sci Eng. 2018 Feb 12;4(2):410-420
pubmed: 29527571
Hum Cell. 2018 Jan;31(1):87-93
pubmed: 29235053
Stem Cell Res Ther. 2015 May 09;6:90
pubmed: 25956381