Literature DB >> 24045582

Comparison of methods for image-based profiling of cellular morphological responses to small-molecule treatment.

Vebjorn Ljosa1, Peter D Caie, Rob Ter Horst, Katherine L Sokolnicki, Emma L Jenkins, Sandeep Daya, Mark E Roberts, Thouis R Jones, Shantanu Singh, Auguste Genovesio, Paul A Clemons, Neil O Carragher, Anne E Carpenter.   

Abstract

Quantitative microscopy has proven a versatile and powerful phenotypic screening technique. Recently, image-based profiling has shown promise as a means for broadly characterizing molecules' effects on cells in several drug-discovery applications, including target-agnostic screening and predicting a compound's mechanism of action (MOA). Several profiling methods have been proposed, but little is known about their comparative performance, impeding the wider adoption and further development of image-based profiling. We compared these methods by applying them to a widely applicable assay of cultured cells and measuring the ability of each method to predict the MOA of a compendium of drugs. A very simple method that is based on population means performed as well as methods designed to take advantage of the measurements of individual cells. This is surprising because many treatments induced a heterogeneous phenotypic response across the cell population in each sample. Another simple method, which performs factor analysis on the cellular measurements before averaging them, provided substantial improvement and was able to predict MOA correctly for 94% of the treatments in our ground-truth set. To facilitate the ready application and future development of image-based phenotypic profiling methods, we provide our complete ground-truth and test data sets, as well as open-source implementations of the various methods in a common software framework.

Entities:  

Keywords:  drug profiling; high-content screening; image-based screening; phenotypic screening

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24045582      PMCID: PMC3884769          DOI: 10.1177/1087057113503553

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Biomol Screen        ISSN: 1087-0571


  22 in total

1.  Modern phenotypic drug discovery is a viable, neoclassic pharma strategy.

Authors:  Jonathan A Lee; Mark T Uhlik; Christopher M Moxham; Dirk Tomandl; Daniel J Sall
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2012-03-23       Impact factor: 7.446

2.  High-content phenotypic profiling of drug response signatures across distinct cancer cells.

Authors:  Peter D Caie; Rebecca E Walls; Alexandra Ingleston-Orme; Sandeep Daya; Tom Houslay; Rob Eagle; Mark E Roberts; Neil O Carragher
Journal:  Mol Cancer Ther       Date:  2010-06-08       Impact factor: 6.261

3.  Multidimensional drug profiling by automated microscopy.

Authors:  Zachary E Perlman; Michael D Slack; Yan Feng; Timothy J Mitchison; Lani F Wu; Steven J Altschuler
Journal:  Science       Date:  2004-11-12       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  Scoring diverse cellular morphologies in image-based screens with iterative feedback and machine learning.

Authors:  Thouis R Jones; Anne E Carpenter; Michael R Lamprecht; Jason Moffat; Serena J Silver; Jennifer K Grenier; Adam B Castoreno; Ulrike S Eggert; David E Root; Polina Golland; David M Sabatini
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2009-02-02       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 5.  Multi-parameter phenotypic profiling: using cellular effects to characterize small-molecule compounds.

Authors:  Yan Feng; Timothy J Mitchison; Andreas Bender; Daniel W Young; John A Tallarico
Journal:  Nat Rev Drug Discov       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 84.694

Review 6.  How were new medicines discovered?

Authors:  David C Swinney; Jason Anthony
Journal:  Nat Rev Drug Discov       Date:  2011-06-24       Impact factor: 84.694

7.  Comparison of multivariate data analysis strategies for high-content screening.

Authors:  Anne Kümmel; Paul Selzer; Martin Beibel; Hanspeter Gubler; Christian N Parker; Daniela Gabriel
Journal:  J Biomol Screen       Date:  2011-02-18

8.  Improved structure, function and compatibility for CellProfiler: modular high-throughput image analysis software.

Authors:  Lee Kamentsky; Thouis R Jones; Adam Fraser; Mark-Anthony Bray; David J Logan; Katherine L Madden; Vebjorn Ljosa; Curtis Rueden; Kevin W Eliceiri; Anne E Carpenter
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2011-02-23       Impact factor: 6.937

9.  Assessing the efficacy of low-level image content descriptors for computer-based fluorescence microscopy image analysis.

Authors:  L Shamir
Journal:  J Microsc       Date:  2011-05-23       Impact factor: 1.758

Review 10.  Connecting synthetic chemistry decisions to cell and genome biology using small-molecule phenotypic profiling.

Authors:  Bridget K Wagner; Paul A Clemons
Journal:  Curr Opin Chem Biol       Date:  2009-10-12       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  49 in total

1.  Time series modeling of live-cell shape dynamics for image-based phenotypic profiling.

Authors:  Simon Gordonov; Mun Kyung Hwang; Alan Wells; Frank B Gertler; Douglas A Lauffenburger; Mark Bathe
Journal:  Integr Biol (Camb)       Date:  2015-12-11       Impact factor: 2.192

2.  Imagining the future of bioimage analysis.

Authors:  Erik Meijering; Anne E Carpenter; Hanchuan Peng; Fred A Hamprecht; Jean-Christophe Olivo-Marin
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2016-12-07       Impact factor: 54.908

3.  Toward performance-diverse small-molecule libraries for cell-based phenotypic screening using multiplexed high-dimensional profiling.

Authors:  Mathias J Wawer; Kejie Li; Sigrun M Gustafsdottir; Vebjorn Ljosa; Nicole E Bodycombe; Melissa A Marton; Katherine L Sokolnicki; Mark-Anthony Bray; Melissa M Kemp; Ellen Winchester; Bradley Taylor; George B Grant; C Suk-Yee Hon; Jeremy R Duvall; J Anthony Wilson; Joshua A Bittker; Vlado Dančík; Rajiv Narayan; Aravind Subramanian; Wendy Winckler; Todd R Golub; Anne E Carpenter; Alykhan F Shamji; Stuart L Schreiber; Paul A Clemons
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2014-07-14       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Deep learning takes on tumours.

Authors:  Esther Landhuis
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 49.962

5.  Development of the Theta Comparative Cell Scoring Method to Quantify Diverse Phenotypic Responses Between Distinct Cell Types.

Authors:  Scott J Warchal; John C Dawson; Neil O Carragher
Journal:  Assay Drug Dev Technol       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 1.738

Review 6.  Flow Cytometry: Impact on Early Drug Discovery.

Authors:  Bruce S Edwards; Larry A Sklar
Journal:  J Biomol Screen       Date:  2015-03-24

Review 7.  Integrating phenotypic small-molecule profiling and human genetics: the next phase in drug discovery.

Authors:  Cory M Johannessen; Paul A Clemons; Bridget K Wagner
Journal:  Trends Genet       Date:  2014-12-12       Impact factor: 11.639

8.  Cell Painting, a high-content image-based assay for morphological profiling using multiplexed fluorescent dyes.

Authors:  Mark-Anthony Bray; Shantanu Singh; Han Han; Chadwick T Davis; Blake Borgeson; Cathy Hartland; Maria Kost-Alimova; Sigrun M Gustafsdottir; Christopher C Gibson; Anne E Carpenter
Journal:  Nat Protoc       Date:  2016-08-25       Impact factor: 13.491

9.  Segment and fit thresholding: a new method for image analysis applied to microarray and immunofluorescence data.

Authors:  Elliot Ensink; Jessica Sinha; Arkadeep Sinha; Huiyuan Tang; Heather M Calderone; Galen Hostetter; Jordan Winter; David Cherba; Randall E Brand; Peter J Allen; Lorenzo F Sempere; Brian B Haab
Journal:  Anal Chem       Date:  2015-09-11       Impact factor: 6.986

10.  Systematic exploration of cell morphological phenotypes associated with a transcriptomic query.

Authors:  Isar Nassiri; Matthew N McCall
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2018-11-02       Impact factor: 16.971

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.