| Literature DB >> 29160812 |
Rufeng Li1, Yibei Wang2, Hong Xu3, Baowei Fei4, Binjie Qin5.
Abstract
This paper developed and evaluated a quantitative image analysis method to measure the concentration of the nanoparticles on which alkaline phosphatase (AP) was immobilized. These AP-labeled nanoparticles are widely used as signal markers for tagging biomolecules at nanometer and sub-nanometer scales. The AP-labeled nanoparticle concentration measurement can then be directly used to quantitatively analyze the biomolecular concentration. Micro-droplets are mono-dispersed micro-reactors that can be used to encapsulate and detect AP-labeled nanoparticles. Micro-droplets include both empty micro-droplets and fluorescent micro-droplets, while fluorescent micro-droplets are generated from the fluorescence reaction between the APs adhering to a single nanoparticle and corresponding fluorogenic substrates within droplets. By detecting micro-droplets and calculating the proportion of fluorescent micro-droplets to the overall micro-droplets, we can calculate the AP-labeled nanoparticle concentration. The proposed micro-droplet detection method includes the following steps: (1) Gaussian filtering to remove the noise of overall fluorescent targets, (2) a contrast-limited, adaptive histogram equalization processing to enhance the contrast of weakly luminescent micro-droplets, (3) an red maximizing inter-class variance thresholding method (OTSU) to segment the enhanced image for getting the binary map of the overall micro-droplets, (4) a circular Hough transform (CHT) method to detect overall micro-droplets and (5) an intensity-mean-based thresholding segmentation method to extract the fluorescent micro-droplets. The experimental results of fluorescent micro-droplet images show that the average accuracy of our micro-droplet detection method is 0.9586; the average true positive rate is 0.9502; and the average false positive rate is 0.0073. The detection method can be successfully applied to measure AP-labeled nanoparticle concentration in fluorescence microscopy.Entities:
Keywords: alkaline phosphatase (AP); fluorescence microscopy; micro-droplet; nanoparticles; spot detection
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29160812 PMCID: PMC5712791 DOI: 10.3390/s17112685
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1The framework of the proposed method for the overall micro-droplet detection.
Figure 2Original fluorescent image with SNR (signal-to-noise radio) of 7.1789 and the denoised image with SNR of 7.7489. (a) Original image. (b) Denoised image (I). (c) Zoomed details of the original image. (d) Zoomed details of the denoised image.
Figure 3Intermediate results of contrast-limited adaptive histogram equalization (CLAHE) and OTSU on the overall micro-droplet detection: (a) Original image. (b) Enhanced image with CLAHE (J). (c) Binary map with OTSU (K).
Figure 4Detection of fluorescent micro-droplets. (a) Original image. (b) Detection of fluorescent micro-droplets.
Figure 5Comparative results of segmented binary maps of different methods: (a) Original image. (b) Ground truth. (c) Multiscale variance-stabilizing transform (MSVST). (d) Multiscale spot-enhancing filter method (MSSEF). (e) Maximum possible height-dome method (MPHD). (f) The proposed method.
Figure 6Comparison of TPR and FPR obtained with MSVST, MSSEF, MPHD and the proposed methods on fluorescent micro-droplet images (FMIs).
Figure 7Comparison of the ROC curve obtained with MSVST, MPHD, MSSEF and the proposed methods.
Comparison evaluation of the F-measure obtained with MSVST, MSSEF, MPHD and the proposed methods on FMIs.
| Samples | MSVST | MSSEF | MPHD | The Proposed Method |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Image1 | 0.9204 | 0.7414 | 0.6640 | |
| Image 2 | 0.9306 | 0.7889 | 0.7250 | |
| Image 3 | 0.9348 | 0.8127 | 0.6610 | |
| Image 4 | 0.9260 | 0.7678 | 0.6591 | |
| Image 5 | 0.9075 | 0.8038 | 0.6392 | |
| Image 6 | 0.9343 | 0.7737 | 0.7318 | |
| Image 7 | 0.8945 | 0.7607 | 0.6311 | |
| Image 8 | 0.8931 | 0.7564 | 0.6183 | |
| Image 9 | 0.8792 | 0.7569 | 0.5946 | |
| Image 10 | 0.8810 | 0.5775 | 0.6183 | |
| Image 11 | 0.8999 | 0.6082 | 0.6653 | |
| Image 12 | 0.8462 | 0.6044 | 0.5859 | |
| Image 13 | 0.9177 | 0.6545 | 0.6586 | |
| Image 14 | 0.9202 | 0.5954 | 0.6555 | |
| Image 15 | 0.8831 | 0.6368 | 0.5987 | |
| Average | 0.9046 | 0.7093 | 0.6471 |
Comparison evaluation of the overall number of detected micro-droplets.
| Samples | True Number | MSVST | MSSEF | MPHD | The Proposed Method |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Image1 | 161 | 163 | 93 | 152 | 161 |
| Image 2 | 222 | 232 | 142 | 202 | 222 |
| Image 3 | 221 | 223 | 142 | 202 | 221 |
| Image 4 | 223 | 227 | 135 | 198 | 222 |
| Image 5 | 219 | 224 | 149 | 202 | 218 |
| Image 6 | 229 | 235 | 152 | 210 | 229 |
| Image 7 | 250 | 255 | 150 | 236 | 249 |
| Image 8 | 239 | 245 | 149 | 224 | 240 |
| Image 9 | 245 | 246 | 141 | 224 | 245 |
| Image 10 | 381 | 393 | 155 | 350 | 381 |
| Image 11 | 372 | 383 | 159 | 348 | 372 |
| Image 12 | 381 | 386 | 175 | 345 | 381 |
| Image 13 | 347 | 356 | 166 | 320 | 349 |
| Image 14 | 414 | 422 | 175 | 371 | 412 |
| Image 15 | 358 | 365 | 164 | 325 | 357 |
Comparison evaluation of the number of detected fluorescent micro-droplets.
| Samples | True Number | Detected Number of Fluorescent Micro-Droplets | Relative Error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Image1 | 21 | 21 | 0.00% |
| Image 2 | 18 | 18 | 0.00% |
| Image 3 | 18 | 18 | 0.00% |
| Image 4 | 16 | 17 | 6.25% |
| Image 5 | 13 | 13 | 0.00% |
| Image 6 | 24 | 24 | 0.00% |
| Image 7 | 27 | 27 | 0.00% |
| Image 8 | 26 | 26 | 0.00% |
| Image 9 | 9 | 9 | 0.00% |
| Image 10 | 36 | 36 | 0.00% |
| Image 11 | 28 | 28 | 0.00% |
| Image 12 | 30 | 30 | 0.00% |
| Image 13 | 33 | 35 | 6.06% |
| Image 14 | 32 | 32 | 0.00% |
| Image 15 | 31 | 31 | 0.00% |
Comparison evaluation of the alkaline phosphatase (AP)-labeled nanoparticle concentration measurement.
| Samples | True AP-Labeled Nanoparticle Concentration (fM) | Test AP-Labeled Nanoparticle Concentration (fM) | Relative Error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Image1 | 16.4222 | 16.4222 | 0.00% |
| Image 2 | 9.9356 | 9.9356 | 0.00% |
| Image 3 | 9.9825 | 9.9825 | 0.00% |
| Image 4 | 8.7483 | 9.3610 | 7.00% |
| Image 5 | 7.1905 | 7.2246 | 0.47% |
| Image 6 | 13.0088 | 13.0088 | 0.00% |
| Image 7 | 13.4291 | 13.4862 | 0.43% |
| Image 8 | 13.5327 | 13.4730 | 0.44% |
| Image 9 | 4.3976 | 4.3976 | 0.00% |
| Image 10 | 11.6625 | 11.6625 | 0.00% |
| Image 11 | 9.1947 | 9.1947 | 0.00% |
| Image 12 | 9.6366 | 9.6366 | 0.00% |
| Image 13 | 11.7421 | 12.4174 | 5.75% |
| Image 14 | 9.4524 | 9.5002 | 0.51% |
| Image 15 | 10.6424 | 10.6736 | 0.29% |