| Literature DB >> 30209281 |
Alexandr A Kalinin1,2, Ari Allyn-Feuer1, Alex Ade1, Gordon-Victor Fon1, Walter Meixner1, David Dilworth1, Syed S Husain2, Jeffrey R de Wet1, Gerald A Higgins1, Gen Zheng3, Amy Creekmore3, John W Wiley3, James E Verdone4, Robert W Veltri4, Kenneth J Pienta4, Donald S Coffey4, Brian D Athey5,6, Ivo D Dinov7,8,9.
Abstract
Quantitative analysis of morphological changes in a cell nucleus is important for the understanding of nuclear architecture and its relationship with pathological conditions such as cancer. However, dimensionality of imaging data, together with a great variability of nuclear shapes, presents challenges for 3D morphological analysis. Thus, there is a compelling need for robust 3D nuclear morphometric techniques to carry out population-wide analysis. We propose a new approach that combines modeling, analysis, and interpretation of morphometric characteristics of cell nuclei and nucleoli in 3D. We used robust surface reconstruction that allows accurate approximation of 3D object boundary. Then, we computed geometric morphological measures characterizing the form of cell nuclei and nucleoli. Using these features, we compared over 450 nuclei with about 1,000 nucleoli of epithelial and mesenchymal prostate cancer cells, as well as 1,000 nuclei with over 2,000 nucleoli from serum-starved and proliferating fibroblast cells. Classification of sets of 9 and 15 cells achieved accuracy of 95.4% and 98%, respectively, for prostate cancer cells, and 95% and 98% for fibroblast cells. To our knowledge, this is the first attempt to combine these methods for 3D nuclear shape modeling and morphometry into a highly parallel pipeline workflow for morphometric analysis of thousands of nuclei and nucleoli in 3D.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30209281 PMCID: PMC6135819 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-31924-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1High-level schematic flow of the 3D image processing protocol: (A) 3D binary mask data; (B) mathematical representation and modeling of shape and size; (C) calculation of derived intrinsic and extrinsic geometric measures; and (D) machine learning based classification, feature ranking, and analysis.
Figure 2Robust smooth surface reconstruction. 3D visualization of: (A) a binary mask representation of a nucleus segmented from a Fibroblast cell image; (B) a mesh representation of a reconstructed smooth surface of a nucleus; (C) three binary masks for nucleoli segmented within this nucleus; and (D) three mesh representations of nucleolar surfaces, color-coded along the Z axis. Visualizations are produced with the SOCR Dynamic Visualization Toolkit web application[65].
Figure 3The (local) geometry of 2-manifolds. Per vertex definitions of curvature, relative to a local coordinate framework.
Figure 4Screenshots of the exemplar graphical workflow in the LONI Pipeline client interface that include: (left) overview of the validated workflow protocol showing nested groups of modules; (A) expanded Volume to Shape group that includes modules that perform 3D shape modeling refinement; and (B) expanded Morphometry group that includes a module that performs morphological measure extraction.
Comparison of SPHARM coefficients and our morphometry descriptors for single cell fibroblast nuclei classification.
| Classification algorithm | SPHARM coefficients, mean AUC (±SD) | Surface morphometry measures, mean AUC (±SD) |
|---|---|---|
| k-Nearest Neighbors | 0.556 ± 0.103 | 0.629 ± 0.204 |
| Linear SVM | 0.593 ± 0.165 | 0.677 ± 0.354 |
| Gaussian SVM | 0.513 ± 0.145 | 0.682 ± 0.264 |
| Random Forest | 0.619 ± 0.175 | 0.645 ± 0.200 |
| AdaBoost | 0.612 ± 0.246 | 0.663 ± 0.252 |
| Gradient Boosting | 0.620 ± 0.234 | 0.674 ± 0.229 |
Figure 5Fibroblast morphometric analysis: (A) SOCRAT visualization of t-SNE projection of morphometric feature space; (B) mean AUC for various cell set sizes; (C) top-10 features for classification by importance score (right, nucleolar feature names start with Avg, Min, Max or Var, feature names that were also reported in top-10 for PC3 cells are shown in blue font); and (D): SOCRAT visualization of interactions between top-3 features.
Fibroblast single cell and 9-cell sets classification accuracy.
| Measure | Single cell, mean (±SD) | 19 cells set, mean (±SD) |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | 0.699 (±0.076) | 0.899 (±0.123) |
| Precision | 0.701 (±0.075) | 0.922 (±0.115) |
| Sensitivity | 0.692 (±0.127) | 0.874 (±0.224) |
| AUC | 0.699 (±0.076) | 0.899 (±0.123) |
Figure 6PC3 morphometric analysis: (A) SOCRAT visualization of t-SNE projection of morphometric feature space; (B) mean AUC for various cell set sizes; (C) top-10 features for classification by importance score (right, nucleolar feature names start with Avg, Min, Max or Var, feature names that were also reported in top-10 for Fibroblast cells are shown in blue font); and (D): SOCRAT visualization of interactions between top-3 features.
PC3 single cell and 9-cell sets classification accuracy.
| Measure | Single cell, mean (±SD) | 19 cells set, mean (±SD) |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | 0.629 (±0.126) | 0.762 (±0.224) |
| Precision | 0.621 (±0.164) | 0.814 (±0.334) |
| Sensitivity | 0.569 (±0.251) | 0.623 (±0.447) |
| AUC | 0.629 (±0.126) | 0.762 (±0.224) |