| Literature DB >> 32408861 |
Lu Cao1, Andries D van der Meer2, Fons J Verbeek3, Robert Passier4,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiotoxicity, characterized by severe cardiac dysfunction, is a major problem in patients treated with different classes of anticancer drugs. Development of predictable human-based models and assays for drug screening are crucial for preventing potential drug-induced adverse effects. Current animal in vivo models and cell lines are not always adequate to represent human biology. Alternatively, human induced pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes (hiPSC-CMs) show great potential for disease modelling and drug-induced toxicity screenings. Fully automated high-throughput screening of drug toxicity on hiPSC-CMs by fluorescence image analysis is, however, very challenging, due to clustered cell growth patterns and strong intracellular and intercellular variation in the expression of fluorescent markers.Entities:
Keywords: Cardiotoxicity; High-throughput screening; Image analysis; Phenotype quantification; hiPSC-derived cardiomyocytes
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32408861 PMCID: PMC7222481 DOI: 10.1186/s12859-020-3466-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Bioinformatics ISSN: 1471-2105 Impact factor: 3.169
Fig. 1Sample images acquired from BD pathway 855 microscope with 7x7 montage setup. a Sample image in the control condition (DMSO). b Sample image with 1 μM doxorubicin treatment. c A close-up sample image from control condition (DMSO). d A close-up sample image with 1 μM doxorubicin treatment
Fig. 2Image analysis pipeline and segmentation results. a Image analysis pipeline for segmentation and quantification of the individual cardiomyocytes from the image with α-actinin and DAPI staining. b A sample of segmentation results (segmentation lines: Green; α-actinin signal: Red; DAPI signal: blue). c Comparison of cell masking methods on a typical cluster of cells. Left, original image; middle, binary mask of Otsu thresholding method; right, binary mask of Fuzzy c-mean clustering method. d Comparison of different segmentation methods. The difference of the two methods are the usage of different cell masking method. Left, Propagation result with Otsu cell masking; right, our propagation result with FCM cell masking
Texture measurements
| Feature Name | Expression | Description |
|---|---|---|
| std | The standard deviation of intensity from all the pixels in a region. | |
| Smoothness | The relative smoothness of the intensity in a region of constant intensity in a region. It is 0 for a region of constant intensity and 1 for a region with large excursion in the values of its intensity levels. | |
| Skewness | The order moment about the mean. The departure from symmetry about the mean intensity. It is 0 for symmetric histograms, positive for histograms skewed to the right and negative for histograms skewed to the left. | |
| Uniformity | The sum of squared elements in Histogram. It reaches maximum when all intensity levels are equal and decreases from there. | |
| Entropy | The statistical measure of randomness. | |
| i represents the intensity value. | ||
Fig. 3Examples of automated and manual segmentation results. a-d are images from control conditions and e-h are from treated conditions with 3 μM crizotinib. a and e are derived from conventional Otsu-based segmentation. b and f are derived from our method. c and g are derived from the first researcher by manual segmentation. (D) and (H) are derived from the second researcher by manual segmentation
F-score analysis for the automated and manual segmentation results
| Automated vs Manual 1 | Automated vs Manual 2 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Precision | Recall | F-Score | Precision | Recall | F-Score | ||
| Gregory’s method | Mean | 0.9728 | 0.5529 | 0.6945 | 0.9725 | 0.6123 | 0.7432 |
| SEM | 0.0055 | 0.0361 | 0.0296 | 0.0047 | 0.0342 | 0.0263 | |
| Our method | Mean | 0.8428 | 0.9197 | 0.8775 | 0.7849 | 0.9384 | 0.8533 |
| SEM | 0.0122 | 0.0130 | 0.0054 | 0.0116 | 0.0102 | 0.0055 | |
Fig. 4Representative results of phenotype measurements on single cell level. a The effects of doxorubicin treatment on cell viability (depicted as number of cardiomyocyte). b The effects of crizotinib treatment on cell viability (depicted as number of cardiomyocyte). c The effects of doxorubicin treatment on cell area. d The effects of crizotinib treatment on cell area. e The effects of doxorubicin treatment on cell shape (Elongation). f The effects of crizotinib treatment on cell shape (Elongation). g The effects of doxorubicin treatment on cell-cell contact. h The effects of crizotinib treatment on cell-cell contact. Cells treated with dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO 4.23 mM) is considered as control. In general, data are represented as mean ±s.e.m. *p <0.05 by Two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. N-number is 5