| Literature DB >> 32487517 |
Sarah H Carl1,2, Lea Duempelmann3,4, Yukiko Shimada3, Marc Bühler1,4.
Abstract
Adenine auxotrophy is a commonly used non-selective genetic marker in yeast research. It allows investigators to easily visualize and quantify various genetic and epigenetic events by simply reading out colony color. However, manual counting of large numbers of colonies is extremely time-consuming, difficult to reproduce and possibly inaccurate. Using cutting-edge neural networks, we have developed a fully automated pipeline for colony segmentation and classification, which speeds up white/red colony quantification 100-fold over manual counting by an experienced researcher. Our approach uses readily available training data and can be smoothly integrated into existing protocols, vastly speeding up screening assays and increasing the statistical power of experiments that employ adenine auxotrophy.Entities:
Keywords: Adenine auxotrophy; Deep learning; Growth assay; Neural networks; Yeast
Year: 2020 PMID: 32487517 PMCID: PMC7328007 DOI: 10.1242/bio.052936
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biol Open ISSN: 2046-6390 Impact factor: 2.422
Fig. 1.Overview of deep learning setup and results. (A) Schematic of the entire automated colony classification pipeline. Plate images are given as input, then pass through a U-net network for segmentation prediction, resulting in cropped colony images. These are then fed into a Resnet-34 network for classification, followed by plate-level aggregation into white and non-white percentages. (B) An example input plate image (left), and the same image overlaid with the predicted segmentation mask (right). Scale bars: 1 cm. (C) Examples of cropped colonies classified into each of the five possible classes. Scale bars: 0.3 mm. (D) Confusion matrix showing the results of the classification step (Resnet-34 network) on the validation data. Numbers in each square indicate the number of colonies with each true (y-axis) and predicted (x-axis) label.
Detailed performance metrics for colony classification in validation dataset
Fig. 2.Comparison of automated colony classification and manual counting on experimental data. (A) Boxplots showing the predicted or manually counted percentage of non-white colonies per plate on plates resulting from red paf1-Q264Stop; ade6 cells. n=59 (predicted) or n=10 (counted). For comparison, percentage of non-white colonies per plate were also predicted with CellProfiler, with a threshold value of 0.055 (n=59). (B) Boxplots showing the predicted or manually counted percentage of non-white colonies per plate on plates resulting from white paf1-Q264Stop cells. n=60 (predicted) or n=12 (counted). For comparison, percentage of non-white colonies per plate were also predicted with CellProfiler, with a threshold value of 0.055 (n=60). For boxplots, center line is median, bottom and top hinges are first and third quartiles, whiskers show the most extreme points within 1.5 times the interquartile range, and more extreme values are plotted as individual points. (C) Mean predicted or manually counted percentages of non-white colonies per plate across a time course of mitotically dividing white paf1 cells crossed to white paf1-Q264Stop cells every 3 days. The time course was repeated with 11 independent biological replicates, and six plates per replicate per timepoint were quantified by automated prediction (n=66 per time point). The mean of all 66 plates is reported for each timepoint. For manual counting, one plate per replicate per timepoint was counted (n=11 per time point); the mean of 11 plates is reported for each timepoint.