| Literature DB >> 35595808 |
M D'Orazio1,2, M Murdocca3, A Mencattini4,5, P Casti1,2, J Filippi1,2, G Antonelli1,2, D Di Giuseppe1,2, M C Comes1,2, C Di Natale1, F Sangiuolo3, E Martinelli1,2.
Abstract
High-throughput phenotyping is becoming increasingly available thanks to analytical and bioinformatics approaches that enable the use of very high-dimensional data and to the availability of dynamic models that link phenomena across levels: from genes to cells, from cells to organs, and through the whole organism. The combination of phenomics, deep learning, and machine learning represents a strong potential for the phenotypical investigation, leading the way to a more embracing approach, called machine learning phenomics (MLP). In particular, in this work we present a novel MLP platform for phenomics investigation of cancer-cells response to therapy, exploiting and combining the potential of time-lapse microscopy for cell behavior data acquisition and robust deep learning software architectures for the latent phenotypes extraction. A two-step proof of concepts is designed. First, we demonstrate a strict correlation among gene expression and cell phenotype with the aim to identify new biomarkers and targets for tailored therapy in human colorectal cancer onset and progression. Experiments were conducted on human colorectal adenocarcinoma cells (DLD-1) and their profile was compared with an isogenic line in which the expression of LOX-1 transcript was knocked down. In addition, we also evaluate the phenotypic impact of the administration of different doses of an antineoplastic drug over DLD-1 cells. Under the omics paradigm, proteomics results are used to confirm the findings of the experiments.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35595808 PMCID: PMC9123013 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-12364-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.996
Figure 1A layout of the genomics-phenomics axis. The cell behavior may be investigated at different scales: from the DNA microarray analysis for genomics, through proteomics and metabolomics by gas chromatography mass spectrometry, until a microscale analysis for phenomics using optical imaging acquisition.
Accuracy values of classification using four deep learning network and SVM classification model.
| DLD-1 versus LOX1 inhibited | ALEXNET | GOOGLENET | RESNET101 | NASNETLARGE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 72.83 ± 5.22% | 71.55 ± 4.85% | 74.00 ± 4.37% | 74.44 ± 4.40% | |
| 70.00 ± 7.73% | 79.52 ± 7.48% | 80.48 ± 6.59% | 82.38 ± 5.66% |
Figure 2Confusion matrices of the classification task in case study 1 using RESNET101 and SVM classifier. Single-track results (left) and cluster results (right). Third column represents in turn from top to bottom: ratio of DLD1 correctly recognized, ratio of LOX1 inhibited correctly detected, unbalanced accuracy (ratio of the sum of true positives and true negatives over the total number of instances).
Accuracy values of four classification models (SVM, RF, LDA, and KNN) built on shape and texture descriptors, compared with the results obtained using RESNET101 transfer learning descriptors.
| DLD-1 versus LOX1 inhibited | ||
|---|---|---|
| SVM | ||
| Shape & texture descriptors | RESNET101 | |
| 64.52 ± 6.73% | 74.00 ± 4.37% | |
| 73.49 ± 9.20% | 80.48 ± 6.59% | |
Accuracy classification results for No Bias condition (first column), bias value equal to 0.3 (second column), bias value equal to 0.5 (third column), using RESNET101 and SVM classifier.
| RESNET101 | No Bias | Bias in test = 0.3 | Bias in test = 0.5 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No Preprocessing | Background Suppression | No Preprocessing | Background Suppression | No Preprocessing | Background Suppression | |
| 79.63 ± 3.75% | 74.00 ± 4.37% | 78.22 ± 6.91% | 74.16 ± 4.41% | 56.92 ± 6.47% | 74.03 ± 5.08% | |
Accuracy values of classification using four deep learning networks and SVM classifier.
| DLD-1 versus DLD-1 125 µg/ml versus DLD-1 250 µg/ml | ALEXNET | GOOGLENET | RESNET101 | NASNETLARGE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Single-track level | 76.17 ± 3.47% | 76.06 ± 4.09% | 77.88 ± 3.41% | 73.70 ± 3.80% |
| Single-cluster level | 86.77 ± 4.64% | 84.42 ± 5.36% | 84.03 ± 3.73% | 81.78 ± 5.19% |
Figure 3Confusion matrices of the classification task in case study 2. Single cell results (left) and cluster results (right). Third column represents in turn from top to bottom: ratio of DLD1 correctly recognized, ratio of Bevacizumab 125 μg/ml correctly detected, ratio of Bevacizumab 250 μg/ml correctly detected, unbalanced accuracy (ratio of the sum of true instances over the total number of instances).
Accuracy values of four classification models (SVM, RF, LDA, and KNN) built on shape and texture descriptors, compared with the results obtained using RESNET101 transfer learning descriptors.
| DLD-1 versus DLD-1 125 μg/ml versus DLD-1 250 μg/ml | ||
|---|---|---|
| SVM | ||
| Shape & texture descriptors | RESNET101 | |
| 61.71 ± 4.33% | 77.88 ± 3.41% | |
| 64.46 ± 7.08% | 84.03 ± 3.73% | |
Accuracy classification results for No Bias condition, bias value equal to 0.3 (secondo column), bias value equal to 0.5 (third column), using RESNET101 and SVM classifier.
| RESNET101 | No bias | Bias in test = 0.3 | Bias in test = 0.5 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No preprocessing | Background suppression | No preprocessing | Background suppression | No preprocessing | Background suppression | |
| 75.55 ± 4.09% | 77.88 ± 3.41% | 65.29 ± 5.88% | 77.90 ± 3.69% | 49.23 ± 8.70% | 76.70 ± 3.74% | |
Accuracy values of the SVM classification model at single-time point level obtained using RESNET101 transfer learning descriptors and compared with those achieved by the proposed cooperative strategies (i.e., single-track and cluster level).
| DLD-1 versus LOX1 inhibited | RESNET101 |
|---|---|
| Single-time point level | 64.15 ± 0.60% |
| Single-track level | 74.00 ± 4.37% |
| Cluster level | 80.48 ± 6.59% |
Figure 4Relative gene expression of LOX-1 and VEGF-A for the four investigated classes: Control Colorectal cancer cells class (DLD-1 scramble), DLD-1 with stably down modulated LOX-1 (DLD-1#5), DLD-1 treated with Bevacizumab at 125 and 250 µg/ml.
Figure 5PCA Scores plot of the first two components obtained using: (A) Deep Features—Control DLD-1 (red) versus treated at 250 μg/ml (blue) versus LOX1 inhibited (green). (B) Deep Features—Control DLD-1 cells (red) versus treated at 125 μg/ml (green) versus treated at 250 μg/ml (blue). (C) Traditional features—Control DLD-1 (red) versus treated at 250 μg/ml (blue) versus LOX1 inhibited (green). (D) Traditional features—Control DLD-1 cells (red) versus treated at 125 μg/ml (green) versus treated at 250 μg/ml (blue).
Figure 6The figure depicts an overview of the method. (A) Cells are located and tracked. (B) Cell centered ROIs are extracted. (C) Background suppression is applied to the ROIs. (D) Features are extracted from the processed ROIs using a pretrained Deep Neural Network. (E) Starting from features signals, statistics are extracted in order to catch the dynamic of the phenomenon. (F) Using the statistics as features, machine learning model is constructed in order to have predictions at single cell level. (G) Cluster-based majority voting is finally exploited to summarize the cluster behaviour.
Lists of deep learning architectures selected for the test: layers used and total number of features extracted.
| AlexNET | GoogleNET | ResNET101 | NasNETLarge | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Layer | ‘pool5’ | ‘pool5’ | ‘pool5’ | ‘average_pooling’ |
| N. of features | 9216 | 1024 | 2048 | 4032 |
| Input Layer size | 227 × 227 × 3 | 224 × 224 × 3 | 224 × 224 × 3 | 331 × 331 × 3 |