bioRxivBioinformaticsPreprint
Machine Learning Classification of 53BP1 Foci
María Xóchitl Benítez-Jones, Sarah KeeganiD, Sebastian Jamshahi, David FenyöiD
Abstract
Background53BP1 foci are reflective of DNA double-strand break formation and have been used as radiation markers. Manual focus counting, while prone to bias and time constraints, remains the most accurate mode of detecting 53BP1 foci. Several studies have pursued automated focus detection to replace manual methods. Deep learning, spatial 3D images, and segmentation techniques are main components of the highest performing automated methods. While these approaches have achieved promising results regarding accurate focus detection and cell classification, they are not compatible with time-sensitive large-scale applications due to their demand for long run times, advanced microscopy, and computational resources. Further, segmentation of overlapping foci in 2D images has the potential to represent focus morphologies inaccurately. ResultsTo overcome these limitations, we developed a novel method to classify 2D fluorescence microscopy images of 53BP1 foci. Our approach consisted of three key features: (1) general 53BP1 focus classes, (2) varied parameter space composed of properties from individual foci and their respective Fourier transform, and (3) widely-available machine learning classifiers. We identified four main focus classes, which consisted of blurred foci and three levels of overlapping foci. Our parameter space for the training focus library, composed of foci formed by fluorescently-tagged BP1-2, showed a wide correlation range between variables which was validated using a publicly-available library of immunostained 53BP1 foci. Random forest achieved one of the highest and most stable performances for binary and multiclass problems, followed by a support vector machine and k-nearest neighbors. Specific metrics impacted the classification of blurred and low overlap foci for both train and test sets. ConclusionsOur method classified 53BP1 foci across separate fluorescent markers, resolutions, and damage-inducing methods, using off-the-shelf machine learning classifiers, a diverse parameter space, and well-defined focus classes.
- assay: imaging
- research focus: cell type annotation
- research focus: clustering
- research focus: differential expression
- research focus: benchmarking
- approach: machine learning (classical)
- Citations
- 0
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Cell Cycle Phases, Spindle Dynamics and Kinesin-5 Motor LocalizationCharacterized by Deep Learning, Dual Segmentation and Decision-Tree Pipeline
Omer Bushusha, Karin Zarnitsky, … Larisa Gheber·bioRxiv·Aug 26, 2026
- deepBlink: Threshold-independent detection and localization of diffraction-limited spots
Bastian Eichenberger, Yinxiu Zhan, … Jeffrey Alan Chao·Nucleic Acids ResearchPeer-reviewed·Jun 23, 2021
- Neural network fast-classifies biological images using features selected after their random-forests-importance to power smart microscopy.
Maël Balluet, Florian Sizaire, … Jacques Pécréaux·bioRxiv·Nov 10, 2020
- Object Detection Networks and Augmented Reality for Cellular Detection in Fluorescence Microscopy Acquisition and Analysis.
Dominic Waithe, Jill M. Brown, … Christian Eggeling·The Journal of Cell BiologyPeer-reviewed·Jul 22, 2020
- Cell segmentation using deep learning: comparing label and label-free approaches using hyper-labeled image stacks
W. D. Cameron, A. M. Bennett, … J. V. Rocheleau·bioRxiv·Jan 9, 2020
- Deep Learning Classification of Lipid Droplets in Quantitative Phase Images
L. J. Sheneman, G. Stephanopoulos, A. E. Vasdekis·bioRxiv·Jun 1, 2020