Noise‐induced systematic errors in ratio imaging: serious artefacts and correction with multi‐resolution denoising

Ratio imaging is playing an increasingly important role in modern cell biology. Combined with ratiometric dyes or fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET) biosensors, the approach allows the detection of conformational changes and molecular interactions in living cells. However, the approach is conducted increasingly under limited signal‐to‐noise ratio (SNR), where noise from multiple images can easily accumulate and lead to substantial uncertainty in ratio values. This study demonstrates that a far more serious concern is systematic errors that generate artificially high ratio values at low SNR. Thus, uneven SNR alone may lead to significant variations in ratios among different regions of a cell. Although correct average ratios may be obtained by applying conventional noise reduction filters, such as a Gaussian filter before calculating the ratio, these filters have a limited performance at low SNR and are prone to artefacts such as generating discrete domains not found in the correct ratio image. Much more reliable restoration may be achieved with multi‐resolution denoising filters that take into account the actual noise characteristics of the detector. These filters are also capable of restoring structural details and photometric accuracy, and may serve as a general tool for retrieving reliable information from low‐light live cell images.

[1]  Frederick R Maxfield,et al.  Ratio imaging instrumentation. , 2003, Methods in cell biology.

[2]  R. Aikens,et al.  Chapter 16 Solid-State Imagers for Microscopy , 1988 .

[3]  Michael T. Orchard,et al.  Spatially adaptive image denoising under overcomplete expansion , 2000, Proceedings 2000 International Conference on Image Processing (Cat. No.00CH37101).

[4]  Donal J. Denvir,et al.  Electron-multiplying CCD: the new ICCD , 2003, SPIE Optics + Photonics.

[5]  Geert M. P. van Kempen,et al.  Mean and variance of ratio estimators used in fluorescence ratio imaging. , 2000 .

[6]  G R Bright,et al.  Fluorescence ratio imaging microscopy. , 1989, Methods in cell biology.

[7]  Martin Vetterli,et al.  Adaptive wavelet thresholding for image denoising and compression , 2000, IEEE Trans. Image Process..

[8]  S. Pizer,et al.  The Image Processing Handbook , 1994 .

[9]  B. Hadwen,et al.  The noise performance of electron multiplying charge-coupled devices , 2003 .

[10]  R. Aikens,et al.  Solid-state imagers for microscopy. , 1989, Methods in cell biology.

[11]  D. Agard,et al.  A novel 3D wavelet‐based filter for visualizing features in noisy biological data , 2005, Journal of microscopy.

[12]  T. Jovin,et al.  FRET imaging , 2003, Nature Biotechnology.

[13]  T. R. Gosnell,et al.  Digital Image Reconstruction: Deblurring and Denoising , 2005 .

[14]  R. Tsien Fluorescent indicators of ion concentrations. , 1989, Methods in cell biology.

[15]  David L. Donoho,et al.  De-noising by soft-thresholding , 1995, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[16]  Martin J. Wainwright,et al.  Image denoising using scale mixtures of Gaussians in the wavelet domain , 2003, IEEE Trans. Image Process..

[17]  Peyman Milanfar,et al.  Statistical analysis of achievable resolution in incoherent imaging , 2004, SPIE Optics + Photonics.

[18]  John C. Russ,et al.  The image processing handbook (3. ed.) , 1995 .

[19]  R. C. Puetter,et al.  Pixon‐based multiresolution image reconstruction and the quantification of picture information content , 1995, Int. J. Imaging Syst. Technol..

[20]  Martin Vetterli,et al.  Spatially adaptive wavelet thresholding with context modeling for image denoising , 2000, IEEE Trans. Image Process..

[21]  Susan S. Taylor,et al.  Fluorescence ratio imaging of cyclic AMP in single cells , 1991, Nature.