3D biological object detection and labeling in multidimensional microscopy imaging

One essential assumption used in object detection and labeling by imaging is that the photometric properties of the object are homogeneous. This homogeneity requirement is often violated in microscopy imaging. Classical methods are usually of high computational cost and fail to give a stable solution. This paper presents a low computational complexity and robust method for 3D biological object detection and labeling. The developed approach is based on a statistical, non-parametric framework. The image is first divided into regular non-overlapped regions and each region is evaluated according to a general photometric variability model. The regions not consistent with this model are considered as aberrations in the data and excluded from the analysis procedure. Simultaneously, the interior parts of the object are detected. They correspond to regions where the supposed model is valid. In the second stage, the valid regions from the same object are merged under a set of hypotheses. These hypotheses are generated by taking into account photometric and geometric properties of objects and the merging is realized according to an iterative algorithm. The approach has been applied in investigations of the spatial distribution of nuclei on colonic glands of rats observed with with help of confocal fluorescence microscopy.

[1]  Joseph J. Capowski,et al.  Computer Techniques in Neuroanatomy , 1989, Springer US.

[2]  Juhui Wang,et al.  Human motion analysis with detection of subpart deformations , 1992, Electronic Imaging.

[3]  T Schormann,et al.  Three-dimensional component labeling of digital confocal microscope images enumerates replication centers in BrdUrd labeled fibroblasts. , 1992, Cytometry.

[4]  J P Rigaut,et al.  Three-dimensional DNA image cytometry by confocal scanning laser microscopy in thick tissue blocks of prostatic lesions. , 1997, Cytometry.

[5]  J. Gil,et al.  Iterative thresholding for segmentation of cells from noisy images , 2000, Journal of microscopy.

[6]  Nikolas P. Galatsanos,et al.  Methods for choosing the regularization parameter and estimating the noise variance in image restoration and their relation , 1992, IEEE Trans. Image Process..

[7]  Lawrence O'Gorman,et al.  The Converging Squares Algorithm: An Efficient Method for Locating Peaks in Multidimensions , 1984, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[8]  Anil K. Jain,et al.  Segmentation and classification of bacterial culture images , 1994 .

[9]  D. Pinkel,et al.  Segmentation of confocal microscope images of cell nuclei in thick tissue sections , 1999, Journal of microscopy.

[10]  P. Verveer,et al.  A comparison of image restoration approaches applied to three‐dimensional confocal and wide‐field fluorescence microscopy , 1999, Journal of microscopy.

[11]  D. Szarowski,et al.  Advances in automated 3-D image analyses of cell populations imaged by confocal microscopy. , 1996, Cytometry.

[12]  Van Kempen,et al.  The influence of the regularization parameter and the first estimate on the performance of tikhonov regularized non-linear image restoration algorithms , 2000 .

[13]  Anil K. Jain,et al.  Segmentation of Muscle Cell Pictures: A Preliminary Study , 1980, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[14]  Robert M. Haralick,et al.  A Statistical, Nonparametric Methodology for Document Degradation Model Validation , 2000, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[15]  R. Nevanlinna Models for Point Processes Observed with Noise , 1998 .

[16]  J. Shen,et al.  New edge detection methods based on exponential filter , 1990, [1990] Proceedings. 10th International Conference on Pattern Recognition.

[17]  Lawrence O'Gorman,et al.  The Wedge Filter Technique for Convex Boundary Estimation , 1985, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.