Comparison of Methods for Image-Based Profiling of Cellular Morphological Responses to Small-Molecule Treatment

Quantitative microscopy has proven a versatile and powerful phenotypic screening technique. Recently, image-based profiling has shown promise as a means for broadly characterizing molecules’ effects on cells in several drug-discovery applications, including target-agnostic screening and predicting a compound’s mechanism of action (MOA). Several profiling methods have been proposed, but little is known about their comparative performance, impeding the wider adoption and further development of image-based profiling. We compared these methods by applying them to a widely applicable assay of cultured cells and measuring the ability of each method to predict the MOA of a compendium of drugs. A very simple method that is based on population means performed as well as methods designed to take advantage of the measurements of individual cells. This is surprising because many treatments induced a heterogeneous phenotypic response across the cell population in each sample. Another simple method, which performs factor analysis on the cellular measurements before averaging them, provided substantial improvement and was able to predict MOA correctly for 94% of the treatments in our ground-truth set. To facilitate the ready application and future development of image-based phenotypic profiling methods, we provide our complete ground-truth and test data sets, as well as open-source implementations of the various methods in a common software framework.

[1]  G. McLachlan,et al.  The EM algorithm and extensions , 1996 .

[2]  Leo Breiman,et al.  Statistical Modeling: The Two Cultures (with comments and a rejoinder by the author) , 2001 .

[3]  Leo Breiman,et al.  Statistical Modeling: The Two Cultures (with comments and a rejoinder by the author) , 2001, Statistical Science.

[4]  Corinna Cortes,et al.  Support-Vector Networks , 1995, Machine Learning.

[5]  Lani F. Wu,et al.  Multidimensional Drug Profiling By Automated Microscopy , 2004, Science.

[6]  Daniel Rauh,et al.  An Unbiased Cell Morphology–Based Screen for New, Biologically Active Small Molecules , 2005, PLoS biology.

[7]  Paul A Clemons,et al.  The Connectivity Map: Using Gene-Expression Signatures to Connect Small Molecules, Genes, and Disease , 2006, Science.

[8]  H. Erfle,et al.  High-throughput RNAi screening by time-lapse imaging of live human cells , 2006, Nature Methods.

[9]  Anne E Carpenter,et al.  CellProfiler: image analysis software for identifying and quantifying cell phenotypes , 2006, Genome Biology.

[10]  Cynthia L Adams,et al.  Compound classification using image-based cellular phenotypes. , 2006, Methods in enzymology.

[11]  Anne E Carpenter Image-based chemical screening. , 2007, Nature chemical biology.

[12]  Xiaobo Zhou,et al.  Using iterative cluster merging with improved gap statistics to perform online phenotype discovery in the context of high-throughput RNAi screens , 2008, BMC Bioinformatics.

[13]  Lani F. Wu,et al.  Image-based multivariate profiling of drug responses from single cells , 2007, Nature Methods.

[14]  Marc Bickle,et al.  High-content screening: a new primary screening tool? , 2008, IDrugs : the investigational drugs journal.

[15]  John A. Tallarico,et al.  Integrating high-content screening and ligand-target prediction to identify mechanism of action. , 2008, Nature chemical biology.

[16]  Lani F. Wu,et al.  Characterizing heterogeneous cellular responses to perturbations , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[17]  G. McLachlan,et al.  The EM Algorithm and Extensions: Second Edition , 2008 .

[18]  Paul A Clemons,et al.  Connecting synthetic chemistry decisions to cell and genome biology using small-molecule phenotypic profiling. , 2009, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[19]  John A. Tallarico,et al.  Multi-parameter phenotypic profiling: using cellular effects to characterize small-molecule compounds , 2009, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[20]  Ata Kabán,et al.  When is 'nearest neighbour' meaningful: A converse theorem and implications , 2009, J. Complex..

[21]  Polina Golland,et al.  Scoring diverse cellular morphologies in image-based screens with iterative feedback and machine learning , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[22]  Neil O Carragher,et al.  High-Content Phenotypic Profiling of Drug Response Signatures across Distinct Cancer Cells , 2010, Molecular Cancer Therapeutics.

[23]  L Shamir,et al.  Assessing the efficacy of low‐level image content descriptors for computer‐based fluorescence microscopy image analysis , 2011, Journal of microscopy.

[24]  Anne E Carpenter,et al.  Improved structure, function and compatibility for CellProfiler: modular high-throughput image analysis software , 2011, Bioinform..

[25]  D. Swinney,et al.  How were new medicines discovered? , 2011, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[26]  Anne Kümmel,et al.  Comparison of Multivariate Data Analysis Strategies for High-Content Screening , 2011, Journal of biomolecular screening.

[27]  D. Sall,et al.  Modern phenotypic drug discovery is a viable, neoclassic pharma strategy. , 2012, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[28]  Anne E Carpenter,et al.  Annotated high-throughput microscopy image sets for validation , 2012, Nature Methods.