Back

A benchmarked comparison of software packagesfor time-lapse image processing of monolayerbacterial population dynamics

Ahmadi, A.; Courtney, M.; Ren, C.; Ingalls, B. P.

2023-12-03 microbiology
10.1101/2023.11.30.569426 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Time-lapse microscopy offers a powerful approach for analysing cellular activity. In particular, this technique is valuable for assessing the behaviour of bacterial populations, which can exhibit growth and intercellular interactions in monolayer. Such time-lapse imaging typically generates large quantities of data, limiting the options for manual investigation. Several of image processing software packages have been developed to facilitate analysis. It can thus be a challenge to identify the software package best suited to a particular research goal. Here, we compare four software packages that support analysis of 2D time-lapse images of cellular populations: CellProfiler, SuperSegger-Omnipose, DeLTA, and FAST. We compare their performance against benchmarked results on time-lapse observations of E. coli populations. Performance varies across the packages, with each of the four out-performing the others in at least one aspect of the analysis. Not surprisingly, the packages that have been in development for longer showed the strongest performance. We found that deep-learning based approaches to object segmentation outperformed traditional approaches, but the opposite was true for frame-to-frame object tracking. We offer these comparisons, together with insight on usability, computational efficiency, and feature availability, as a guide to researchers seeking image processing solutions. Significance StatementTime-lapse microscopy provides a detailed window into the world of bacterial behavior. However, the vast amount of data produced by these techniques is difficult to analyze manually. We have analysed four software tools designed to process such data and compared their performance, using populations of commonly studied bacterial species as our test subjects. Our findings offer a roadmap to scientists, helping them choose the right tool for their research. This comparison bridges a gap between microbiology and computational analysis, streamlining research efforts.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.