Back

SPACe (Swift Phenotypic Analysis of Cells): an open-source, single cell analysis of Cell Painting data

Stossi, F.; Singh, P. K.; Marini, M.; Safari, K.; Szafran, A. T.; Rivera-Tostado, A.; Candler, C. D.; Mancini, M. G.; Mosa, E. A.; Bolt, M. J.; Labate, D.; Mancini, M. A.

2024-03-26 cell biology
10.1101/2024.03.21.586132 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Phenotypic profiling by high throughput microscopy has become one of the leading tools for screening large sets of perturbations in cellular models. Of the numerous methods used over the years, the flexible and economical Cell Painting (CP) assay has been central in the field, allowing for large screening campaigns leading to a vast number of data-rich images. Currently, to analyze data of this scale, available open-source software (i.e., CellProfiler) requires computational resources that are not available to most laboratories worldwide. In addition, the image-embedded cell-to-cell variation of responses within a population, while collected and analyzed, is usually averaged and unused. Here we introduce SPACe (Swift Phenotypic Analysis of Cells), an open source, Python-based platform for the analysis of single cell image-based morphological profiles produced by CP experiments. SPACe can process a typical dataset approximately ten times faster than CellProfiler on common desktop computers without loss in mechanism of action (MOA) recognition accuracy. It also computes directional distribution-based distances (Earth Movers Distance - EMD) of morphological features for quality control and hit calling. We highlight several advantages of SPACe analysis on CP assays, including reproducibility across multiple biological replicates, easy applicability to multiple ([~]20) cell lines, sensitivity to variable cell-to-cell responses, and biological interpretability to explain image-based features. We ultimately illustrate the advantages of SPACe in a screening campaign of cell metabolism small molecule inhibitors which we performed in seven cell lines to highlight the importance of testing perturbations across models.

Matching journals

The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
SLAS Discovery
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
53.6%
50% of probability mass above
2
iScience
1154 papers in training set
Top 4%
4.0%
3
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 27%
4.0%
4
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2444 papers in training set
Top 19%
2.7%
5
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 42%
2.4%
6
Cell Systems
201 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
7
ACS Chemical Biology
167 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.0%
8
Life Science Alliance
285 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.0%
9
Molecular Biology of the Cell
311 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
10
Communications Biology
993 papers in training set
Top 15%
1.7%
11
SLAS Technology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.5%
12
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 49%
1.3%
13
Nucleic Acids Research
1281 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.3%
14
Cell Chemical Biology
94 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
15
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 58%
1.1%
16
BMC Biology
265 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
17
Science Advances
1243 papers in training set
Top 29%
0.9%
18
Journal of Biological Chemistry
690 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.8%
19
Cell Reports Methods
165 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%
20
Artificial Intelligence in the Life Sciences
13 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%
21
Cytometry Part A
33 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%
22
Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology
233 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%
23
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
494 papers in training set
Top 17%
0.6%