Spot Identification and Quality Control in Cell-Based Microarrays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cell-based microarrays are being increasingly used as a tool for combinatorial and high throughput screening of cellular microenvironments. Analysis of microarrays requires several steps, including microarray imaging, identification of cell spots, quality control, and data exploration. While high content image analysis, cell counting, and cell pattern recognition methods are established, there is a need for new postprocessing and quality control methods for cell-based microarrays used to investigate combinatorial microenvironments. Previously, microarrayed cell spot identification and quality control were performed manually, leading to excessive processing time and potentially resulting in human bias. This work introduces an automated approach to identify cell-based microarray spots and spot quality control. The approach was used to analyze the adhesion of murine cardiac side population cells on combinatorial arrays of extracellular matrix proteins. Microarrays were imaged by automated fluorescence microscopy and cells were identified using open-source image analysis software (CellProfiler). From these images, clusters of cells making up single cell spots were reliably identified by analyzing the distances between cells using a density-based clustering algorithm (OPTICS). Naïve Bayesian classifiers trained on manually scored training sets identified good and poor quality spots using spot size, number of cells per spot, and cell location as quality control criteria. Combined, the approach identified 78% of high quality spots and 87% of poor quality spots. Full factorial analysis of the resulting microarray data revealed that collagen IV exhibited the highest positive effect on cell attachment. This data processing approach allows for fast and unbiased analysis of cell-based microarray data.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".