Single Cell Analysis of High-Parameter Histology Images Using Histoflow Cytometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Immunofluorescence histology is commonly used to study immune cells in tissues where the number of fluorescence parameters is normally limited to four or less. This makes it impossible to interrogate multiple subsets of immune cells in tissue with the same precision as flow cytometry. The latter, however, dissociates tissues and loses spatial information. To bridge the gap between these technologies, we developed a workflow to expand the number of fluorescence parameters that can be imaged on widely available microscopes. We instituted a method for identifying single cells in tissue and exporting the data for flow cytometry-based analysis. This histoflow cytometry technique successfully separates spectrally overlapping dyes and identifies similar numbers of cells in tissue sections as manual cell counts. Populations identified through flow cytometry-like gating strategies are mapped to the original tissue to spatially localize gated subsets. We applied histoflow cytometry to immune cells in the spinal cords of mice with experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis. We ascertained that B cells, T cells, neutrophils, and phagocytes differed in their frequencies in CNS immune cell infiltrates and were increased relative to healthy controls. Spatial analysis determined that B cells and T cells/phagocytes preferentially localized to CNS barriers and parenchyma, respectively. By spatially mapping these immune cells, we inferred their preferred interacting partners within immune cell clusters. Overall, we demonstrate the ease and utility of histoflow cytometry, which expands the number of fluorescent channels used in conventional immunofluorescence and enables quantitative cytometry and spatial localization of histological analyses.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".