Quantifying Competitive Fitness in Yeast with High‐Throughput Fluorescence Microscopy Imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Competitive fitness is a fundamental concept in evolutionary biology that captures the ability of organisms to survive, reproduce, and compete for resources in their environment. Competitive fitness is typically assessed in the lab by growing two or more competitors together and measuring the frequency of each at multiple time points. Traditional microbial competitive fitness assays are labor intensive and involve plating on solid medium and counting colonies. Here, we describe a method to quantitatively measure competitive fitness using fluorescence microscopic imaging and machine-learning-enabled image analysis to directly count the number of cells from each competitor in the mixed population. This high-throughput, primarily automated, and efficient process gives accurate and reproducible results for competitive fitness. Here, we describe the entire process, from sample preparation through microscopy to quantification, and provide instructions and scripts for the image analysis, fitness calculations, and sample data visualizations. © 2025 The Author(s). Current Protocols published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. Basic Protocol 1: Sample preparation Basic Protocol 2: Photographing fluorescing and non-fluorescing cells using an EVOS microscope Basic Protocol 3: Counting fluorescing and non-fluorescing cells with Orbit Image Analysis Basic Protocol 4: Getting the average cell counts per well and changing the file names Basic Protocol 5: Calculating competitive fitness using R.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".