Pipeline for FlowCam data processing with modular open-source software and optional machine learning classification


Abstract

Imaging instruments are becoming widely used in plankton research as they offer several advantages over traditional microscopy: 1) processing orders of magnitude more samples and organisms per time, 2) collection of more quantitative trait data from all organisms, 3) reducing human bias including the possibility to reanalyse image data, 4) rapid imaging of samples avoiding bias by deterioration of preserved samples before analysis, and further 5) some imagers allow analysis of live organisms enabling detection and quantification of delicate organisms that cannot be properly fixed. However, processing the huge number of images produced by common plankton imagers such as the FlowCam (Yokogawa Fluid Imaging Technologies, Inc., ME, USA) remains challenging. VisualSpreadsheet (VSP) - the commercial software necessary to operate FlowCam instruments - offers images, associated particle properties, and statistical analysis tools. However, it has licensing costs, runs exclusively on Windows, and offers limited support for older software versions and machine learning classification. Third-party alternatives to VSP for image sorting and classification have shortcomings related to data format and applicability across systems. We developed a freely available, multi-platform, modular pipeline for processing FlowCam data from various instruments and VSP versions, while also adding important functionalities. A preprocessing Python script unifies the output of different VSP versions and detects imaging artefacts (air bubbles, beads, duplicate images). The size range of target particles can be determined by a user-defined threshold, and their individual biovolume is calculated based on a distance map algorithm. The preprocessed data is summarised in a CSV file that can be opened in LabelChecker, the open-source, cross-platform program presented here. LabelChecker displays FlowCam images without transforming the FlowCam’s output format and enables annotation and validation of labels. The processing pipeline can be paired with machine learning approaches for automatic image classification. Classification results are stored in the same CSV file that opens with LabelChecker for easy label validation and further data processing. We demonstrate the workflow of this pipeline with two plankton datasets. We first annotate images and then use them to train a custom shallow, multi-input classification model. Focussing on accessibility, this pipeline (preprocessing, LabelChecker, and machine learning) paves the way for fast and reproducible plankton analysis by FlowCam, to enable high-throughput analyses adaptable to a wide range of plankton studies. This freely available plankton imaging pipeline can facilitate a wider use of FlowCam instruments and their data, increasing the overall scientific output. Its modular design also makes it easily adaptable to data from virtually any plankton imaging system.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].