Accurate and versatile 3D segmentation of plant tissues at cellular resolution

Abstract

Quantitative analysis of plant and animal morphogenesis requires accurate segmentation of individual cells in volumetric images of growing organs. In the last years, deep learning has provided robust automated algorithms that approach human performance, with applications to bio-image analysis now starting to emerge. Here, we present PlantSeg, a pipeline for volumetric segmentation of plant tissues into cells. PlantSeg employs a convolutional neural network to predict cell boundaries and graph partitioning to segment cells based on the neural network predictions. PlantSeg was trained on 1xed and live plant organs imaged with confocal and light sheet microscopes. PlantSeg delivers accurate results and generalizes well across different tissues, scales, acquisition settings even on non plant samples. We present results of PlantSeg applications in diverse developmental contexts. PlantSeg is free and open-source, with both a command line and a user-friendly graphical interface (https://github.com/hci-unihd/plant-seg).

Data availability

All data used in this study have been deposited in Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/uzq3w/Additionally Arabidopsis 3D Digital Tissue Atlas is available under https://osf.io/fzr56/

The following data sets were generated
The following previously published data sets were used

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Adrian Wolny

    Cell Biology and Biophysics Unit, EMBL, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Lorenzo Cerrone

    Heidelberg Collaboratory for Image Processing, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Athul Vijayan

    School of Life Sciences Weihenstephan, Technical University of Munich, Freising, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Rachele Tofanelli

    School of Life Sciences Weihenstephan, Technical University of Munich, Freising, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5196-1122
  5. Amaya Vilches Barro

    Centre for Organismal Studies, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Marion Louveaux

    Centre for Organismal Studies, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Christian Wenzl

    Department of Stem Cell Biology, Centre for Organismal Studies, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Sören Strauss

    Department of Comparative Development and Genetics, Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Cologne, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. David Wilson-Sánchez

    Department of Comparative Development and Genetics, Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Cologne, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Rena Lymbouridou

    Department of Comparative Development and Genetics, Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Cologne, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Susanne Steigleder

    Centre for Organismal Studies, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Constantin Pape

    Cell Biology and Biophysics Unit, EMBL, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Alberto Bailoni

    Heidelberg Collaboratory for Image Processing, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Salva Duran-Nebreda

    School of Life Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. George Bassel

    School of Life Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Jan U Lohmann

    Department of Stem Cell Biology, Centre for Organismal Studies, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3667-187X
  17. Miltos Tsiantis

    Department of Comparative Development and Genetics, Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Cologne, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Fred Hamprecht

    Department of Stem Cell Biology, Centre for Organismal Studies, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Kay Schneitz

    School of Life Sciences Weihenstephan, Technical University of Munich, Freising, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6688-0539
  20. Alexis Maizel

    Department of Stem Cell Biology, Centre for Organismal Studies, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  21. Anna Kreshuk

    Cell Biology and Biophysics Unit, EMBL, Heidelberg, Germany
    For correspondence
    anna.kreshuk@embl.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1334-6388

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (FOR2581)

  • Jan U Lohmann
  • Miltos Tsiantis
  • Fred Hamprecht
  • Kay Schneitz
  • Alexis Maizel
  • Anna Kreshuk

Leverhulme Trust (RPG-2016-049)

  • George Bassel

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Copyright

© 2020, Wolny et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 12,750
    views
  • 1,484
    downloads
  • 185
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Adrian Wolny
  2. Lorenzo Cerrone
  3. Athul Vijayan
  4. Rachele Tofanelli
  5. Amaya Vilches Barro
  6. Marion Louveaux
  7. Christian Wenzl
  8. Sören Strauss
  9. David Wilson-Sánchez
  10. Rena Lymbouridou
  11. Susanne Steigleder
  12. Constantin Pape
  13. Alberto Bailoni
  14. Salva Duran-Nebreda
  15. George Bassel
  16. Jan U Lohmann
  17. Miltos Tsiantis
  18. Fred Hamprecht
  19. Kay Schneitz
  20. Alexis Maizel
  21. Anna Kreshuk
(2020)
Accurate and versatile 3D segmentation of plant tissues at cellular resolution
eLife 9:e57613.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.57613

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.57613

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Plant Biology
    Masanori Izumi, Sakuya Nakamura ... Shinya Hagihara
    Research Article

    Plants distribute many nutrients to chloroplasts during leaf development and maturation. When leaves senesce or experience sugar starvation, the autophagy machinery degrades chloroplast proteins to facilitate efficient nutrient reuse. Here, we report on the intracellular dynamics of an autophagy pathway responsible for piecemeal degradation of chloroplast components. Through live-cell monitoring of chloroplast morphology, we observed the formation of chloroplast budding structures in sugar-starved leaves. These buds were then released and incorporated into the vacuolar lumen as an autophagic cargo termed a Rubisco-containing body. The budding structures did not accumulate in mutants of core autophagy machinery, suggesting that autophagosome creation is required for forming chloroplast buds. Simultaneous tracking of chloroplast morphology and autophagosome development revealed that the isolation membranes of autophagosomes interact closely with part of the chloroplast surface before forming chloroplast buds. Chloroplasts then protrude at the site associated with the isolation membranes, which divide synchronously with autophagosome maturation. This autophagy-related division does not require DYNAMIN-RELATED PROTEIN 5B, which constitutes the division ring for chloroplast proliferation in growing leaves. An unidentified division machinery may thus fragment chloroplasts for degradation in coordination with the development of the chloroplast-associated isolation membrane.

    1. Plant Biology
    Koji Kato, Yoshiki Nakajima ... Ryo Nagao
    Research Article

    Photosynthetic organisms exhibit remarkable diversity in their light-harvesting complexes (LHCs). LHCs are associated with photosystem I (PSI), forming a PSI-LHCI supercomplex. The number of LHCI subunits, along with their protein sequences and pigment compositions, has been found to differ greatly among the PSI-LHCI structures. However, the mechanisms by which LHCIs recognize their specific binding sites within the PSI core remain unclear. In this study, we determined the cryo-electron microscopy structure of a PSI supercomplex incorporating fucoxanthin chlorophyll a/c-binding proteins (FCPs), designated as PSI-FCPI, isolated from the diatom Thalassiosira pseudonana CCMP1335. Structural analysis of PSI-FCPI revealed five FCPI subunits associated with a PSI monomer; these subunits were identified as RedCAP, Lhcr3, Lhcq10, Lhcf10, and Lhcq8. Through structural and sequence analyses, we identified specific protein–protein interactions at the interfaces between FCPI and PSI subunits, as well as among FCPI subunits themselves. Comparative structural analyses of PSI-FCPI supercomplexes, combined with phylogenetic analysis of FCPs from T. pseudonana and the diatom Chaetoceros gracilis, underscore the evolutionary conservation of protein motifs crucial for the selective binding of individual FCPI subunits. These findings provide significant insights into the molecular mechanisms underlying the assembly and selective binding of FCPIs in diatoms.