Tools and methods for high-throughput single-cell imaging with the mother machine

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The authors aim to develop an easy-to-use image analysis tool for the mother machine that is used for single-cell time-lapse imaging. Compared with related software, they tried to make this software more user-friendly for non-experts with a design of "What You Put Is What You Get". This software is implemented as a plugin of Napari, which is an emerging microscopy image analysis platform. The users can interactively adjust the parameters in the pipeline with good visualization and interaction interface.

Strengths:
- Updated platform with great 2D/3D visualization and annotation support.
- Integrated one-stop pipeline for mather machine image processing.
- Interactive user-friendly interface.
- The users can have a visualization of intermediate results and adjust the parameters.

Weaknesses:
- Based on the presentation of the manuscript, it is not clear that the goals are fully achieved.
- Although there is great potential, there is little evidence that this tool has been adopted by other labs.
- The comparison of Otsu and U-Net results does not make much sense to me. The systematic bias could be adjusted by threshold change. The U-Net output is a probability map with floating point numbers. This output is probably thresholded to get a binary mask, which is not mentioned in the manuscript. This threshold could also be adjusted. Actually, Otsu is a segmentation method and U-Net is an image transformation method and they should not be compared together. U-Net output could also be segmented using Otsu.
- The diversity of datasets used in this study is limited.

- There is some ambiguity in the main point of this manuscript, the title and figures illustrate a complete pipeline, including imaging, image segmentation, and analysis. While the abstract focus only on the software MM3. If only MM3 is the focus and contribution of this manuscript, more presentations should focus on this software tool. It is also not clear whether the analysis features are also integrated with MM3 or not.

- The impact of this work depends on the adoption of the software MM3. Napari is a promising platform with expanding community. With good software user experience and long-term support, there is a good chance that this tool could be widely adopted in the mother machine image analysis community.
- The data analysis in this manuscript is used as a demo of MM3 features, rather than scientific research.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The authors present an image-analysis pipeline for mother-machine data, i.e., for time-lapses of single bacterial cells growing for many generations in one-dimensional microfluidic channels. The pipeline is available as a plugin of the python-based image-analysis platform Napari. The tool comes with two different previously published methods to segment cells (classical image transformation and thresholding as well as UNet-based analysis), which compare qualitatively and quantitatively well with the results of widely accessible tools developed by others (BACNET, DelTA, Omnipose). The tool comes with a graphical user interface and example scripts, which should make it valuable for other mother-machine users, even if this has not been demonstrated yet.

The authors also add a practical overview of how to prepare and conduct mother-machine experiments, citing their previous work and giving more advice on how to load cells using centrifugation. However, the latter part lacks detailed instructions.

Finally, the authors emphasize that machine-learning methods for image segmentation reproduce average quantities of training datasets, such as the length at birth or division. Therefore, differences in training can propagate to difference in measured average quantities. This result is not surprising and is normally considered a desired property of any machine-learning algorithm as also commented on below.

Points for improvement:
Different datasets: The authors demonstrate the use of their method for bacteria growing in different growth conditions in their own microscope. However, they don't provide details on whether they had to adjust image-analysis parameters for each dataset. Similarly, they say that their method also works for other organisms including yeast and C. elegans (as part of the Results section) but they don't show evidence nor do they write whether the method needs to be tuned/trained for those datasets. Finally, they don't demonstrate that their method works on data from other labs, which might be different due to differences in setup or imaging conditions.

Bias due to training sets:
The bias in ML-methods based on training datasets is not surprising but arguably a desired property of those methods. Similarly, threshold-based classical segmentation methods are biased by the choice of threshold values and other segmentation parameters. A point that would have profited from discussion in this regard: How to make image segmentation unbiased, that is, how to deliver physical cell boundaries? This can be done by image simulations and/or by comparison with alternative methods such as fluorescence microscopy.

The authors stress the user-friendliness of their method in comparison to others. For example, they write: 'Unfortunately, many of these tools present a steep learning curve for most biologists, as they require familiarity with command line tools, programming, and image analysis methods.' I suggest to instead emphasize that many of the tools published in recent years are designed to be very use friendly. And as will all methods, MM3 also comes at a prize, which is to install Napari followed by the installation of MM3, which, according to their own instructions, is not easy either.