From pixels to connections: exploring in vitro neuron reconstruction software for network graph generation

Cassandra Hoffmann,Ellie Cho,Andrew Zalesky,Maria A. Di Biase
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-024-06264-9
IF: 6.548
2024-05-16
Communications Biology
Abstract:Digital reconstruction has been instrumental in deciphering how in vitro neuron architecture shapes information flow. Emerging approaches reconstruct neural systems as networks with the aim of understanding their organization through graph theory. Computational tools dedicated to this objective build models of nodes and edges based on key cellular features such as somata, axons, and dendrites. Fully automatic implementations of these tools are readily available, but they may also be purpose-built from specialized algorithms in the form of multi-step pipelines. Here we review software tools informing the construction of network models, spanning from noise reduction and segmentation to full network reconstruction. The scope and core specifications of each tool are explicitly defined to assist bench scientists in selecting the most suitable option for their microscopy dataset. Existing tools provide a foundation for complete network reconstruction, however more progress is needed in establishing morphological bases for directed/weighted connectivity and in software validation.
biology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The paper aims to address the following issues: 1. **Neuronal Network Reconstruction**: Constructing neuronal network models by extracting neuronal structural information from microscope images. This includes extracting nodes (such as cell bodies, axons, and dendrites) and edges from 2D neuronal culture images and converting them into network graphs. 2. **Review of Software Tools**: The paper provides a detailed introduction to various currently available automated software tools that can handle the entire process from raw microscopic images to network graphs. These tools cover multiple steps including image preprocessing, segmentation, tracing, morphological labeling, and post-processing. 3. **Method Comparison and Selection Guidance**: Providing experimental scientists with guidelines for selecting the most suitable software tools for different microscopic image datasets. The paper describes in detail the core functions and applicable scopes of each tool, helping users choose the best tool based on their specific needs. 4. **Future Research Directions**: Pointing out that current tools still need further improvement in establishing directed/weighted connections based on morphology and software validation, and emphasizing future research directions such as introducing edge weights and directions.