Abstract:Introduction The last decade has led to rapid developments and increased usage of computational tools at the single-cell level. However, our knowledge remains limited in how extracellular cues alter quantitative macrophage morphology and how such morphological changes can be used to predict macrophage phenotype as well as cytokine content at the single-cell level. Methods Using an artificial intelligence (AI) based approach, this study determined whether (i) accurate macrophage classification and (ii) prediction of intracellular IL-10 at the single-cell level was possible, using only morphological features as predictors for AI. Using a quantitative panel of shape descriptors, our study assessed image-based original and synthetic single-cell data in two different datasets in which CD14+ monocyte-derived macrophages generated from human peripheral blood monocytes were initially primed with GM-CSF or M-CSF followed by polarization with specific stimuli in the presence/absence of continuous GM-CSF or M-CSF. Specifically, M0, M1 (GM-CSF-M1, TNFα/IFNγ-M1, GM-CSF/TNFα/IFNγ-M1) and M2 (M-CSF-M2, IL-4-M2a, M-CSF/IL-4-M2a, IL-10-M2c, M-CSF/IL-10-M2c) macrophages were examined. Results Phenotypes were confirmed by ELISA and immunostaining of CD markers. Variations of polarization techniques significantly changed multiple macrophage morphological features, demonstrating that macrophage morphology is a highly sensitive, dynamic marker of phenotype. Using original and synthetic single-cell data, cell morphology alone yielded an accuracy of 93% for the classification of 6 different human macrophage phenotypes (with continuous GM-CSF or M-CSF). A similarly high phenotype classification accuracy of 95% was reached with data generated with different stimuli (discontinuous GM-CSF or M-CSF) and measured at a different time point. These comparably high accuracies clearly validated the here chosen AI-based approach. Quantitative morphology also allowed prediction of intracellular IL-10 with 95% accuracy using only original data. Discussion Thus, image-based machine learning using morphology-based features not only (i) classified M0, M1 and M2 macrophages but also (ii) classified M2a and M2c subtypes and (iii) predicted intracellular IL-10 at the single-cell level among six phenotypes. This simple approach can be used as a general strategy not only for macrophage phenotyping but also for prediction of IL-10 content of any IL-10 producing cell, which can help improve our understanding of cytokine biology at the single-cell level.

Image based machine learning for identification of M1 and M2 macrophages

Label-free macrophage phenotype classification using machine learning methods

Prediction of six macrophage phenotypes and their IL-10 content based on single-cell morphology using artificial intelligence

Deep learning classification for macrophage subtypes through cell migratory pattern analysis

A data-driven approach to establishing cell motility patterns as predictors of macrophage subtypes and their relation to cell morphology

Phenotypic and epigenetic approach evaluating human M1 and M2 macrophages (167.9)

Visualizing Macrophage Polarization through Fluorescent mRNA Profiling

Visualizing Macrophage Phenotypes and Polarization in Diseases: from Biomarkers to Molecular Probes

Cellular Phenotypic Analysis of Macrophage Activation Unveils Kinetic Responses of Agents Targeting Phosphorylation

Development of molecular sensors based on fluorescent proteins for polarized macrophages identification

In-Depth Characterization of Monocyte-Derived Macrophages using a Mass Cytometry-Based Phagocytosis Assay

Multiplexed analysis of signalling proteins at the single-immune cell level

Insights into the Identification of iPSC- and Monocyte-Derived Macrophage-Polarizing Compounds by AI-Fueled Cell Painting Analysis Tools

Enhancing automated micrograph-based evaluation of LPS-stimulated macrophage spreading

Classification of Cell Morphology with Quantitative Phase Microscopy and Machine Learning

Macrophage Polarization: Different Gene Signatures in M1(LPS+) vs. Classically and M2(LPS–) vs. Alternatively Activated Macrophages

High-throughput phenotypic screen and transcriptional analysis identify new compounds and targets for macrophage reprogramming

Monitoring macrophage polarization with gene expression reporters and bioluminescence phasor analysis

Identification Of Macrophages In Breast Tumor Microenvironment Using Label-Free Multiphoton Microscopy

Differential uptake of gold-nanorods promotes identification of M1/M2 subtype of macrophage by flow cytometry

Cytokine Induced Phenotypic and Epigenetic Signatures Are Key to Establishing Specific Macrophage Phenotypes