A guide to machine learning for biologists

The expanding scale and inherent complexity of biological data have encouraged a growing use of machine learning in biology to build informative and predictive models of the underlying biological processes. All machine learning techniques fit models to data; however, the specific methods are quite varied and can at first glance seem bewildering. In this Review, we aim to provide readers with a gentle introduction to a few key machine learning techniques, including the most recently developed and widely used techniques involving deep neural networks. We describe how different techniques may be suited to specific types of biological data, and also discuss some best practices and points to consider when one is embarking on experiments involving machine learning. Some emerging directions in machine learning methodology are also discussed

Deep learning methods for mining genomic sequence patterns

Nowadays, with the growing availability of large-scale genomic datasets and advanced computational techniques, more and more data-driven computational methods have been developed to analyze genomic data and help to solve incompletely understood biological problems. Among them, deep learning methods, have been proposed to automatically learn and recognize the functional activity of DNA sequences from genomics data. Techniques for efficient mining genomic sequence pattern will help to improve our understanding of gene regulation, and thus accelerate our progress toward using personal genomes in medicine. This dissertation focuses on the development of deep learning methods for mining genomic sequences. First, we compare the performance between deep learning models and traditional machine learning methods in recognizing various genomic sequence patterns. Through extensive experiments on both simulated data and real genomic sequence data, we demonstrate that an appropriate deep learning model can be generally made for successfully recognizing various genomic sequence patterns. Next, we develop deep learning methods to help solve two specific biological problems, (1) inference of polyadenylation code and (2) tRNA gene detection and functional prediction. Polyadenylation is a pervasive mechanism that has been used by Eukaryotes for regulating mRNA transcription, localization, and translation efficiency. Polyadenylation signals in the plant are particularly noisy and challenging to decipher. A deep convolutional neural network approach DeepPolyA is proposed to predict poly(A) site from the plant Arabidopsis thaliana genomic sequences. It employs various deep neural network architectures and demonstrates its superiority in comparison with competing methods, including classical machine learning algorithms and several popular deep learning models. Transfer RNAs (tRNAs) represent a highly complex class of genes and play a central role in protein translation. There remains a de facto tool, tRNAscan-SE, for identifying tRNA genes encoded in genomes. Despite its popularity and success, tRNAscan-SE is still not powerful enough to separate tRNAs from pseudo-tRNAs, and a significant number of false positives can be output as a result. To address this issue, tRNA-DL, a hybrid combination of convolutional neural network and recurrent neural network approach is proposed. It is shown that the proposed method can help to reduce the false positive rate of the state-of-art tRNA prediction tool tRNAscan-SE substantially. Coupled with tRNAscan-SE, tRNA-DL can serve as a useful complementary tool for tRNA annotation. Taken together, the experiments and applications demonstrate the superiority of deep learning in automatic feature generation for characterizing genomic sequence patterns

Deep Learning for Genomics: A Concise Overview

Advancements in genomic research such as high-throughput sequencing techniques have driven modern genomic studies into "big data" disciplines. This data explosion is constantly challenging conventional methods used in genomics. In parallel with the urgent demand for robust algorithms, deep learning has succeeded in a variety of fields such as vision, speech, and text processing. Yet genomics entails unique challenges to deep learning since we are expecting from deep learning a superhuman intelligence that explores beyond our knowledge to interpret the genome. A powerful deep learning model should rely on insightful utilization of task-specific knowledge. In this paper, we briefly discuss the strengths of different deep learning models from a genomic perspective so as to fit each particular task with a proper deep architecture, and remark on practical considerations of developing modern deep learning architectures for genomics. We also provide a concise review of deep learning applications in various aspects of genomic research, as well as pointing out potential opportunities and obstacles for future genomics applications.Comment: Invited chapter for Springer Book: Handbook of Deep Learning Application

Explainable Artificial Intelligence for Image Segmentation and for Estimation of Optical Aberrations

State-of-the-art machine learning methods such as convolutional neural networks (CNNs) are frequently employed in computer vision. Despite their high performance on unseen data, CNNs are often criticized for lacking transparency — that is, providing very limited if any information about the internal decision-making process. In some applications, especially in healthcare, such transparency of algorithms is crucial for end users, as trust in diagnosis and prognosis is important not only for the satisfaction and potential adherence of patients, but also for their health. Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) aims to open up this “black box,” often perceived as a cryptic and inconceivable algorithm, to increase understanding of the machines’ reasoning.XAI is an emerging field, and techniques for making machine learning explainable are becoming increasingly available. XAI for computer vision mainly focuses on image classification, whereas interpretability in other tasks remains challenging. Here, I examine explainability in computer vision beyond image classification, namely in semantic segmentation and 3D multitarget image regression. This thesis consists of five chapters. In Chapter 1 (Introduction), the background of artificial intelligence (AI), XAI, computer vision, and optics is presented, and the definitions of the terminology for XAI are proposed. Chapter 2 is focused on explaining the predictions of U-Net, a CNN commonly used for semantic image segmentation, and variations of this architecture. To this end, I propose the gradient-weighted class activation mapping for segmentation (Seg-Grad-CAM) method based on the well-known Grad-CAM method for explainable image classification. In Chapter 3, I present the application of deep learning to estimation of optical aberrations in microscopy biodata by identifying the present Zernike aberration modes and their amplitudes. A CNN-based approach PhaseNet can accurately estimate monochromatic aberrations in images of point light sources. I extend this method to objects of complex shapes. In Chapter 4, an approach for explainable 3D multitarget image regression is reported. First, I visualize how the model differentiates the aberration modes using the local interpretable model-agnostic explanations (LIME) method adapted for 3D image classification. Then I “explain,” using LIME modified for multitarget 3D image regression (Image-Reg-LIME), the outputs of the regression model for estimation of the amplitudes. In Chapter 5, the results are discussed in a broader context. The contribution of this thesis is the development of explainability methods for semantic segmentation and 3D multitarget image regression of optical aberrations. The research opens the door for further enhancement of AI’s transparency.:Title Page i List of Figures xi List of Tables xv 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Essential Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1.1 Artificial intelligence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1.2 Explainable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1.3 Proposed definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.2 Explainable Artificial Intelligence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.2.1 Aims and applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.2.2 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1.3 Computer Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1.3.1 Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1.3.2 Image classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1.3.3 Image regression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1.3.4 Image segmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1.4 Optics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 1.4.1 Aberrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 1.4.2 Zernike polynomials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 1.5 Thesis Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 1.5.1 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 1.5.2 Dissertation outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 2 Explainable Image Segmentation 23 2.1 Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 2.2 Related Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 2.3 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 2.3.1 CAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 2.3.2 Grad-CAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 2.3.3 U-Net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 2.3.4 Seg-Grad-CAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 2.4 Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 2.4.1 Circles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 2.4.2 TextureMNIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 2.4.3 Cityscapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 2.5 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 2.5.1 Circles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 2.5.2 TextureMNIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 2.5.3 Cityscapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 2.6 Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 2.7 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 3 Estimation of Aberrations 55 3.1 Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 3.2 Related Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 3.3 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 3.3.1 PhaseNet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 3.3.2 PhaseNet data generator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 3.3.3 Retrieval of noise parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 3.3.4 Data generator with phantoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 3.3.5 Restoration via deconvolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 3.3.6 Convolution with the “zero” synthetic PSF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 3.4 Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 3.4.1 Astrocytes (synthetic data) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 3.4.2 Fluorescent beads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 3.4.3 Drosophila embryo (live sample) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 3.4.4 Neurons (fixed sample) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 3.5 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 3.5.1 Astrocytes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 3.5.2 Conclusions on the results for astrocytes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 3.5.3 Fluorescent beads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 3.5.4 Conclusions on the results for fluorescent beads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 3.5.5 Drosophila embryo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 3.5.6 Conclusions on the results for Drosophila embryo . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 3.5.7 Neurons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 3.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 4 Explainable Multitarget Image Regression 99 4.1 Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 4.2 Related Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 4.3 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 4.3.1 LIME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 4.3.2 Superpixel algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 4.3.3 LIME for 3D image classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 4.3.4 Image-Reg-LIME: LIME for 3D image regression . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 4.4 Results: Classification of Aberrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 viii TABLE OF CONTENTS 4.4.1 Transforming the regression task into classification . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 4.4.2 Data augmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 4.4.3 Parameter search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 4.4.4 Clustering of 3D images . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 4.4.5 Explanations of classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 4.4.6 Conclusions on the results for classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 4.5 Results: Explainable Regression of Aberrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 4.5.1 Explanations with a reference value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 4.5.2 Validation of explanations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 4.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 5 Conclusions and Outlook 127 References 12

Cyclic multiplex fluorescent immunohistochemistry and machine learning reveal distinct states of astrocytes and microglia in normal aging and Alzheimer’s disease

Background Astrocytes and microglia react to Aβ plaques, neurofibrillary tangles, and neurodegeneration in the Alzheimer’s disease (AD) brain. Single-nuclei and single-cell RNA-seq have revealed multiple states or subpopulations of these glial cells but lack spatial information. We have developed a methodology of cyclic multiplex fluorescent immunohistochemistry on human postmortem brains and image analysis that enables a comprehensive morphological quantitative characterization of astrocytes and microglia in the context of their spatial relationships with plaques and tangles. Methods Single FFPE sections from the temporal association cortex of control and AD subjects were subjected to 8 cycles of multiplex fluorescent immunohistochemistry, including 7 astroglial, 6 microglial, 1 neuronal, Aβ, and phospho-tau markers. Our analysis pipeline consisted of: (1) image alignment across cycles; (2) background subtraction; (3) manual annotation of 5172 ALDH1L1+ astrocytic and 6226 IBA1+ microglial profiles; (4) local thresholding and segmentation of profiles; (5) machine learning on marker intensity data; and (6) deep learning on image features. Results Spectral clustering identified three phenotypes of astrocytes and microglia, which we termed “homeostatic,” “intermediate,” and “reactive.” Reactive and, to a lesser extent, intermediate astrocytes and microglia were closely associated with AD pathology (≤ 50 µm). Compared to homeostatic, reactive astrocytes contained substantially higher GFAP and YKL-40, modestly elevated vimentin and TSPO as well as EAAT1, and reduced GS. Intermediate astrocytes had markedly increased EAAT2, moderately increased GS, and intermediate GFAP and YKL-40 levels. Relative to homeostatic, reactive microglia showed increased expression of all markers (CD68, ferritin, MHC2, TMEM119, TSPO), whereas intermediate microglia exhibited increased ferritin and TMEM119 as well as intermediate CD68 levels. Machine learning models applied on either high-plex signal intensity data (gradient boosting machines) or directly on image features (convolutional neural networks) accurately discriminated control vs. AD diagnoses at the single-cell level. Conclusions Cyclic multiplex fluorescent immunohistochemistry combined with machine learning models holds promise to advance our understanding of the complexity and heterogeneity of glial responses as well as inform transcriptomics studies. Three distinct phenotypes emerged with our combination of markers, thus expanding the classic binary “homeostatic vs. reactive” classification to a third state, which could represent “transitional” or “resilient” glia.España Ministry of Science, Innovation, and Universities FPU fellowship to CM-CMassachusetts Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center grant P30AG062421 to BTH, and 1R56AG061196 to BTHAlzheimer’s Association (AACF17-524184 and AACF-17-524184-RAPID to AS-P