Close

BIAFLOWS: A collaborative framework to benchmark bioimage analysis workflows

Ulysse Rubens, Romain Mormont, Volker Baecker, Gino Michiels, Lassi Paavolainen, Graeme Ball, Devrim Unay, Benjamin Pavie, Anatole Chessel, Leandro A. Scholz, Martin Maska, Renaud Hoyoux, Remy Vandaele, Stefan G. Stanciu, Ofra Golani, Natasa Sladoje, Perrine Paul-Gilloteaux, Raphael Maree, Sebastien Tosi

Preprint posted on 29 November 2019 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/707489v2

Article now published in Patterns at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2020.100040

BIAFLOWS: a tool for sharing, deploying, and comparing bioimage analysis workflows. Tackling reproducible and open image analysis.

Selected by Mariana De Niz

Background

With constant and exciting advances in microscopy, biomedical and life scientists can acquire images of increasing size and complexity. Thus, manual processing has become limiting, and the use of computational methods allows the extraction of quantitative information from these datasets in an accurate and high-throughput manner.

Automated image analysis is key to extract quantitative information from microscopy images. However, an important limitation faced currently in this time of transition, is that the methods of image analysis developed and used across labs, can be complex to apply and relatively difficult to describe using written protocols. This threatens their reproducibility and calls for sharing the methods used to produce scientific data from images directly as software implementations (workflows). On top of this, most published image analysis methods are not easily searchable and test images as well as the parameters used at every step of a workflow are often not provided, making it difficult to understand the baseline for valid results.

One solution that has arisen to address this issue, is a movement towards making      scientific datasets publicly available, through open data initiatives and web-based software. While an improvement, this still does not represent a unified platform for image analysis which allows access to, and comparison of bioimage analysis (BIA) workflows.

In an aim to tackle this issue, the work by Rubens et al (1) (COST Action CA15124) presents BIAFLOWS (Figure 1), a web-based framework to unify, make available, and benchmark automated image analysis workflows.

Figure 1. Web interface of BIAFLOWS, allowing users to browse datasets based on a bioimage analysis problem, and to select a workflow that allows them to process images and adjust relevant parameters. Upon completion, the results of the workflow can be visualized, and the associated benchmark metrics reported.

Key findings and developments

General developments: BIAFLOWS

  • Within the Network of European Bioimage Analysis (NEUBIAS), an important body of work focuses on ensuring a better access to and assessment of existing BIA software. BIAFLOWS is presented as a web-based platform to benchmark bioimage analysis workflows on publicly shared annotated multidimensional imaging data. That is, to assess the accuracy of the workflows by comparing them to a ground truth reference (e.g. human annotation) and quantifying the discrepancy by computing relevant performance metrics. The aim is:
    • To help integrate and compare image analysis methods, hence enforcing highest quality standards, and stimulating the continuous improvements of BIA methods.
    • To offer a complete framework that allows a) handling multidimensional annotated images, b) integrating BIA workflows (standalone or running on BIA platforms), c) remotely visualizing images and workflow results and d) assessing workflows performance from widely accepted performance metrics.
  • All content including images, workflows, ground-truth annotations, workflow results  and benchmark metrics, can be browsed and interactively explored through the web interface.
  • An online instance of BIAFLOWS is available from this URL:  https://biaflows.neubias.org/ (user: guest, password: guest)
  • BIAFLOWS can also be installed locally as a local image management and image analysis platform and all content can be easily migrated between existing instances.

 

Specific features for users and developers

  • BIAFLOWS is based on Cytomine (2), an open source web platform developed for the collaborative annotation of high resolution biomedical images.
  • The features that were extended or developed for BIAFLOWS are:
    • Support for the upload of microscopy multidimensional images in OME-TIFF format, as well as their remote visualization in a viewer enabling navigation through image slices, adjusting contrast and toggling annotation layers.
    • Support for the remote execution of BIA workflows by encapsulating the workflows and their original software environment in Docker images.
    • Monitoring trusted spaces to automatically pull new or updated workflows      whenever a new release is triggered from their associated source code repository.
    • Version the workflows and make them permanently accessible from the system.
    • Make the workflows ready for any type of computational resources (including high performance computing).
    • Migration tools to transfer content between existing BIAFLOWS instances.
  • BIAFLOWS is versatile: the workflows currently integrated to the online instance consist of a mixture of standalone software and scripts (ImageJ/Fiji, ICY, CellProfiler, Vaa3D, Ilastik, Python and Jupyter notebooks).
  • Interested developers can package their workflows and make them available for benchmarking from https://biaflows.neubias.org/.
  • BIAFLOWS workflow  can also be used to process local images on a machine running Docker, independently of any BIAFLOW server.

 What I like about this paper

I first heard of BIAFLOWS at the NEUBIAS (COST Action CA15124) Image analysis training schools in Porto, Portugal, when its concept and details were presented by author Sébastien Tosi. It caught my attention immediately, as it represents a much expected tool for users and developers of bioimage analysis workflows. While Sébastien Tosi discussed the current challenges of sharing BIA workflows, I could identify all very well: through my career, it has been difficult to search for, find, share, compare, and validate workflows. Equally, most imaging datasets from published work, are hardly available. A tool that compiles the many components necessary for BIA workflows is a huge step forward into openness and reproducibility into the important step of image analysis- an ever growing field of increasing importance.

Open questions

  • Note: all questions with answers from authors are at the bottom of this page.
  1. The idea of BIAFLOWS is exciting. How did you come to create this, and how do you see it developing further as the fields grow (both of bioimage analysis and of microscopy)?
  2. Under the lines of the previous question- the creators of several open source tools offer training to involve and benefit as many scientists as possible. For those scientists who are new to imaging and image analysis (eg young PhD students, or scientists later in their careers beginning in either microscopy or image analysis) how will you tailor this excellent tool so that users at all levels of knowledge can benefit from it?
  3. How do you envisage integrating BIAFLOWS in the publication process? For instance, at present, most journals do not require depositing original imaging datasets from which quantifications or analyses are presented. In the past this was the case for bioinformatics analyses until open distribution/access became a norm. Do you envisage that BIAFLOWS could help make this possible? A repository of images that helps reproducibility and transparency in every way?
  4. In your paper you mention that in many cases of image analysis, imaging datasets from microscopy are a minority compared to medical imaging. In your opinion, what makes this difference between medical and biomedical-oriented imaging?
  5. You specify the features that BIAFLOWS currently possesses. We know that constantly, imaging methods, microscopes, and image analysis tools are being developed. With such rate, what is the workforce that will keep BIAFLOWS updated, and the results of comparisons of different workflows published and available? And do you see a need for increased funding and developers’ involvement worldwide to integrate into this effort?

 

References

  1. Rubens et al (2019). BIAFLOWS: A collaborative network framework to benchmark bioimage analysis workflows, bioRxiv, doi: 10.1101/707489
  2. Maree et al (2016). Collaborative analysis of multi-gigapixel imaging data with Cytomine, Bioinformatics, 32 (9): 1395-401.

 

Acknowledgements

I thank Sébastien Tosi and Raphael Maree for their time discussing their work, and their input on this highlight. I also thank Mate Palfy for his helpful comments. Finally, for this particular highlight, I thank the NEUBIAS (COST Action CA15124) Image analysis training school in Porto, Portugal, which allowed me to become acquainted with this interesting and promising work in the first place.

Tags: image analysis, imaging, microscopy, workflows

Posted on: 29 November 2019 , updated on: 30 November 2019

doi: https://doi.org/10.1242/prelights.15323

Read preprint (No Ratings Yet)

Author's response

Sebastien Tosi and Raphael Marée shared

Open questions:

1. The idea of BIAFLOWS is exciting. How did you come to create this, and how do you see it developing further as the fields grow (both of bioimage analysis and of microscopy)?

One of the first needs we identified within NEUBIAS was to publicly index most existing bioimage analysis tools and workflows so that both, biologists and image analysis experts could efficiently find them. Toward this goal, a workgroup designed a web platform enabling to efficiently tag content and unify semantic fields: the Bioimage Informatics Search Engine (BISE, https:\\biii.eu). Now, when you do image analysis, you quickly learn that there are often many ways to tackle the same problem, but that they are not all equal! And obviously, if you get multiple hits while searching for a suitable image analysis method, you want to be taken by the hand towards the best pick. We hence naturally got interested in describing the internals of the methods and comparing their performance. BISE workgroup worked on the first item. For the second item, we needed an infrastructure to store images together with ground truth annotations (e.g. human object annotations), process the images by BIA workflows, assess performance, and make all this content viewable online!  We also needed the content itself: a pool of annotated images recapitulating important BIA problems and associated workflows. I guess you quickly understand that it is a complex task and that it had to be carefully planned so that every component could smoothly interoperate. BIAFLOWS is the results of this work and we are now proud to release it as an open source solution. From this point on, our main effort will be to increase the content, in terms of problems covered, workflows and annotated datasets. This will be mainly achieved by opening calls for contribution and dissemination. Only when we reach a critical mass for all these items, will the benchmarking results become fully meaningful. This should in turn increase BIAFLOWS impact, further adoption and content…

2.Under the lines of the previous question- the creators of several open source tools offer training to involve and benefit as many scientists as possible. For those scientists who are new to imaging and image analysis (eg young PhD students, or scientists later in their careers beginning in either microscopy or image analysis) how will you tailor this excellent tool so that users at all levels of knowledge can benefit from it?

Actually, in its current form anybody can browse the platform and should enjoy the experience! It is as simple as selecting a BIA problem from the ones illustrated, opening the associated images and workflow results, and spotting where a given workflow stands in the ranking. To guide users, video tutorials are provided from https://biaflows.neubias.org/ and a detailed documentation is available from https://neubias-wg5.github.io/ . Workflows coming from any platform, as long as it fulfils some minimal openness requirements can be integrated, so we are really inclusive. Now, again, an enabling factor to truly turn it into a reference asset for the communities involved is that on one hand developers adopt the platform massively as a way to compare and promote their software, and on the other hand that researchers contribute human annotated microscopy datasets to consolidate the benchmarking. Specifically, we need to set the basis of representative datasets for common sample preparation and imaging protocols as a community and consensual effort. So in other words at this point the question is not so much how BIAFLOWS can benefit to you, but how could you contribute to BIAFLOWS to make it useful for all?

3.How do you envisage integrating BIAFLOWS in the publication process? For instance, at present, most journals do not require depositing original imaging datasets from which quantifications or analyses are presented. In the past this was the case for bioinformatics analyses until open distribution/access became a norm. Do you envisage that BIAFLOWS could help make this possible? A repository of images that helps reproducibility and transparency in every way?

BIAFLOWS could definitely be used as a repository of images “living together” with the workflows that were used to process them and produce scientific results in the context of a research project. This is actually the direction open science should pursue. There is no current design limitation to meet this goal but, of course, the storage and computational infrastructure BIAFLOWS relies on has to be accordingly dimensioned and maintained. This obviously requires a strong commitment and adequate funding from the publishers or agencies promoting open science. In our view, it is totally justified since adopting a unique public platform, standardizing data and workflows formats, and ensuring reproducibility would make the whole process truly open, sustainable, and simpler for all.

4.In your paper you mention that in many cases of image analysis, imaging datasets from microscopy are a minority compared to medical imaging. In your opinion, what makes this difference between medical and biomedical-oriented imaging?

I think it is both a question of field maturity and standardization.  Biomedical image analysis predates microscopy bioimage analysis and it is more standardized in terms of imaging techniques (how to prepare and image samples) and image analysis (what to measure). This makes it easier to collect representative sample datasets to illustrate common BIA tasks. Fluorescence microscopy, just to mention it, is a world on its own… just have a look at the number of acronyms and recent developments in the field of lightsheet microscopy and super-resolution! Not to mention the infinite combinations of sample preparation techniques including protein fluorescence tagging, antibody staining, sample clearing… Still, I believe that at least BIA workflows extracting quantitative information from classical microscopy assays deserve to be scientifically compared since they are so widely used. And we are working at it!

5. You specify the features that BIAFLOWS currently possesses. We know that constantly, imaging methods, microscopes, and image analysis tools are being developed. With such rate, what is the workforce that will keep BIAFLOWS updated, and the results of comparisons of different workflows published and available? And do you see a need for increased funding and developers’ involvement worldwide to integrate into this effort?

The architecture of BIAFLOWS is extensible by design, which means that supporting new image formats, image analysis ecosystems and BIA problem types is straightforward. This of course requires some workforce and developments but, as mentioned previously, the main driving force to bring BIAFLOWS to the next level is its adoption by developers as a mean to reproducibly package their workflows, simplify their deployment and compare their performance. For that reason, our current effort is now mainly about disseminating BIAFLOWS. Besides opening calls and promoting the platform in the different communities involved, a way to speed up this process is to reach out to the organizers of bioimage analysis challenges. The match is clear since they would directly benefit from automating benchmarking and opening the results to the community and we would benefit from the content they create (workflows and annotated datasets). Going in the same direction, there is nowadays a huge interest in making annotated datasets readily available since they are the basis to train deep learning networks, a class of algorithms that is quickly revolutionizing the field of bioimage analysis.

Have your say

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Sign up to customise the site to your preferences and to receive alerts

Register here

preLists in the bioinformatics category:

‘In preprints’ from Development 2022-2023

A list of the preprints featured in Development's 'In preprints' articles between 2022-2023

 



List by Alex Eve, Katherine Brown

9th International Symposium on the Biology of Vertebrate Sex Determination

This preList contains preprints discussed during the 9th International Symposium on the Biology of Vertebrate Sex Determination. This conference was held in Kona, Hawaii from April 17th to 21st 2023.

 



List by Martin Estermann

Alumni picks – preLights 5th Birthday

This preList contains preprints that were picked and highlighted by preLights Alumni - an initiative that was set up to mark preLights 5th birthday. More entries will follow throughout February and March 2023.

 



List by Sergio Menchero et al.

Fibroblasts

The advances in fibroblast biology preList explores the recent discoveries and preprints of the fibroblast world. Get ready to immerse yourself with this list created for fibroblasts aficionados and lovers, and beyond. Here, my goal is to include preprints of fibroblast biology, heterogeneity, fate, extracellular matrix, behavior, topography, single-cell atlases, spatial transcriptomics, and their matrix!

 



List by Osvaldo Contreras

Single Cell Biology 2020

A list of preprints mentioned at the Wellcome Genome Campus Single Cell Biology 2020 meeting.

 



List by Alex Eve

Antimicrobials: Discovery, clinical use, and development of resistance

Preprints that describe the discovery of new antimicrobials and any improvements made regarding their clinical use. Includes preprints that detail the factors affecting antimicrobial selection and the development of antimicrobial resistance.

 



List by Zhang-He Goh

Also in the cell biology category:

‘In preprints’ from Development 2022-2023

A list of the preprints featured in Development's 'In preprints' articles between 2022-2023

 



List by Alex Eve, Katherine Brown

preLights peer support – preprints of interest

This is a preprint repository to organise the preprints and preLights covered through the 'preLights peer support' initiative.

 



List by preLights peer support

The Society for Developmental Biology 82nd Annual Meeting

This preList is made up of the preprints discussed during the Society for Developmental Biology 82nd Annual Meeting that took place in Chicago in July 2023.

 



List by Joyce Yu, Katherine Brown

CSHL 87th Symposium: Stem Cells

Preprints mentioned by speakers at the #CSHLsymp23

 



List by Alex Eve

Journal of Cell Science meeting ‘Imaging Cell Dynamics’

This preList highlights the preprints discussed at the JCS meeting 'Imaging Cell Dynamics'. The meeting was held from 14 - 17 May 2023 in Lisbon, Portugal and was organised by Erika Holzbaur, Jennifer Lippincott-Schwartz, Rob Parton and Michael Way.

 



List by Helen Zenner

9th International Symposium on the Biology of Vertebrate Sex Determination

This preList contains preprints discussed during the 9th International Symposium on the Biology of Vertebrate Sex Determination. This conference was held in Kona, Hawaii from April 17th to 21st 2023.

 



List by Martin Estermann

Alumni picks – preLights 5th Birthday

This preList contains preprints that were picked and highlighted by preLights Alumni - an initiative that was set up to mark preLights 5th birthday. More entries will follow throughout February and March 2023.

 



List by Sergio Menchero et al.

CellBio 2022 – An ASCB/EMBO Meeting

This preLists features preprints that were discussed and presented during the CellBio 2022 meeting in Washington, DC in December 2022.

 



List by Nadja Hümpfer et al.

Fibroblasts

The advances in fibroblast biology preList explores the recent discoveries and preprints of the fibroblast world. Get ready to immerse yourself with this list created for fibroblasts aficionados and lovers, and beyond. Here, my goal is to include preprints of fibroblast biology, heterogeneity, fate, extracellular matrix, behavior, topography, single-cell atlases, spatial transcriptomics, and their matrix!

 



List by Osvaldo Contreras

EMBL Synthetic Morphogenesis: From Gene Circuits to Tissue Architecture (2021)

A list of preprints mentioned at the #EESmorphoG virtual meeting in 2021.

 



List by Alex Eve

FENS 2020

A collection of preprints presented during the virtual meeting of the Federation of European Neuroscience Societies (FENS) in 2020

 



List by Ana Dorrego-Rivas

Planar Cell Polarity – PCP

This preList contains preprints about the latest findings on Planar Cell Polarity (PCP) in various model organisms at the molecular, cellular and tissue levels.

 



List by Ana Dorrego-Rivas

BioMalPar XVI: Biology and Pathology of the Malaria Parasite

[under construction] Preprints presented at the (fully virtual) EMBL BioMalPar XVI, 17-18 May 2020 #emblmalaria

 



List by Dey Lab, Samantha Seah

1

Cell Polarity

Recent research from the field of cell polarity is summarized in this list of preprints. It comprises of studies focusing on various forms of cell polarity ranging from epithelial polarity, planar cell polarity to front-to-rear polarity.

 



List by Yamini Ravichandran

TAGC 2020

Preprints recently presented at the virtual Allied Genetics Conference, April 22-26, 2020. #TAGC20

 



List by Maiko Kitaoka et al.

3D Gastruloids

A curated list of preprints related to Gastruloids (in vitro models of early development obtained by 3D aggregation of embryonic cells). Updated until July 2021.

 



List by Paul Gerald L. Sanchez and Stefano Vianello

ECFG15 – Fungal biology

Preprints presented at 15th European Conference on Fungal Genetics 17-20 February 2020 Rome

 



List by Hiral Shah

ASCB EMBO Annual Meeting 2019

A collection of preprints presented at the 2019 ASCB EMBO Meeting in Washington, DC (December 7-11)

 



List by Madhuja Samaddar et al.

EMBL Seeing is Believing – Imaging the Molecular Processes of Life

Preprints discussed at the 2019 edition of Seeing is Believing, at EMBL Heidelberg from the 9th-12th October 2019

 



List by Dey Lab

Autophagy

Preprints on autophagy and lysosomal degradation and its role in neurodegeneration and disease. Includes molecular mechanisms, upstream signalling and regulation as well as studies on pharmaceutical interventions to upregulate the process.

 



List by Sandra Malmgren Hill

Lung Disease and Regeneration

This preprint list compiles highlights from the field of lung biology.

 



List by Rob Hynds

Cellular metabolism

A curated list of preprints related to cellular metabolism at Biorxiv by Pablo Ranea Robles from the Prelights community. Special interest on lipid metabolism, peroxisomes and mitochondria.

 



List by Pablo Ranea Robles

BSCB/BSDB Annual Meeting 2019

Preprints presented at the BSCB/BSDB Annual Meeting 2019

 



List by Dey Lab

MitoList

This list of preprints is focused on work expanding our knowledge on mitochondria in any organism, tissue or cell type, from the normal biology to the pathology.

 



List by Sandra Franco Iborra

Biophysical Society Annual Meeting 2019

Few of the preprints that were discussed in the recent BPS annual meeting at Baltimore, USA

 



List by Joseph Jose Thottacherry

ASCB/EMBO Annual Meeting 2018

This list relates to preprints that were discussed at the recent ASCB conference.

 



List by Dey Lab, Amanda Haage
Close