PatternJ: an ImageJ toolset for the automated and quantitative analysis of regular spatial patterns found in sarcomeres, axons, somites, and more

  1. Mélina Baheux Blin
  2. Vincent Loreau
  3. Frank Schnorrer
  4. Pierre Mangeol

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Regular spatial patterns are ubiquitous forms of organization in nature. In animals, regular patterns can be found from the cellular scale to the tissue scale, and from early stages of development to adulthood. To understand the formation of these patterns, how they form and mature, and how they are affected by perturbations, a precise quantitative description of the patterns is essential. However, accessible tools that offer in-depth analysis without the need for computational skills are lacking for biologists. Here we present PatternJ, a novel toolset to analyze regular pattern organizations precisely and automatically. This toolset, to be used with the popular imaging processing program ImageJ/Fiji, facilitates the extraction of key geometric features within and between pattern repeats. We validated PatternJ on simulated data and tested it on images of sarcomeres in insect muscles and cardiomyocytes, actin rings in neurons, and somites in zebrafish embryos obtained using confocal fluorescence microscopy, STORM, electron microscopy, and bright-field imaging. We show that the toolset delivers subpixel feature extraction reliably even with images of low signal-to-noise ratio. PatternJ’s straightforward use and functionalities make it valuable for various scientific fields requiring quantitative pattern analysis, including the sarcomere biology of muscles or the patterning of mammalian axons, speeding up discoveries with the bonus of high reproducibility.

Article activity feed

  1. Review Commons

    Note: This response was posted by the corresponding author to Review Commons. The content has not been altered except for formatting.

    Learn more at Review Commons

    Reply to the reviewers

    *Reviewer #1 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):

    I have trialled the package on my lab's data and it works as advertised. It was straightforward to use and did not require any special training. I am confident this is a tool that will be approachable even to users with limited computational experience. The use of artificial data to validate the approach - and to provide clear limits on applicability - is particularly helpful.

    The main limitation of the tool is that it requires the user to manually select regions. This somewhat limits the generalisability and is also more subjective - users can easily choose "nice" regions that better match with their hypothesis, rather than quantifying the data in an unbiased manner. However, given the inherent challenges in quantifying biological data, such problems are not easily circumventable.

    I have some comments to clarify the manuscript:

    1. A "straightforward installation" is mentioned. Given this is a Method paper, the means of installation should be clearly laid out.*

    __This sentence is now modified. In the revised manuscript we now describe how to install the toolset and we give the link to the toolset website if further information is needed. __On this website, we provide a full video tutorial and a user manual. The user manual is provided as a supplementary material of the manuscript.

    It would be helpful if there was an option to generate an output with the regions analysed (i.e., a JPG image with the data and the drawn line(s) on top). There are two reasons for this: i) A major problem with user-driven quantification is accidental double counting of regions (e.g., a user quantifies a part of an image and then later quantifies the same region). ii) Allows other users to independently verify measurements at a later time.*

    We agree that it is helpful to save the analyzed regions. To answer this comment and the other two reviewers' comments pointing at a similar feature, we have now included an automatic saving of the regions of interest. The user will be able to reopen saved regions of interest using a new function we included in the new version of PatternJ.

    1. Related to the above point, it is highlighted that each time point would need to be analysed separately (line 361-362). It seems like it should be relatively straightforward to allow a function where the analysis line can be mapped onto the next time point. The user could then adjust slightly for changes in position, but still be starting from near the previous timepoint. Given how prevalent timelapse imaging is, this seems like (or something similar) a clear benefit to add to the software.*

    We agree that the analysis of time series images can be a useful addition. We have added the analysis of time-lapse series in the new version of PatternJ. The principles behind the analysis of time-lapse series and an example of such analysis are provided in Figure 1 - figure supplement 3 and Figure 5, with accompanying text lines 140-153 and 360-372. The analysis includes a semi-automated selection of regions of interest, which will make the analysis of such sequences more straightforward than having to draw a selection on each image of the series. The user is required to draw at least two regions of interest in two different frames, and the algorithm will automatically generate regions of interest in frames in which selections were not drawn. The algorithm generates the analysis immediately after selections are drawn by the user, which includes the tracking of the reference channel.

    Line 134-135. The level of accuracy of the searching should be clarified here. This is discussed later in the manuscript, but it would be helpful to give readers an idea at this point what level of tolerance the software has to noise and aperiodicity.

    We agree with the reviewer that a clarification of this part of the algorithm will help the user better understand the manuscript.__ We have modified the sentence to clarify the range of search used and the resulting limits in aperiodicity (now lines 176-181). __Regarding the tolerance to noise, it is difficult to estimate it *a priori *from the choice made at the algorithm stage, so we prefer to leave it to the validation part of the manuscript. We hope this solution satisfies the reviewer and future users.

    **Referees cross-commenting**

    I think the other reviewer comments are very pertinent. The authors have a fair bit to do, but they are reasonable requests. So, they should be encouraged to do the revisions fully so that the final software tool is as useful as possible.

    Reviewer #1 (Significance (Required)):

    Developing software tools for quantifying biological data that are approachable for a wide range of users remains a longstanding challenge. This challenge is due to: (1) the inherent problem of variability in biological systems; (2) the complexity of defining clearly quantifiable measurables; and (3) the broad spread of computational skills amongst likely users of such software.

    In this work, Blin et al., develop a simple plugin for ImageJ designed to quickly and easily quantify regular repeating units within biological systems - e.g., muscle fibre structure. They clearly and fairly discuss existing tools, with their pros and cons. The motivation for PatternJ is properly justified (which is sadly not always the case with such software tools).

    Overall, the paper is well written and accessible. The tool has limitations but it is clearly useful and easy to use. Therefore, this work is publishable with only minor corrections.

    *We thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation of PatternJ and for pointing out its accessibility to the users.

    Reviewer #2 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):

    Summary

    The authors present an ImageJ Macro GUI tool set for the quantification of one-dimensional repeated patterns that are commonly occurring in microscopy images of muscles.

    Major comments

    In our view the article and also software could be improved in terms of defining the scope of its applicability and user-ship. In many parts the article and software suggest that general biological patterns can be analysed, but then in other parts very specific muscle actin wordings are used. We are pointing this out in the "Minor comments" sections below. We feel that the authors could improve their work by making a clear choice here. One option would be to clearly limit the scope of the tool to the analysis of actin structures in muscles. In this case we would recommend to also rename the tool, e.g. MusclePatternJ. The other option would be to make the tool about the generic analysis of one-dimensional patterns, maybe calling the tool LinePatternJ. In the latter case we would recommend to remove all actin specific wordings from the macro tool set and also the article should be in parts slightly re-written.

    We agree with the reviewer that our initial manuscript used a mix of general and muscle-oriented vocabulary, which could make the use of PatternJ confusing especially outside of the muscle field. To make PatternJ useful for the largest community, we corrected the manuscript and the PatternJ toolset to provide the general vocabulary needed to make it understandable for every biologist. We modified the manuscript accordingly.

    Minor/detailed comments

    Software

    We recommend considering the following suggestions for improving the software.

    File and folder selection dialogs

    In general, clicking on many of the buttons just opens up a file-browser dialog without any further information. For novel users it is not clear what the tool expects one to select here. It would be very good if the software could be rewritten such that there are always clear instructions displayed about which file or folder one should open for the different buttons.*

    We experienced with the current version of macOS that the file-browser dialog does not display any message; we suspect this is the issue raised by the reviewer. This is a known issue of Fiji on Mac and all applications on Mac since 2016. We provided guidelines in the user manual and on the tutorial video to correct this issue by changing a parameter in Fiji. Given the issues the reviewer had accessing the material on the PatternJ website, which we apologize for, we understand the issue raised. We added an extra warning on the PatternJ website to point at this problem and its solution. Additionally, we have limited the file-browser dialog appearance to what we thought was strictly necessary. Thus, the user will experience fewer prompts, speeding up the analysis.

    Extract button

    The tool asks one to specify things like whether selections are drawn "M-line-to-M-line"; for users that are not experts in muscle morphology this is not understandable. It would be great to find more generally applicable formulations. *

    We agree that this muscle-oriented vocabulary can make the use of PatternJ confusing. We have now corrected the user interface to provide both general and muscle-specific vocabulary ("center-to-center or edge-to-edge (M-line-to-M-line or Z-disc-to-Z-disc)").*

    Manual selection accuracy

    The 1st step of the analysis is always to start from a user hand-drawn profile across intensity patterns in the image. However, this step can cause inaccuracy that varies with the shape and curve of the line profile drawn. If not strictly perpendicular to for example the M line patterns, the distance between intensity peaks will be different. This will be more problematic when dealing with non-straight and parallelly poised features in the image. If the structure is bended with a curve, the line drawn over it also needs to reproduce this curve, to precisely capture the intensity pattern. I found this limits the reproducibility and easy-usability of the software.*

    We understand the concern of the reviewer. On curved selections this will be an issue that is difficult to solve, especially on "S" curved or more complex selections. The user will have to be very careful in these situations. On non-curved samples, the issue may be concerning at first sight, but the errors go with the inverse of cosine and are therefore rather low. For example, if the user creates a selection off by 5 degrees, which is visually obvious, lengths will be affected by an increase of only 0.38%. The point raised by the reviewer is important to discuss, and we therefore added a paragraph to comment on the choice of selection (lines 94-98) and a supplementary figure to help make it clear (Figure 1 - figure supplement 1).*

    Reproducibility

    Since the line profile drawn on the image is the first step and very essential to the entire process, it should be considered to save together with the analysis result. For example, as ImageJ ROI or ROIset files that can be re-imported, correctly positioned, and visualized in the measured images. This would greatly improve the reproducibility of the proposed workflow. In the manuscript, only the extracted features are being saved (because the save button is also just asking for a folder containing images, so I cannot verify its functionality). *

    We agree that this is a very useful and important feature. We have added ROI automatic saving. Additionally, we now provide a simplified import function of all ROIs generated with PatternJ and the automated extraction and analysis of the list of ROIs. This can be done from ROIs generated previously in PatternJ or with ROIs generated from other ImageJ/Fiji algorithms. These new features are described in the manuscript in lines 120-121 and 130-132.

    ? button

    It would be great if that button would open up some usage instructions.

    We agree with the reviewer that the "?" button can be used in a better way. We have replaced this button with a Help menu, including a simple tutorial showing a series of images detailing the steps to follow by the user, a link to the user website, and a link to our video tutorial.

    Easy improvement of workflow

    I would suggest a reasonable expansion of the current workflow, by fitting and displaying 2D lines to the band or line structure in the image, that form the "patterns" the author aims to address. Thus, it extracts geometry models from the image, and the inter-line distance, and even the curve formed by these sets of lines can be further analyzed and studied. These fitted 2D lines can be also well integrated into ImageJ as Line ROI, and thus be saved, imported back, and checked or being further modified. I think this can largely increase the usefulness and reproducibility of the software.

    We hope that we understood this comment correctly. We had sent a clarification request to the editor, but unfortunately did not receive an answer within the requested 4 weeks of this revision. We understood the following: instead of using our 1D approach, in which we extract positions from a profile, the reviewer suggests extracting the positions of features not as a single point, but as a series of coordinates defining its shape. If this is the case, this is a major modification of the tool that is beyond the scope of PatternJ. We believe that keeping our tool simple, makes it robust. This is the major strength of PatternJ. Local fitting will not use line average for instance, which would make the tool less reliable.

    Manuscript

    We recommend considering the following suggestions for improving the manuscript. Abstract: The abstract suggests that general patterns can be quantified, however the actual tool quantifies specific subtypes of one-dimensional patterns. We recommend adapting the abstract accordingly.

    We modified the abstract to make this point clearer.

    Line 58: Gray-level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM) based feature extraction and analysis approach is not mentioned nor compared. At least there's a relatively recent study on Sarcomeres structure based on GLCM feature extraction: https://github.com/steinjm/SotaTool with publication: *https://doi.org/10.1002/cpz1.462

    We thank the reviewer for making us aware of this publication. We cite it now and have added it to our comparison of available approaches.

    Line 75: "...these simple geometrical features will address most quantitative needs..." We feel that this may be an overstatement, e.g. we can imagine that there should be many relevant two-dimensional patterns in biology?!*

    We have modified this sentence to avoid potential confusion (lines 76-77).

    Line 83: "After a straightforward installation by the user, ...". We think it would be convenient to add the installation steps at this place into the manuscript. *

    __This sentence is now modified. We now mention how to install the toolset and we provide the link to the toolset website, if further information is needed (lines 86-88). __On the website, we provide a full video tutorial and a user manual.

    Line 87: "Multicolor images will give a graph with one profile per color." The 'Multicolor images' here should be more precisely stated as "multi-channel" images. Multi-color images could be confused with RGB images which will be treated as 8-bit gray value (type conversion first) images by profile plot in ImageJ. *

    We agree with the reviewer that this could create some confusion. We modified "multicolor" to "multi-channel".

    Line 92: "...such as individual bands, blocks, or sarcomeric actin...". While bands and blocks are generic pattern terms, the biological term "sarcomeric actin" does not seem to fit in this list. Could a more generic wording be found, such as "block with spike"? *

    We agree with the reviewer that "sarcomeric actin" alone will not be clear to all readers. We modified the text to "block with a central band, as often observed in the muscle field for sarcomeric actin" (lines 103-104). The toolset was modified accordingly.

    Line 95: "the algorithm defines one pattern by having the features of highest intensity in its centre". Could this be rephrased? We did not understand what that exactly means.*

    We agree with the reviewer that this was not clear.__ We rewrote this paragraph (lines 101-114) and provided a supplementary figure to illustrate these definitions (Figure 1 - figure supplement 2).__

    Line 124 - 147: This part the only description of the algorithm behind the feature extraction and analysis, but not clearly stated. Many details are missing or assumed known by the reader. For example, how it achieved sub-pixel resolution results is not clear. One can only assume that by fitting Gaussian to the band, the center position (peak) thus can be calculated from continuous curves other than pixels. *

    Note that the two sentences introducing this description are "Automated feature extraction is the core of the tool. The algorithm takes multiple steps to achieve this (Fig. S2):". We were hoping this statement was clear, but the reviewer may refer to something else. We agree that the description of some of the details of the steps was too quick. We have now expanded the description where needed.

    Line 407: We think the availability of both the tool and the code could be improved. For Fiji tools it is common practice to create an Update Site and to make the code available on GitHub. In addition, downloading the example file (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eMazyQJlisWPwmozvyb8VPVbfAgaH7Hz/view?usp=drive_link) required a Google login and access request, which is not very convenient; in fact, we asked for access but it was denied. It would be important for the download to be easier, e.g. from GitHub or Zenodo.

    We are sorry for issues encountered when downloading the tool and additional material. We thank the reviewer for pointing out these issues that limited the accessibility of our tool. We simplified the downloading procedure on the website, which does not go through the google drive interface nor requires a google account. Additionally, for the coder community the code, user manual and examples are now available from GitHub at github.com/PierreMangeol/PatternJ, and are provided as supplementary material with the manuscript. To our knowledge, update sites work for plugins but not for macro toolsets. Having experience sharing our codes with non-specialists, a classical website with a tutorial video is more accessible than more coder-oriented websites, which deter many users.

    Reviewer #2 (Significance (Required)):

    The strength of this study is that a tool for the analysis of one-dimensional repeated patterns occurring in muscle fibres is made available in the accessible open-source platform ImageJ/Fiji. In the introduction to the article the authors provide an extensive review of comparable existing tools. Their new tool fills a gap in terms of providing an easy-to-use software for users without computational skills that enables the analysis of muscle sarcomere patterns. We feel that if the below mentioned limitations could be addressed the tool could indeed be valuable to life scientists interested in muscle patterning without computational skills.

    In our view there are a few limitations, including the accessibility of example data and tutorials at sites.google.com/view/patternj, which we had trouble to access. In addition, we think that the workflow in Fiji, which currently requires pressing several buttons in the correct order, could be further simplified and streamlined by adopting some "wizard" approach, where the user is guided through the steps.

    *As answered above, the links on the PatternJ website are now corrected. Regarding the workflow, we now provide a Help menu with:

    1. __a basic set of instructions to use the tool, __
    2. a direct link to the tutorial video in the PatternJ toolset
    3. a direct link to the website on which both the tutorial video and a detailed user manual can be found. We hope this addresses the issues raised by this reviewer.

    *Another limitation is the reproducibility of the analysis; here we recommend enabling IJ Macro recording as well as saving of the drawn line ROIs. For more detailed suggestions for improvements please see the above sections of our review. *

    We agree that saving ROIs is very useful. It is now implemented in PatternJ.

    We are not sure what this reviewer means by "enabling IJ Macro recording". The ImageJ Macro Recorder is indeed very useful, but to our knowledge, it is limited to built-in functions. Our code is open and we hope this will be sufficient for advanced users to modify the code and make it fit their needs.*

    Reviewer #3 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):

    Summary In this manuscript, the authors present a new toolset for the analysis of repetitive patterns in biological images named PatternJ. One of the main advantages of this new tool over existing ones is that it is simple to install and run and does not require any coding skills whatsoever, since it runs on the ImageJ GUI. Another advantage is that it does not only provide the mean length of the pattern unit but also the subpixel localization of each unit and the distributions of lengths and that it does not require GPU processing to run, unlike other existing tools. The major disadvantage of the PatternJ is that it requires heavy, although very simple, user input in both the selection of the region to be analyzed and in the analysis steps. Another limitation is that, at least in its current version, PatternJ is not suitable for time-lapse imaging. The authors clearly explain the algorithm used by the tool to find the localization of pattern features and they thoroughly test the limits of their tool in conditions of varying SNR, periodicity and band intensity. Finally, they also show the performance of PatternJ across several biological models such as different kinds of muscle cells, neurons and fish embryonic somites, as well as different imaging modalities such as brightfield, fluorescence confocal microscopy, STORM and even electron microscopy.

    This manuscript is clearly written, and both the section and the figures are well organized and tell a cohesive story. By testing PatternJ, I can attest to its ease of installation and use. Overall, I consider that PatternJ is a useful tool for the analysis of patterned microscopy images and this article is fit for publication. However, i do have some minor suggestions and questions that I would like the authors to address, as I consider they could improve this manuscript and the tool:

    *We are grateful to this reviewer for this very positive assessment of PatternJ and of our manuscript.

    Minor Suggestions: In the methodology section is missing a more detailed description about how the metric plotted was obtained: as normalized intensity or precision in pixels. *

    We agree with the reviewer that a more detailed description of the metric plotted was missing. We added this information in the method part and added information in the Figure captions where more details could help to clarify the value displayed.

    The validation is based mostly on the SNR and patterns. They should include a dataset of real data to validate the algorithm in three of the standard patterns tested. *

    We validated our tool using computer-generated images, in which we know with certainty the localization of patterns. This allowed us to automatically analyze 30 000 images, and with varying settings, we sometimes analyzed 10 times the same image, leading to about 150 000 selections analyzed. From these analyses, we can provide with confidence an unbiased assessment of the tool precision and the tool capacity to extract patterns. We already provided examples of various biological data images in Figures 4-6, showing all possible features that can be extracted with PatternJ. In these examples, we can claim by eye that PatternJ extracts patterns efficiently, but we cannot know how precise these extractions are because of the nature of biological data: "real" positions of features are unknown in biological data. Such validation will be limited to assessing whether a pattern was found or not, which we believe we already provided with the examples in Figures 4-6.

    The video tutorial available in the PatternJ website is very useful, maybe it would be worth it to include it as supplemental material for this manuscript, if the journal allows it. *

    As the video tutorial may have been missed by other reviewers, we agree it is important to make it more prominent to users. We have now added a Help menu in the toolset that opens the tutorial video. Having the video as supplementary material could indeed be a useful addition if the size of the video is compatible with the journal limits.

    An example image is provided to test the macro. However, it would be useful to provide further example images for each of the three possible standard patterns suggested: Block, actin sarcomere or individual band.*

    We agree this can help users. We now provide another multi-channel example image on the PatternJ website including blocks and a pattern made of a linear intensity gradient that can be extracted with our simpler "single pattern" algorithm, which were missing in the first example. Additionally, we provide an example to be used with our new time-lapse analysis.

    Access to both the manual and the sample images in the PatternJ website should be made publicly available. Right now they both sit in a private Drive account. *

    As mentioned above, we apologize for access issues that occurred during the review process. These files can now be downloaded directly on the website without any sort of authentication. Additionally, these files are now also available on GitHub.

    Some common errors are not properly handled by the macro and could be confusing for the user: When there is no selection and one tries to run a Check or Extraction: "Selection required in line 307 (called from line 14). profile=getProfile( ;". A simple "a line selection is required" message would be useful there. When "band" or "block" is selected for a channel in the "Set parameters" window, yet a 0 value is entered into the corresponding "Number of bands or blocks" section, one gets this error when trying to Extract: "Empty array in line 842 (called from line 113). if ( ( subloc . length == 1 ) & ( subloc [ 0 == 0) ) {". This error is not too rare, since the "Number of bands or blocks" section is populated with a 0 after choosing "sarcomeric actin" (after accepting the settings) and stays that way when one changes back to "blocks" or "bands".*

    We thank the reviewer for pointing out these bugs. These bugs are now corrected in the revised version.

    The fact that every time one clicks on the most used buttons, the getDirectory window appears is not only quite annoying but also, ultimately a waste of time. Isn't it possible to choose the directory in which to store the files only once, from the "Set parameters" window?*

    We have now found a solution to avoid this step. The user is only prompted to provide the image folder when pressing the "Set parameter" button. We kept the prompt for directory only when the user selects the time-lapse analysis or the analysis of multiple ROIs. The main reason is that it is very easy for the analysis to end up in the wrong folder otherwise.

    The authors state that the outputs of the workflow are "user friendly text files". However, some of them lack descriptive headers (like the localisations and profiles) or even file names (like colors.txt). If there is something lacking in the manuscript, it is a brief description of all the output files generated during the workflow.*

    PatternJ generates multiple files, several of which are internal to the toolset. They are needed to keep track of which analyses were done, and which colors were used in the images, amongst others. From the user part, only the files obtained after the analysis All_localizations.channel_X.txt and sarcomere_lengths.txt are useful. To improve the user experience, we now moved all internal files to a folder named "internal", which we think will clarify which outputs are useful for further analysis, and which ones are not. We thank the reviewer for raising this point and we now mention it in our Tutorial.

    I don't really see the point in saving the localizations from the "Extraction" step, they are even named "temp".

    We thank the reviewer for this comment, this was indeed not necessary. We modified PatternJ to delete these files after they are used.

    In the same line, I DO see the point of saving the profiles and localizations from the "Extract & Save" step, but I think they should be deleted during the "Analysis" step, since all their information is then grouped in a single file, with descriptive headers. This deleting could be optional and set in the "Set parameters" window.*

    We understand the point raised by the reviewer. However, the analysis depends on the reference channel picked, which is asked for when starting an analysis, and can be augmented with additional selections. If a user chooses to modify the reference channel or to add a new profile to the analysis, deleting all these files would mean that the user will have to start over again, which we believe will create frustration. An optional deletion at the analysis step is simple to implement, but it could create problems for users who do not understand what it means practically.

    Moreover, I think it would be useful to also save the linear roi used for the "Extract & Save" step, and eventually combine them during the "Analysis step" into a single roi set file so that future re-analysis could be made on the same regions. This could be an optional feature set from the "Set parameters" window. *

    We agree with the reviewer that saving ROIs is very useful. ROIs are now saved into a single file each time the user extracts and saves positions from a selection. Additionally, the user can re-use previous ROIs and analyze an image or image series in a single step.

    In the "PatternJ workflow" section of the manuscript, the authors state that after the "Extract & Save" step "(...) steps 1, 2, 4, and 5 can be repeated on other selections (...)". However, technically, only steps 1 and 5 are really necessary (alternatively 1, 4 and 5 if the user is unsure of the quality of the patterning). If a user follows this to the letter, I think it can lead to wasted time.

    We agree with the reviewer and have corrected the manuscript accordingly (line 119-120).

    *I believe that the "Version Information" button, although important, has potential to be more useful if used as a "Help" button for the toolset. There could be links to useful sources like the manuscript or the PatternJ website but also some tips like "whenever possible, use a higher linewidth for your line selection" *

    We agree with the reviewer as pointed out in our previous answers to the other reviewers. This button is now replaced by a Help menu, including a simple tutorial in a series of images detailing the steps to follow, a link to the user website, and a link to our video tutorial.

    It would be interesting to mention to what extent does the orientation of the line selection in relation to the patterned structure (i.e. perfectly parallel vs more diagonal) affect pattern length variability?*

    As answered to reviewer 1, we understand this concern, which needs to be clarified for readers. The issue may be concerning at first sight, but the errors grow only with the inverse of cosine and are therefore rather low. For example, if the user creates a selection off by 3 degrees, which is visually obvious, lengths will be affected by an increase of only 0.14%. The point raised by the reviewer is important to discuss, and we therefore have added a comment on the choice of selection (lines 94-98) as well as a supplementary figure (Figure 1 - figure supplement 1).

    When "the algorithm uses the peak of highest intensity as a starting point and then searches for peak intensity values one spatial period away on each side of this starting point" (line 133-135), does that search have a range? If so, what is the range? *

    We agree that this information is useful to share with the reader. The range is one pattern size.__ We have modified the sentence to clarify the range of search used and the resulting limits in aperiodicity (now lines 176-181).__

    Line 144 states that the parameters of the fit are saved and given to the user, yet I could not find such information in the outputs. *

    The parameters of the fits are saved for blocks. We have now clarified this point by modifying the manuscript (lines 186-198) and modifying Figure 1 - figure supplement 5. We realized we made an error in the description of how edges of "block with middle band" are extracted. This is now corrected.

    In line 286, authors finish by saying "More complex patterns from electron microscopy images may also be used with PatternJ.". Since this statement is not backed by evidence in the manuscript, I suggest deleting it (or at the very least, providing some examples of what more complex patterns the authors refer to). *

    This sentence is now deleted.

    In the TEM image of the fly wing muscle in fig. 4 there is a subtle but clearly visible white stripe pattern in the original image. Since that pattern consists of 'dips', rather than 'peaks' in the profile of the inverted image, they do not get analyzed. I think it is worth mentioning that if the image of interest contains both "bright" and "dark" patterns, then the analysis should be performed in both the original and the inverted images because the nature of the algorithm does not allow it to detect "dark" patterns. *

    We agree with the reviewer's comment. We now mention this point in lines 337-339.

    In line 283, the authors mention using background correction. They should explicit what method of background correction they used. If they used ImageJ's "subtract background' tool, then specify the radius.*

    We now describe this step in the method section.

    Reviewer #3 (Significance (Required)):

    • Describe the nature and significance of the advance (e.g. conceptual, technical, clinical) for the field. Being a software paper, the advance proposed by the authors is technical in nature. The novelty and significance of this tool is that it offers quick and simple pattern analysis at the single unit level to a broad audience, since it runs on the ImageJ GUI and does not require any programming knowledge. Moreover, all the modules and steps are well described in the paper, which allows easy going through the analysis.
    • Place the work in the context of the existing literature (provide references, where appropriate). The authors themselves provide a good and thorough comparison of their tool with other existing ones, both in terms of ease of use and on the type of information extracted by each method. While PatternJ is not necessarily superior in all aspects, it succeeds at providing precise single pattern unit measurements in a user-friendly manner.
    • State what audience might be interested in and influenced by the reported findings. Most researchers working with microscopy images of muscle cells or fibers or any other patterned sample and interested in analyzing changes in that pattern in response to perturbations, time, development, etc. could use this tool to obtain useful, and otherwise laborious, information. *

    We thank the reviewer for these enthusiastic comments about how straightforward for biologists it is to use PatternJ and its broad applicability in the bio community.

  2. Review Commons

    Note: This preprint has been reviewed by subject experts for Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

    Learn more at Review Commons

    Referee #3

    Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

    Summary

    In this manuscript, the authors present a new toolset for the analysis of repetitive patterns in biological images named PatternJ. One of the main advantages of this new tool over existing ones is that it is simple to install and run and does not require any coding skills whatsoever, since it runs on the ImageJ GUI. Another advantage is that it does not only provide the mean length of the pattern unit but also the subpixel localization of each unit and the distributions of lengths and that it does not require GPU processing to run, unlike other existing tools. The major disadvantage of the PatternJ is that it requires heavy, although very simple, user input in both the selection of the region to be analyzed and in the analysis steps. Another limitation is that, at least in its current version, PatternJ is not suitable for time-lapse imaging.

    The authors clearly explain the algorithm used by the tool to find the localization of pattern features and they thoroughly test the limits of their tool in conditions of varying SNR, periodicity and band intensity. Finally, they also show the performance of PatternJ across several biological models such as different kinds of muscle cells, neurons and fish embryonic somites, as well as different imaging modalities such as brightfield, fluorescence confocal microscopy, STORM and even electron microscopy.

    This manuscript is clearly written, and both the section and the figures are well organized and tell a cohesive story. By testing PatternJ, I can attest to its ease of installation and use. Overall, I consider that PatternJ is a useful tool for the analysis of patterned microscopy images and this article is fit for publication. However, i do have some minor suggestions and questions that I would like the authors to address, as I consider they could improve this manuscript and the tool:

    Minor Suggestions:

    In the methodology section is missing a more detailed description about how the metric plotted was obtained: as normalized intensity or precision in pixels. The validation is based mostly on the SNR and patterns. They should include a dataset of real data to validate the algorithm in three of the standard patterns tested. The video tutorial available in the PatternJ website is very useful, maybe it would be worth it to include it as supplemental material for this manuscript, if the journal allows it. An example image is provided to test the macro. However, it would be useful to provide further example images for each of the three possible standard patterns suggested: Block, actin sarcomere or individual band. Access to both the manual and the sample images in the PatternJ website should be made publicly available. Right now they both sit in a private Drive account. Some common errors are not properly handled by the macro and could be confusing for the user: When there is no selection and one tries to run a Check or Extraction: "Selection required in line 307 (called from line 14). profile=getProfile( <)>;". A simple "a line selection is required" message would be useful there. When "band" or "block" is selected for a channel in the "Set parameters" window, yet a 0 value is entered into the corresponding "Number of bands or blocks" section, one gets this error when trying to Extract: "Empty array in line 842 (called from line 113). if ( ( subloc . length == 1 ) & ( subloc [ 0 <]> == 0) ) {". This error is not too rare, since the "Number of bands or blocks" section is populated with a 0 after choosing "sarcomeric actin" (after accepting the settings) and stays that way when one changes back to "blocks" or "bands".
    The fact that every time one clicks on the most used buttons, the getDirectory window appears is not only quite annoying but also, ultimately a waste of time. Isn't it possible to choose the directory in which to store the files only once, from the "Set parameters" window? The authors state that the outputs of the workflow are "user friendly text files". However, some of them lack descriptive headers (like the localisations and profiles) or even file names (like colors.txt). If there is something lacking in the manuscript, it is a brief description of all the output files generated during the workflow. I don't really see the point in saving the localizations from the "Extraction" step, they are even named "temp". In the same line, I DO see the point of saving the profiles and localizations from the "Extract & Save" step, but I think they should be deleted during the "Analysis" step, since all their information is then grouped in a single file, with descriptive headers. This deleting could be optional and set in the "Set parameters" window. Moreover, I think it would be useful to also save the linear roi used for the "Extract & Save" step, and eventually combine them during the "Analysis step" into a single roi set file so that future re-analysis could be made on the same regions. This could be an optional feature set from the "Set parameters" window. In the "PatternJ workflow" section of the manuscript, the authors state that after the "Extract & Save" step "(...) steps 1, 2, 4, and 5 can be repeated on other selections (...)". However, technically, only steps 1 and 5 are really necessary (alternatively 1, 4 and 5 if the user is unsure of the quality of the patterning). If a user follows this to the letter, I think it can lead to wasted time. I believe that the "Version Information" button, although important, has potential to be more useful if used as a "Help" button for the toolset. There could be links to useful sources like the manuscript or the PatternJ website but also some tips like "whenever possible, use a higher linewidth for your line selection" It would be interesting to mention to what extent does the orientation of the line selection in relation to the patterned structure (i.e. perfectly parallel vs more diagonal) affect pattern length variability? When "the algorithm uses the peak of highest intensity as a starting point and then searches for peak intensity values one spatial period away on each side of this starting point" (line 133-135), does that search have a range? If so, what is the range? Line 144 states that the parameters of the fit are saved and given to the user, yet I could not find such information in the outputs. In line 286, authors finish by saying "More complex patterns from electron microscopy images may also be used with PatternJ.". Since this statement is not backed by evidence in the manuscript, I suggest deleting it (or at the very least, providing some examples of what more complex patterns the authors refer to). In the TEM image of the fly wing muscle in fig. 4 there is a subtle but clearly visible white stripe pattern in the original image. Since that pattern consists of 'dips', rather than 'peaks' in the profile of the inverted image, they do not get analyzed. I think it is worth mentioning that if the image of interest contains both "bright" and "dark" patterns, then the analysis should be performed in both the original and the inverted images because the nature of the algorithm does not allow it to detect "dark" patterns. In line 283, the authors mention using background correction. They should explicit what method of background correction they used. If they used ImageJ's "subtract background' tool, then specify the radius.

    Significance

    • Describe the nature and significance of the advance (e.g. conceptual, technical, clinical) for the field. Being a software paper, the advance proposed by the authors is technical in nature. The novelty and significance of this tool is that it offers quick and simple pattern analysis at the single unit level to a broad audience, since it runs on the ImageJ GUI and does not require any programming knowledge. Moreover, all the modules and steps are well described in the paper, which allows easy going through the analysis.
    • Place the work in the context of the existing literature (provide references, where appropriate). The authors themselves provide a good and thorough comparison of their tool with other existing ones, both in terms of ease of use and on the type of information extracted by each method. While PatternJ is not necessarily superior in all aspects, it succeeds at providing precise single pattern unit measurements in a user-friendly manner.
    • State what audience might be interested in and influenced by the reported findings. Most researchers working with microscopy images of muscle cells or fibers or any other patterned sample and interested in analyzing changes in that pattern in response to perturbations, time, development, etc. could use this tool to obtain useful, and otherwise laborious, information.
    • Define your field of expertise with a few keywords to help the authors contextualize your point of view. Indicate if there are any parts of the paper that you do not have sufficient expertise to evaluate. I am a biologist with extensive experience in confocal microscopy and image analysis using classical machine vision tools, particularly using ImageJ and CellProfiler.
  3. Review Commons

    Note: This preprint has been reviewed by subject experts for Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

    Learn more at Review Commons

    Referee #2

    Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

    Summary

    The authors present an ImageJ Macro GUI tool set for the quantification of one-dimensional repeated patterns that are commonly occurring in microscopy images of muscles.

    Major comments

    In our view the article and also software could be improved in terms of defining the scope of its applicability and user-ship. In many parts the article and software suggest that general biological patterns can be analysed, but then in other parts very specific muscle actin wordings are used. We are pointing this out in the "Minor comments" sections below. We feel that the authors could improve their work by making a clear choice here. One option would be to clearly limit the scope of the tool to the analysis of actin structures in muscles. In this case we would recommend to also rename the tool, e.g. MusclePatternJ. The other option would be to make the tool about the generic analysis of one-dimensional patterns, maybe calling the tool LinePatternJ. In the latter case we would recommend to remove all actin specific wordings from the macro tool set and also the article should be in parts slightly re-written.

    Minor/detailed comments

    Software

    We recommend considering the following suggestions for improving the software.

    File and folder selection dialogs

    In general, clicking on many of the buttons just opens up a file-browser dialog without any further information. For novel users it is not clear what the tool expects one to select here. It would be very good if the software could be rewritten such that there are always clear instructions displayed about which file or folder one should open for the different buttons.

    Extract button

    The tool asks one to specify things like whether selections are drawn "M-line-to-M-line"; for users that are not experts in muscle morphology this is not understandable. It would be great to find more generally applicable formulations.

    Manual selection accuracy

    The 1st step of the analysis is always to start from a user hand-drawn profile across intensity patterns in the image. However, this step can cause inaccuracy that varies with the shape and curve of the line profile drawn. If not strictly perpendicular to for example the M line patterns, the distance between intensity peaks will be different. This will be more problematic when dealing with non-straight and parallelly poised features in the image. If the structure is bended with a curve, the line drawn over it also needs to reproduce this curve, to precisely capture the intensity pattern. I found this limits the reproducibility and easy-usability of the software.

    Reproducibility

    Since the line profile drawn on the image is the first step and very essential to the entire process, it should be considered to save together with the analysis result. For example, as ImageJ ROI or ROIset files that can be re-imported, correctly positioned, and visualized in the measured images. This would greatly improve the reproducibility of the proposed workflow. In the manuscript, only the extracted features are being saved (because the save button is also just asking for a folder containing images, so I cannot verify its functionality).

    ? button

    It would be great if that button would open up some usage instructions.

    Easy improvement of workflow

    I would suggest a reasonable expansion of the current workflow, by fitting and displaying 2D lines to the band or line structure in the image, that form the "patterns" the author aims to address. Thus, it extracts geometry models from the image, and the inter-line distance, and even the curve formed by these sets of lines can be further analyzed and studied. These fitted 2D lines can be also well integrated into ImageJ as Line ROI, and thus be saved, imported back, and checked or being further modified. I think this can largely increase the usefulness and reproducibility of the software.

    Manuscript

    We recommend considering the following suggestions for improving the manuscript. Abstract: The abstract suggests that general patterns can be quantified, however the actual tool quantifies specific subtypes of one-dimensional patterns. We recommend adapting the abstract accordingly.

    Line 58: Gray-level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM) based feature extraction and analysis approach is not mentioned nor compared. At least there's a relatively recent study on Sarcomeres structure based on GLCM feature extraction: https://github.com/steinjm/SotaTool with publication: https://doi.org/10.1002/cpz1.462

    Line 75: "...these simple geometrical features will address most quantitative needs..." We feel that this may be an overstatement, e.g. we can imagine that there should be many relevant two-dimensional patterns in biology?!

    Line 83: "After a straightforward installation by the user, ...". We think it would be convenient to add the installation steps at this place into the manuscript.

    Line 87: "Multicolor images will give a graph with one profile per color." The 'Multicolor images' here should be more precisely stated as "multi-channel" images. Multi-color images could be confused with RGB images which will be treated as 8-bit gray value (type conversion first) images by profile plot in ImageJ.

    Line 92: "...such as individual bands, blocks, or sarcomeric actin...". While bands and blocks are generic pattern terms, the biological term "sarcomeric actin" does not seem to fit in this list. Could a more generic wording be found, such as "block with spike"?

    Line 95: "the algorithm defines one pattern by having the features of highest intensity in its centre". Could this be rephrased? We did not understand what that exactly means.

    Line 124 - 147: This part the only description of the algorithm behind the feature extraction and analysis, but not clearly stated. Many details are missing or assumed known by the reader. For example, how it achieved sub-pixel resolution results is not clear. One can only assume that by fitting Gaussian to the band, the center position (peak) thus can be calculated from continuous curves other than pixels.

    Line 407: We think the availability of both the tool and the code could be improved. For Fiji tools it is common practice to create an Update Site and to make the code available on GitHub. In addition, downloading the example file (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eMazyQJlisWPwmozvyb8VPVbfAgaH7Hz/view?usp=drive_link) required a Google login and access request, which is not very convenient; in fact, we asked for access but it was denied. It would be important for the download to be easier, e.g. from GitHub or Zenodo.

    Significance

    The strength of this study is that a tool for the analysis of one-dimensional repeated patterns occurring in muscle fibres is made available in the accessible open-source platform ImageJ/Fiji. In the introduction to the article the authors provide an extensive review of comparable existing tools. Their new tool fills a gap in terms of providing an easy-to-use software for users without computational skills that enables the analysis of muscle sarcomere patterns. We feel that if the below mentioned limitations could be addressed the tool could indeed be valuable to life scientists interested in muscle patterning without computational skills.

    In our view there are a few limitations, including the accessibility of example data and tutorials at sites.google.com/view/patternj, which we had trouble to access. In addition, we think that the workflow in Fiji, which currently requires pressing several buttons in the correct order, could be further simplified and streamlined by adopting some "wizard" approach, where the user is guided through the steps. Another limitation is the reproducibility of the analysis; here we recommend enabling IJ Macro recording as well as saving of the drawn line ROIs. For more detailed suggestions for improvements please see the above sections of our review.

  4. Review Commons

    Note: This preprint has been reviewed by subject experts for Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

    Learn more at Review Commons

    Referee #1

    Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

    I have trialled the package on my lab's data and it works as advertised. It was straightforward to use and did not require any special training. I am confident this is a tool that will be approachable even to users with limited computational experience. The use of artificial data to validate the approach - and to provide clear limits on applicability - is particularly helpful.

    The main limitation of the tool is that it requires the user to manually select regions. This somewhat limits the generalisability and is also more subjective - users can easily choose "nice" regions that better match with their hypothesis, rather than quantifying the data in an unbiased manner. However, given the inherent challenges in quantifying biological data, such problems are not easily circumventable.

    I have some comments to clarify the manuscript:

    1. A "straightforward installation" is mentioned. Given this is a Method paper, the means of installation should be clearly laid out.
    2. It would be helpful if there was an option to generate an output with the regions analysed (i.e., a JPG image with the data and the drawn line(s) on top). There are two reasons for this: i) A major problem with user-driven quantification is accidental double counting of regions (e.g., a user quantifies a part of an image and then later quantifies the same region). ii) Allows other users to independently verify measurements at a later time.
    3. Related to the above point, it is highlighted that each time point would need to be analysed separately (line 361-362). It seems like it should be relatively straightforward to allow a function where the analysis line can be mapped onto the next time point. The user could then adjust slightly for changes in position, but still be starting from near the previous timepoint. Given how prevalent timelapse imaging is, this seems like (or something similar) a clear benefit to add to the software.
    4. Line 134-135. The level of accuracy of the searching should be clarified here. This is discussed later in the manuscript, but it would be helpful to give readers an idea at this point what level of tolerance the software has to noise and aperiodicity.

    Referees cross-commenting

    I think the other reviewer comments are very pertinent. The authors have a fair bit to do, but they are reasonable requests. So, they should be encouraged to do the revisions fully so that the final software tool is as useful as possible.

    Significance

    Developing software tools for quantifying biological data that are approachable for a wide range of users remains a longstanding challenge. This challenge is due to: (1) the inherent problem of variability in biological systems; (2) the complexity of defining clearly quantifiable measurables; and (3) the broad spread of computational skills amongst likely users of such software.

    In this work, Blin et al., develop a simple plugin for ImageJ designed to quickly and easily quantify regular repeating units within biological systems - e.g., muscle fibre structure. They clearly and fairly discuss existing tools, with their pros and cons. The motivation for PatternJ is properly justified (which is sadly not always the case with such software tools).

    Overall, the paper is well written and accessible. The tool has limitations but it is clearly useful and easy to use. Therefore, this work is publishable with only minor corrections.

  5. Version published to 10.1101/2024.01.17.576053v1 on bioRxiv