4.6 Article

Segmentation of Meristem Cells by an Automated Optimization Algorithm

Journal

APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL
Volume 10, Issue 23, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/app10238523

Keywords

meristem cells; morphology; segmentation; receiver-operating characteristic

Funding

  1. BBSRC (UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council) [BB/I004661/1, BB/S003584/1]
  2. Universidad de Ibague grant [19-488-INT]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Meristem cells are irregularly shaped and appear in confocal images as dark areas surrounded by bright ones. Images are characterized by regions of very low contrast and absolute loss of edges deeper into the meristem. Edges are blurred, discontinuous, sometimes indistinguishable, and the intensity level inside the cells is similar to the background of the image. Recently, a technique called Parametric Segmentation Tuning was introduced for the optimization of segmentation parameters in diatom images. This paper presents a PST-tuned automatic segmentation method of meristem cells in microscopy images based on mathematical morphology. The optimal parameters of the algorithm are found by means of an iterative process that compares the segmented images obtained by successive variations of the parameters. Then, an optimization function is used to determine which pair of successive images allows for the best segmentation. The technique was validated by comparing its results with those obtained by a level set algorithm and a balloon segmentation technique. The outcomes show that our methodology offers better results than two free available state-of-the-art alternatives, being superior in all cases studied, losing 9.09% of the cells in the worst situation, against 75.81 and 25.45 obtained in the level set and the balloon segmentation techniques, respectively. The optimization method can be employed to tune the parameters of other meristem segmentation methods.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available