In image-based profiling, software extracts thousands of morphological features of cells from multi-channel fluorescence microscopy images, yielding single-cell profiles that can be used for basic research and drug discovery. Powerful applications have been proven, including clustering chemical and genetic perturbations based on their similar morphological impact, identifying disease phenotypes by observing differences in profiles between healthy and diseased cells, and predicting assay outcomes using machine learning, among many others. Here we provide an updated protocol for the most popular assay for image-based profiling, Cell Painting. Introduced in 2013, it uses six stains imaged in five channels and labels eight diverse components of the cell: DNA, cytoplasmic RNA, nucleoli, actin, golgi apparatus, plasma membrane, endoplasmic reticulum, and mitochondria. The original protocol was updated in 2016 based on several years' experience running it at two sites, after optimizing it by visual stain quality. Here we describe the work of the Joint Undertaking for Morphological Profiling (JUMP) Cell Painting Consortium, aiming to improve upon the assay via quantitative optimization, based on the measured ability of the assay to detect morphological phenotypes and group similar perturbations together. We find that the assay gives very robust outputs despite a variety of changes to the protocol and that two vendors' dyes work equivalently well. We present Cell Painting version 3, in which some steps are simplified and several stain concentrations can be reduced, saving costs. Cell culture and image acquisition take 1 to 2 weeks for a typically sized batch of 20 or fewer plates; feature extraction and data analysis take an additional 1 to 2 weeks.

We present a new, carefully designed and well-annotated dataset of images and image-based profiles of cells that have been treated with chemical compounds and genetic perturbations. Each gene that is perturbed is a known target of at least two compounds in the dataset. The dataset can thus serve as a benchmark to evaluate methods for predicting similarities between compounds and between genes and compounds, measuring the effect size of a perturbation, and more generally, learning effective representations for measuring cellular state from microscopy images. Advancements in these applications can accelerate the development of new medicines.

In image-based profiling, software extracts thousands of morphological features of cells from multi-channel fluorescence microscopy images, yielding single-cell profiles that can be used for basic research and drug discovery. Powerful applications have been proven, including clustering chemical and genetic perturbations based on their similar morphological impact, identifying disease phenotypes by observing differences in profiles between healthy and diseased cells, and predicting assay outcomes using machine learning, among many others. Here we provide an updated protocol for the most popular assay for image-based profiling, Cell Painting. Introduced in 2013, it uses six stains imaged in five channels and labels eight diverse components of the cell: DNA, cytoplasmic RNA, nucleoli, actin, golgi apparatus, plasma membrane, endoplasmic reticulum, and mitochondria. The original protocol was updated in 2016 based on several years' experience running it at two sites, after optimizing it by visual stain quality. Here we describe the work of the Joint Undertaking for Morphological Profiling (JUMP) Cell Painting Consortium, aiming to improve upon the assay via quantitative optimization, based on the measured ability of the assay to detect morphological phenotypes and group similar perturbations together. We find that the assay gives very robust outputs despite a variety of changes to the protocol and that two vendors' dyes work equivalently well. We present Cell Painting version 3, in which some steps are simplified and several stain concentrations can be reduced, saving costs. Cell culture and image acquisition take 1-2 weeks for a typically sized batch of 20 or fewer plates; feature extraction and data analysis take an additional 1-2 weeks..

In this paper, we summarize a global survey of 484 participants of the imaging community, conducted in 2020 through the NIH-funded Center for Open Bioimage Analysis (COBA). This 23-question survey covered experience with image analysis, scientific background and demographics, and views and requests from different members of the imaging community. Through open-ended questions, we asked the community to provide feedback for the opensource tool developers and tool user groups. The community's requests for tool developers include general improvement of tool documentation and easy-to-follow tutorials. Respondents encourage tool users to follow the best practice guidelines for imaging and ask their image analysis questions on the Scientific Community Image Forum (forum.image.sc). We analyzed the community's preferred method of learning based on level of computational proficiency and work description. In general, written step-by-step and video tutorials are preferred methods of learning by the community, followed by interactive webinars and office hours with an expert. There is also enthusiasm for a centralized online location for existing educational resources. The survey results will help the community, especially developers, trainers, and organizations like COBA, decide how to structure and prioritize their efforts.

In this paper, we summarize a global survey of 484 participants of the imaging community, conducted in 2020 through the NIH Center for Open BioImage Analysis (COBA). This 23-question survey covered experience with image analysis, scientific background and demographics, and views and requests from different members of the imaging community. Through open-ended questions we asked the community to provide feedback for the open-source tool developers and tool user groups. The community's requests for tool developers include general improvement of tool documentation and easy-to-follow tutorials. Respondents encourage tool users to follow the best practices guidelines for imaging and ask their image analysis questions on the Scientific Community Image forum (forum.image.sc). We analyzed the community's preferred method of learning, based on level of computational proficiency and work description. In general, written step-by-step and video tutorials are preferred methods of learning by the community, followed by interactive webinars and office hours with an expert. There is also enthusiasm for a centralized location online for existing educational resources. The survey results will help the community, especially developers, trainers, and organizations like COBA, decide how to structure and prioritize their efforts.