$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
Culturing and imaging C. elegans according to the method described in this protocol produces large overview images of worm populations. To facilitate visual inspection and classification of worms from these images we have developed Worm-align. Worm-align is a simple and user-friendly FIJI script that can be used to create montages of straightened and aligned worms. Worms are selected from overview images by drawing a line along the longitudinal axis of the worms. Each selected worm is assigned a number, cropped and straightened, and added to a montage. Montages can be generated per image or combining all images from the original input folder.
As expected, the output of the pipeline largely depends on the quality of the lines drawn on top of the images. To illustrate this point, Figure 4 shows several line examples, and their output from Worm-align. A complete line from the head to the tip of the tail produces a properly aligned worm (labelled “good”). Figure 4 also shows how tracing inaccuracies during the execution of Worm-align affect the output of the alignment. From the annotated montage included in Figure 4C, care should be taken to avoid the following errors, as they hinder the proper alignment of worms:
- Inconsistent tracing of the worm from head to tail (labelled “tail to head”). This results in worms being orientated in different directions (i.e., tail-to-head versus head-to-tail) in the alignment.
- Incomplete tracing (labeled “incomplete”). This results in only the part of the worm that was traced to be cropped for the montage.
- Including multiple worms in a single trace (labeled “worm with two heads”). This results in worms plus (significant sections of) their neighbors being inserted in the same panel of the montage.
- Adding random lines to the image (labeled “random”). This results in the insertion of random panels in the montage.
For creation of the montage it is not an issue if two individual lines intersect (labeled “intersecting”) or are joined at either end of the worm (labeled “joined”), as long as each line traces the entire length of an individual worm: The Worm-align script individually and sequentially selects each line ROIs, crops and straightens it, so that each panel in the final montage will represent a single line trace. In case of the intersecting worms however, although full length straightened worms appear for worm “intersecting1” and worm “intersecting2” in the montage (see Figure 5A-B), it is clearly noticeable that these worms cross each other in the original overview image. Therefore, it can be concluded that visual identification of intersecting lines is possible from the overlay image found in the ‘data’ subfolder (Figure 5A), as well as from the panels of individual worms in the montage (Figure 5B). In addition, any overlap of worms/lines can be identified from the quality control (QC) table generated for each processed image by Worm-align, and saved in the data subfolder. This table records three parameters for each of the line ROIs drawn in the image (see Figure 5C): Of these, Length indicates the length of the line ROI, which is a good indicator of the size of the worm; and the Worm number indicates the order in which the lines were drawn on the overview image. Finally, the last column indicates whether there is overlap between the worm/line in question and any of the other worms/lines selected in the image. In case of overlap the number in this column will be different from the one listed in the Worm number column. In combination with the overlay image, the QC table should aid the researcher to make learned decisions on which worms should be excluded from the montage and/or quantification.
The output of Worm-align can be used for subsequent quantification of fluorescence intensity in single worms. In FIJI, the line ROIs can be used to measure fluorescence intensity in the original image data, for example by executing the simple FIJI script ‘ Worm-quant.ijm’, which can also be found in the Worm-align repository on Github. Alternatively, the Worm-align output can be imported into third party image analysis software. We demonstrate this by importing the Worm-align output of two datasets into Worm_CP, a pipeline we generated in CellProfiler. Worm_CP uses the files in the ‘CellProfiler’ subfolder of the Worm-align output folder to fine-tune segmentation masks of those individual worms selected during execution of the Worm-align macro. Specifically, it uses the line mask (named: Lines_) to isolate selected worms from the worm population seen in the binary mask (named: Mask_). It should be noted that lines that intersect on the overview image (Figure 5A), although not a problem for the generation of montages, are problematic for the Worm_CP pipeline. Why this is the case, is illustrated in Figure 5 D-E. Worm_CP uses the line mask (Figure 5D), and not individual ROIs to aid identification of individual worms. The intersecting line drawn second during the execution of Worm-align is superimposed on the first line and therefore the intensity along this line will be that of ROI2 including in the bit where line 1 and 2 overlap. As a result, CellProfiler will segment line2 as one object, but line1 as two objects that are separated where it intersects with line2. This means that CellProfiler will produce two (half) worm masks for worm ‘intersecting1’ (Figure 5E). The easiest way to exclude these events from the final analysis (if required), is to identify the worm number of intersecting worms from the QC table (data subfolder), and to remove measurements for these worms from the CellProfiler output files. Please note that worms will not necessarily be allocated the same number in FIJI and CellProfiler: To identify the FIJI worm number in the CellProfiler output look at the Intensity_Max_Intensity values in the ‘Lines.csv’ output file. Any Intensity_Max_Intensity value that appears in the ‘Lines.csv’ table more than once per image is an indication of that line ROI resulting in a fractured worm mask.
Once individual worm masks are segmented, Worm_CP can measure the fluorescence intensity in the selected worms for all recorded channels. All measurements are taken from the original (raw) image data, although it should be noted that CellProfiler automatically rescales the pixel intensity on a scale of 0-1. This is achieved by dividing the raw pixel intensity value by the maximum possible pixel intensity for the image. In case of 8-bit images this value is 255, and in case of 16-bit images it is 65535. CellProfiler intensity values therefore need to be multiplied by the maximum possible intensity value to regain values equivalent to the raw image data. The Worm_CP output consists of two csv files, ‘worms.csv’ and ‘Lines.csv’ that are saved in the selected output folder. While inspecting these files, it is clear that CellProfiler records a large number of parameters related to fluorescence intensity. Of these, the Intensity_IntegratedIntensity corresponds to the total fluorescence per worm (i.e., the sum of the fluorescence intensity within all pixels that construe the mask of an individual worm). The parameter Intensity_MeanIntensity refers to the average fluorescence intensity within an individual worm (i.e., the average fluorescence intensity per pixel for all the pixels contained within an individual worm). Due to the occasional occurrence of (small) errors in segmenting the worm masks it is recommended that MeanIntensity measurements are used when comparing fluorescence measurements of individual worms between two conditions. If wanting to substract the background fluorescence from quantified measurments, use the measurments named MeanIntensity_Threshold.
We have used the Worm_CP pipeline to quantify fluorescence intensity from fixed animals that have been labelled with a fluorescent dye that incorporates into lipid droplets (LDs) (Figure 6). In order to validate fluorescence quantification from the Worm-align/Worm_CP pipeline, we quantified fluorescence intensity in the same set of worms from the BODIPY dataset by either the Worm-align/Worm_CP pipeline or manual quantification in FIJI/ImageJ. Manual quantification was performed in FIJI/ImageJ by circling each worm as well as a dark background zone in every image. The fluorescence intensity was measured in the ROI manager and the value measured for the image background was subtracted from the worm fluorescence measurement of each worm, as described17. We compared wild type (WT) N2 worms to dbl-1(nk3) mutants, which exhibit decreased lipid droplet content18. As expected, the green fluorescence intensity is significantly decreased between WT and dbl-1(nk3) worms with both methods (Figure 6A,B). Examples of aligned worms can be observed in Figure 6C,D. The lipid droplet content is decreased by 17% (p-value<0.0001, unpaired t-test) between WT and dbl-1(nk3) using manual quantification, and by 14% (p-value=0.0051 unpaired t-test) using the Worm_CP pipeline. The decrease in lipid droplet content observed here in dbl-1(nk3) with both quantification methods is in accordance with the literature18. This shows that quantification of acquired fluorescence images with the Worm_CP CellProfiler pipeline is comparable to manual quantification.
We have also used Worm_CP to quantify the heat shock response in live worms expressing GFP under control of the heat shock inducible gene hsp-70(C12C8.1)9. Figure 7 shows representative images of live C. elegans carrying the heat-responsive hsp-70(C12C8.1)p::GFP reporter. In the absence of heat stress, the worms do not induce GFP expression (Figure 7A,B). However, when worms are exposed to a short heat-shock of 30 min at 34 °C, they induce GFP expression (Figure 7C,D). GFP expression levels with and without heat-shock are quantified in Figure 7E.
As it stands, Worm_CP is a very basic pipeline. However, this approach does enable a more accurate segmentation of individual worm masks, which allows for a more accurate quantification of the fluorescence intensity in those worms selected from the image. For this reason, we prefer this approach over a rough quantification in FIJI, using just the line masks. In addition, CellProfiler offers the advantage that additional analysis modules can easily be included in the pipeline. For example, for the dataset that looks at lipid droplet content, insertion of additional modules into the Worm_CP pipeline could investigate lipid droplet numbers and fluorescence intensity of individual droplets in those worms selected in the overview images.

Figure 1: Generating a mouth micropipette. A glass capillary is extended in the flame of a Bunsen burner (A), until it provides thin elongated extremities (B). The extended glass capillary is then plugged into the adaptor piece of the mouth micropipette. (C) Schematic of a mouth micropipette. The mouth micropipette was assembled with a glass capillary plugged into an adaptor. A 6 mm silicone tube connects the adaptor to a 0.2 µm syringe filter, used for safety. The other end of the filter is attached to a 3 mm silicone tube ending with a 1mL filter tip. The experimenter can aspirate via the filter tip. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 2: Aspiration of the liquid surrounding the worm pellet, using the mouth micropipette. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 3: Adding the coverslip onto the worms laying on the agarose pad Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 4: Examples of worm straightening using Worm-align on fluorescence images acquired from live animals carrying the transcriptional reporter fat-7p::GFP in the intestine and a red co-injection marker in the pharynx (myo-2p::tdtomato). (A) Screenshot of a composite image acquired on the fluorescent microscope of live worms at day 3 of adulthood. The image was opened with Worm_align and lines were drawn along the longitudinal axis of the worms using Worm-align. (B) Screenshot of the same image as in (A), with examples commented of good and bad drawing of the lines along the axis of the worms, using Worm-align. (C) Examples of lines drawn on top of worms that can rise to incorrectly aligned worms. Worm-align output of the worms selected in B. Images were taken with a 20x objective on an inverted widefield microscope (see Materials table) with green fluorescence intensity=1, exposure=60 ms and red fluorescence intensity = 8, exposure=60 ms. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 5: Examples of worm straightening using Worm-align on intersecting worms. (A) Screenshot of a composite image acquired on the fluorescent microscope of live worms at day 3 of adulthood animals carrying the transcriptional reporter fat-7p::GFP in the intestine and a red co-injection marker in the pharynx (myo-2p::tdtomato). Intersecting worms are labelled “intersecting1” and “intersecting2”, while non overlapping worms are labelled “good3” and “good4”. (B) Montage created by Worm-align representing straightened worms selected in (A). It is noticeable in the montage that the worms 1 and 2 were intersecting on the original image (worms labelled as “intersecting1” and “intersecting2”). (C) Screenshot of the QC table from Worm-align which allows to spot cases where worms intersect. Length: length of the ROI line; worm number: order in which the lines were drawn; last column indicates whether there is an overlap between the worm/line of interest and any other worm. In this example, the worm in the first raw (worm number1) overlaps with worm number 2, as indicated by the number “2” in the last column. (D) Screenshot of the lines drawn with Worm-align on the four worms selected in A. (E) Screenshot of the masks generated by Worm-align on the four worms selected in A, showing how the masks for the two intersecting worms are rendered. In this case, two masks instead of one are now corresponding to the worm “intersecting1”. Images were taken with a 20x objective on an inverted widefield microscope (see Materials table) with green fluorescence intensity=1, exposure=60ms and red fluorescence intensity = 8, exposure = 60 ms. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 6: The Worm_CP pipeline quantifies fluorescence as accurately as would manual quantification. Comparison of fluorescence quantification of young adult worms fixed and stained for lipid droplet content with the green fluorescent dye BODIPY, using either Worm_CP pipeline (A) or manual quantification (B). The lipid droplet content of WT and dbl-1 (nk3) was monitored by fixing and staining animals with BODIPY, that intercalates into fatty acids of lipid droplets (see protocol A). Young adult animals were fixed with 60% isopropanol and stained with BODIPY for 1h. The same set of animals were quantified either using the Worm_CP pipeline (see step 7) or by manual quantification according to standard procedures17. (A) Quantification of fluorescence using Worm_CP pipeline. WT: n=22 animals, average fluorescence= 1.016 (A.U) ± 0.206 SD; dbl-1(nk3): n=25 animals, average fluorescence= 0.8714 (A.U) ± 0.126 SD. Unpaired t-test. (B) Manual quantification of fluorescence. WT: n=22 animals, average fluorescence = 1.048 ± 0.153 SD; dbl-1(nk3): n=25 animals, average fluorescence = 0.8632 ± 0.109 SD. Unpaired t-test. (C, D) Representative example or Worm-Align output for WT (C) and dbl-1(nk3) (D) animals straightened with the Worm-align pipeline. Images were taken with a 20x objective on an inverted widefield microscope (see Materials table) with green fluorescence intensity=2, exposure=60ms. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 7: Example of fluorescence quantification and alignment of live worms from fluorescence images of live worms carrying the transcriptional reporter hsp-70(C12C8.1)p::GFP following heat-shock. (A) Upon a short heat-shock (30 min at 34 °C), young adult worms were recovered at their cultivation temperature (25 °C) and mounted then imaged 3.5h post heat shock. About 30 worms were quantified following heat shock using the Worm-align pipeline. (A-B) Examples of aligned worms that have not been exposed to heat shock. (C-D) Examples of heat-shocked worms carrying hsp-70(C12C8.1)p::GFP using Worm-align. (E) shows the GFP Average intensity (Worm_CP parameter: MeanIntensity_Threshold) of WT young adult worms grown, without heat shock or upon exposure to heat shock (34 °C for 30 min). Images were taken with a 20x objective on an inverted widefield microscope (see Materials table) with green fluorescence intensity=1, exposure=60ms; no HS: n=12, HS: n=32. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Supplemental Figure 1: Location in FIJI where the Worm-align macro can be found, once installed. Please click here to download this file.
Supplemental Figure 2: Selection of the folder containing all images taken with the same settings. Please click here to download this file.
Supplemental Figure 3: Generation of 4 subfolders in the output folder in FIJI. Please click here to download this file.
Supplemental Figure 4: Drawing of a line across the width of the worm and channel settings for the montage. Please click here to download this file.
Supplemental Figure 5: Preview of the image with the applied settings. Please click here to download this file.
Supplemental Figure 6: Drawing of a line along the longitudinal axis of the worms of interest for inclusion in the montage and/or quantification. Please click here to download this file.
Supplemental Figure 7: Montage of the selected worms in the output folder, under “aligned” folder. Please click here to download this file.
Supplemental Figure 8: Clearing previous images from previous analysis in Cell Profiler. Please click here to download this file.
Supplemental Figure 9: Importing metadata into CellProfiler from the Worm-align output folder by selecting the Settings.csv subfolder. Please click here to download this file.
Supplemental Figure 10: The CellProfiler pipeline Worm_CP.cpproj uses the Lines_ images to single the selected worms (A), and produces single worm masks of the worms of interest (C). The pipeline also measures background intensity (B). Outlook of all the parameters measured by the pipeline Worm_CP.ccproj which are exported in a csv file (D). Please click here to download this file.
Supplemental Figure 11: Selection of output files in the “ExportToSpreadsheet in the Worm_CP.cpproj pipeline. Please click here to download this file.