$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
This protocol provides a workflow to identify lipid deposits stained by Nile Red, BODIPY, and APOE. The developed software can automatically identify and quantify lipid deposits and performs best when the protocol outlined is optimized. Included are examples of successfully differentiated RPE (Figure 3A) and poorly differentiated RPE (Figure 3B), as the quality of the cell model greatly impacts the quality of proper image segmentation.
Two of the three markers described in the protocol, Nile Red and BODIPY, are identified as small circular points that are distinctly bright in fluorescent images (Figure 5 and Figure 6). A "positive" image from the protocol would be an appropriate identification of these distinct deposits (Figure 5A-D and Figure 5E-H). A "negative" result would show incorrect segmentation of the image by mistaking background fluorescence as a deposit, either due to weak staining (Figure 6A-C and Figure 6D-F) or due to high background intensity (Figure 6G-I).
APOE deposits have a variety of sizes and shapes, appearing more oval or irregular rather than the circular deposits of Nile Red and BODIPY. These deposits are also less punctate, and signal intensity can differ between deposits due to variations in the permeabilization of the sample. Correct identification will identify each deposit, including those that are less saturated (Figure 5I-L), while incorrect segmentation will not pick up these deposits (Figure 6J-L). Therefore, it is important to optimize staining and imaging methods to avoid drastic variation. One way to do this is by paying careful attention to the sample permeabilization steps while immunostaining. To optimize fluorescent signal, cells can be lysed prior to fixation and immunostaining for APOE, which results in even saturation and better segmentation of the APOE deposits.
Provided are also segmented images of cells matured on a culture platform other than a 96 well plate. The LipidUNet software was run on images of cells cultured on a transwell, and while the lipid deposits are thresholded, so too are the pores in the transwell membrane (Figure 6M-O). Because of the similarity in shape and size, the LipidUNet software in its current form will mask both the lipid deposits and transwell pores indiscriminately.

Figure 5: Representative Results. (A,E,I) 96-well plated RPE are stained with Hoechst nuclear staining (blue) and either Nile Red (magenta), BODIPY (green), or APOE (orange) and are the maximum intensity projections of a Z-stack. (B,F,J) The greyscale input images for the LipidUNet software after image processing. (C,G,K) Masks generated by LipidUNet, where all deposits are identified correctly. (D,H,L) Outlines of each masked particle are numbered. These labels allow to connect each particle in the image to an entry in the spreadheet with the raw data. (A-D) shows Nile Red staining, and the software is able to recognize the deposits against the background accurately despite a weaker signal. (E-H) shows a strong contrast between the BODIPY signal and background, which is ideal. LipidUNet correctly identifies every deposit in the image. (I-L) shows a strong APOE signal and represents the variability of signal saturation that is often seen with this stain. Nonetheless, image segmentation is able to identify the borders of each APOE deposit. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 6: Suboptimal Results. (A,D,G,J,M) 96-well-plated RPE are stained with Hoechst nuclear staining (blue) and either Nile Red (magenta), BODIPY (green), or APOE (orange) and are the maximum intensity projections of a Z-stack. (B,E,H,K,N) The greyscale input images for the LipidUNet software after image processing. (C,F,I,L,O) The incorrect masks generated by LipidUNet. Red circles indicate where the software has incorrectly identified a lipid deposit. (A-C) Nile Red processing is incorrect because the software has identified the background staining as a deposit. This can happen more often when there is high background but few lipid deposits in the image. Two examples of BODIPY staining are shown: a poor-quality image due to (D-F) weak BODIPY staining and (G - I) a strong BODIPY signal with high background. In both cases, the software is unable to distinguish small, circular lipid deposits from the background circular ring surrounding the nucleus. While staining and imaging should be optimized to avoid these errors, the most recent version of LipidUNet is largely improved for these images. (J-L) Incorrect APOE segmentation. Since the deposits are more variable in size and saturation of signal, the software has difficulty recognizing some deposits. (M-O) RPE seeded onto a transwell and stained with Nile Red. A slice of the Z-stack is shown here with both Nile Red lipid deposits and transwell pores. The software is unable to distinguish between the two, as shown by the red circle containing transwell pores and the green arrow pointing to Nile Red deposits. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 7: Mask Tool Comparison. (A,B,C) 96-well plated RPE with variable amounts of lipid deposition are identified with Nile Red (red). The images are masked using three different common masking methods, Find Maxima, Max Entropy, and Renyi Entropy, and compared to the LipidUNet-generated mask. The original image is accompanied by a manual count of the lipid deposits, while the masks display the predicted counts by each segmentation method. The average error rate was calculated for each method of segmentation using the following formula: mean[(|Predicted Count - Manual Count|/Manual Count) x 100]. The LipidUNet-generated mask more accurately identifies lipid deposits across images with variable deposition when compared to other masking methods (Average error rates: 23% LipidUnet, 1164% Find Maxima, 851% Max Entropy, 203% Renyi Entropy). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
| Component | Cat number | Stock Conc. | Final Conc. | mL |
| MEM alpha | 12571-063 | NA | | 500 |
| N2 supplement | 17502-048 | NA | 1% | 5 |
| Heat Inactivated FBS | SH30071.03 | NA | 5% | 25 |
| NMEM NEAA | 11140-050 | 10mM | 0.01mM | 5 |
| Sodium Pyruvate | 11360-070 | 100mM | 1mM | 5 |
| Penicillin-streptomycin | 15140-122 | 10000u/mL | 100U/mL | 5 |
| Taurine | T4571 | 50mg/mL | 250ug/mL | 2.5 |
| Hydrocortisone | H6909 | 18.1mg/L | 20ug/L | 0.553 |
| T3 | T5516 | 20ug/L | 0.013ug/L | 0.33 |
| Total volume, mL | 548.383 |
Table 1: RPE-MM reagent composition. A list of reagents and optimal concentrations for RPE-MM.