To develop scanning electron microscopy-based Trainable Weka (Waikato Environment for Knowledge Analysis) Intelligent Segmentation Technology (SEMTWIST), an open-source software tool, for structural detection and rigorous quantification of wound biofilm aggregates in complex human wound tissue matrix.
Approach:
SEMTWIST model was standardized to quantify biofilm infection (BFI) abundance in 240 distinct SEM images from 60 human chronic wound-edge biospecimens (four technical replicates of each specimen). Results from SEMTWIST were compared against human expert assessments and the gold standard for molecular BFI detection, that is, peptide nucleic acid fluorescence in situ hybridization (PNA-FISH).
Results:
Correlation and Bland–Altman plot demonstrated a robust correlation (r = 0.82, p < 0.01), with a mean bias of 1.25, and 95% limit of agreement ranging from −43.40 to 47.11, between SEMTWIST result and the average scores assigned by trained human experts. While interexpert variability highlighted potential bias in manual assessments, SEMTWIST provided consistent results. Bacterial culture detected infection but not biofilm aggregates. Whereas the wheat germ agglutinin staining exhibited nonspecific staining of host tissue components and failed to provide a specific identification of BFI. The molecular identification of biofilm aggregates using PNA-FISH was comparable with SEMTWIST, highlighting the robustness of the developed approach.
Innovation:
This study introduces a novel approach “SEMTWIST” for in-depth analysis and precise differentiation of biofilm aggregates from host tissue elements, enabling accurate quantification of BFI in chronic wound SEM images.
Conclusion:
Open-source SEMTWIST offers a reliable and robust framework for standardized quantification of BFI burden in human chronic wound-edge tissues, supporting clinical diagnosis and guiding treatment.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
SenCK, RoyS, Mathew-SteinerSS, et al.Biofilm management in wound care. Plast Reconstr Surg, 2021; 148(2):275e–288e.
2.
VerseyZ, da Cruz NizerWS, RussellE, et al.Biofilm-innate immune interface: Contribution to chronic wound formation. Front Immunol, 2021; 12:648554.
3.
CavalloI, SivoriF, MastrofrancescoA, et al.Bacterial biofilm in chronic wounds and possible therapeutic approaches. Biology (Basel), 2024; 13(2):109.
4.
BjarnsholtT. The role of bacterial biofilms in chronic infections. APMIS, 2013; 121(136):1–51.
5.
GrootersKE, KuJC, RichterDM, et al.Strategies for combating antibiotic resistance in bacterial biofilms. Front Cell Infect Microbiol, 2024; 14:1352273.
KhanJ, TararSM, GulI, et al.Challenges of antibiotic resistance biofilms and potential combating strategies: A review. 3 Biotech, 2021; 11(4):169–115.
8.
LiuY, LongS, WangH, et al.Biofilm therapy for chronic wounds. Int Wound J, 2024; 21(2):e14667.
9.
FalconeM, De AngelisB, PeaF, et al.Challenges in the management of chronic wound infections. J Glob Antimicrob Resist, 2021; 26:140–147.
10.
SenCK. Human wound and its burden: Updated 2022 compendium of estimates. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle), 2023; 12(12):657–670.
11.
XuY, DhaouadiY, StoodleyP, et al.Sensing the unreachable: Challenges and opportunities in biofilm detection. Curr Opin Biotechnol, 2020; 64:79–84.
12.
MaganaM, SeretiC, IoannidisA, et al.Options and limitations in clinical investigation of bacterial biofilms. Clin Microbiol Rev, 2018; 31(3); doi: 10.1128/cmr00084-00016
13.
GoswamiAG, BasuS, BanerjeeT, et al.Biofilm and wound healing: From bench to bedside. Eur J Med Res, 2023; 28(1):157.
14.
ContA, RossyT, Al-MayyahZ, et al.Biofilms deform soft surfaces and disrupt epithelia. Elife, 2020; 9:e56533.
15.
EvelhochSR. Biofilm and chronic nonhealing wound infections. Surg Clin North Am, 2020; 100(4):727–732.
16.
WilsonC, LukowiczR, MerchantS, et al.Quantitative and qualitative assessment methods for biofilm growth: A mini-review. Res Rev J Eng Technol, 2017; 6(4).
17.
DonlanRM. Biofilms: Microbial life on surfaces. Emerg Infect Dis, 2002; 8(9):881–890.
18.
KulaytaK, ZerdoZ, SeidM, et al.Biofilm formation and antibiogram profile of bacteria from infected wounds in a general hospital in southern Ethiopia. Sci Rep, 2024; 14(1):26359.
BossùM, SelanL, ArtiniM, et al.Characterization of Scardovia wiggsiae biofilm by original scanning electron microscopy protocol. Microorganisms, 2020; 8(6):807.
21.
RelucentiM, FamiliariG, DonfrancescoO, et al.Microscopy methods for biofilm imaging: Focus on SEM and VP-SEM pros and cons. Biology (Basel), 2021; 10(1):51.
22.
GoldingCG, LambooLL, BeniacDR, et al.The scanning electron microscope in microbiology and diagnosis of infectious disease. Sci Rep, 2016; 6(1):26516–26518.
23.
SchultzG, BjarnsholtT, JamesGA, et al.; Global Wound Biofilm Expert Panel. Consensus guidelines for the identification and treatment of biofilms in chronic nonhealing wounds. Wound Repair Regen, 2017; 25(5):744–757.
24.
HøibyN, BjarnsholtT, MoserC, et al.; ESCMID Study Group for Biofilms and Consulting External Expert Werner Zimmerli. ESCMID guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of biofilm infections 2014. Clinical Microbiology and Infection, 2015; 21(Suppl 1):S1–S25.
25.
HaddadG, BellaliS, TakakuraT, et al.Scanning electron microscope: A new potential tool to replace gram staining for microbe identification in blood cultures. Microorganisms, 2021; 9(6):1170.
26.
ChanRK, NuutilaK, Mathew-SteinerSS, et al.A prospective, randomized, controlled study to evaluate the effectiveness of a fabric-based wireless electroceutical dressing compared to standard-of-care treatment against acute trauma and burn wound biofilm infection. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle), 2024; 13(1):1–13.
27.
CacceseJB, KaminskiTW. Comparing computer-derived and human-observed scores for the balance error scoring system. J Sport Rehabil, 2016; 25(2):133–136.
28.
OkaR, KusumiT, UtsumiA. Performance evaluation of automated scoring for the descriptive similarity response task. Sci Rep, 2024; 14(1):6228.
29.
MakinoT, JastrzębskiS, OleszkiewiczW, et al.Differences between human and machine perception in medical diagnosis. Sci Rep, 2022; 12(1):6877.
30.
BryanRN, DavatzikosC, HerskovitsEH, et al.Medical image analysis: Human and machine. Acad Radiol, 2020; 27(1):76–81.
31.
ZhangJ, WangY, DonarskiED, et al.BCM3D 2.0: Accurate segmentation of single bacterial cells in dense biofilms using computationally generated intermediate image representations. NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes, 2022; 8(1):99.
32.
JelliE, OhmuraT, NetterN, et al.Single‐cell segmentation in bacterial biofilms with an optimized deep learning method enables tracking of cell lineages and measurements of growth rates. Mol Microbiol, 2023; 119(6):659–676.
33.
MountcastleSE, VyasN, VillapunVM, et al.Biofilm viability checker: An open-source tool for automated biofilm viability analysis from confocal microscopy images. NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes May 14 2021; 7(1):44.
34.
ArztM, DeschampsJ, SchmiedC, et al.LABKIT: Labeling and segmentation toolkit for big image data. Front Comput Sci, 2022; 4:777728.
35.
DeterHS, DiesM, CameronCC, et al.A cell segmentation/tracking tool based on machine learning. Computer Optimized Microscopy: Methods and Protocols, 2019:399–422.
36.
MbikiS, McClendonJ, Alexander-BryantA, et al.Classifying changes in LN-18 glial cell morphology: A supervised machine learning approach to analyzing cell microscopy data via FIJI and WEKA. Med Biol Eng Comput, 2020; 58(7):1419–1430.
37.
ŠimunićI, JagečićD, IsakovićJ, et al.Lusca: FIJI (ImageJ) based tool for automated morphological analysis of cellular and subcellular structures. Sci Rep, 2024; 14(1):7383.
38.
VyasN, SammonsR, AddisonO, et al.A quantitative method to measure biofilm removal efficiency from complex biomaterial surfaces using SEM and image analysis. Sci Rep, 2016; 6(1):32694.
39.
KatarasTJ, JangTJ, KouryJ, et al.ACCT is a fast and accessible automatic cell counting tool using machine learning for 2D image segmentation. Sci Rep, 2023; 13(1):8213.
40.
Arganda-CarrerasI, KaynigV, RuedenC, et al.Trainable Weka Segmentation: A machine learning tool for microscopy pixel classification. Bioinformatics, 2017; 33(15):2424–2426.
41.
KanuriN, AbdelkarimAZ, RathoreSA. Trainable WEKA (Waikato Environment for Knowledge Analysis) segmentation tool: Machine-learning-enabled segmentation on features of panoramic radiographs. Cureus, 2022; 14(1):e21777.
42.
KhanI, MintoRE, Kelley-PattesonC, et al.Biofilm-derived oxylipin 10-HOME–mediated immune response in women with breast implants. J Clin Invest, 2023; 134(3).
43.
Das GhatakP, Mathew-SteinerSS, PandeyP, et al.A surfactant polymer dressing potentiates antimicrobial efficacy in biofilm disruption. Sci Rep, 2018; 8(1):873.
44.
BarbosaA, MirandaS, AzevedoNF, et al.Imaging biofilms using fluorescence in situ hybridization: Seeing is believing. Front Cell Infect Microbiol, 2023; 13:1195803.
45.
de OliveiraA, Pinheiro-HubingerL, PereiraVC, et al.Staphylococcal biofilm on the surface of catheters: Electron microscopy evaluation of the inhibition of biofilm growth by RNAIII inhibiting peptide. Antibiotics, 2021; 10(7):879.
46.
SilvaN, MarquesL, RöderD. Diagnosis of biofilm infections: Current methods used, challenges and perspectives for the future. J Appl Microbiol, 2021; 131(5):2148–2160.
47.
AchinasS, YskaSK, CharalampogiannisN, et al.A technological understanding of biofilm detection techniques: A review. Materials, 2020; 13(14):3147.
48.
FlemmingH-C, WingenderJ. The biofilm matrix. Nat Rev Microbiol, 2010; 8(9):623–633.
49.
KeysR. Cubic convolution interpolation for digital image processing. IEEE Trans Acoust, Speech, Signal Process, 1981; 29(6):1153–1160.
50.
GiavarinaD. Understanding bland altman analysis. Biochem Med (Zagreb), 2015; 25(2):141–151.
51.
HiraharaD, TakayaE, KadowakiM, et al.Effect of the pixel interpolation method for downsampling medical images on deep learning accuracy. JCC, 2021; 09(11):150–156.
52.
HiraharaD, TakayaE, TakaharaT, et al.Effects of data count and image scaling on deep learning training. PeerJ Comput Sci, 2020; 6:e312.
53.
SilvaAF, SousaJS, CunhaPL, et al.Erythrocytes morphology and hemorheology in severe bacterial infection. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz, 2019; 114:e190326.
54.
NicolescuCM, MoldovanSD. The influence of sepsis on erythrocytes morphology: Case report and literature review. Rom J Morphol Embryol, 2024; 65(1):119–123.
55.
PfistererK, ShawLE, SymmankD, et al.The extracellular matrix in skin inflammation and infection. Front Cell Dev Biol, 2021; 9:682414.
56.
Castro-ManrrezaM, BonifazL, Castro-EscamillaO, et al.Mesenchymal stromal cells from the epidermis and dermis of psoriasis patients: Morphology, immunophenotype, differentiation patterns, and regulation of T cell proliferation. Stem Cells Int, 2019; 2019(1):4541797.
57.
ThiemeL, HartungA, TrammK, et al.Adaptation of the start-growth-time method for high-throughput biofilm quantification. Front Microbiol, 2021; 12:631248.
58.
AhmadI, NadeemA, MushtaqF, et al.Csu pili dependent biofilm formation and virulence of Acinetobacter baumannii. NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes, 2023; 9(1):101.
59.
SinhaM, GhoshN, WijesingheDS, et al.Pseudomonas aeruginosa theft biofilm require host lipids of cutaneous wound. Ann Surg, 2023; 277(3):e634–e647.
60.
SkogmanME, VuorelaPM, FallareroA. Combining biofilm matrix measurements with biomass and viability assays in susceptibility assessments of antimicrobials against Staphylococcus aureus biofilms. J Antibiot (Tokyo), 2012; 65(9):453–459.
61.
AbeyrathnaD, AshaduzzamanM, MalsheM, et al.An ai-based approach for detecting cells and microbial byproducts in low volume scanning electron microscope images of biofilms. Front Microbiol, 2022; 13:996400.
62.
BalsJ, EppleM. Deep learning for automated size and shape analysis of nanoparticles in scanning electron microscopy. RSC Adv, 2023; 13(5):2795–2802.
63.
ShahA, SchillerJA, RamosI, et al.Automated image segmentation of scanning electron microscopy images of graphene using U-Net Neural Network. Materials Today Communications, 2023; 35:106127.
64.
IwataH, HayashiY, HasegawaA, et al.Classification of scanning electron microscope images of pharmaceutical excipients using deep convolutional neural networks with transfer learning. Int J Pharm X, 2022; 4:100135.
65.
DingH, YangY, LiX, et al.A simple AI-enabled method for quantifying bacterial adhesion on dental materials. Biomater Investig Dent, 2022; 9(1):75–83.
66.
WeidnerL, WaltonG. The influence of training data variability on a supervised machine learning classifier for Structure from Motion (SfM) point clouds of rock slopes. Engineering Geology, 2021; 294:106344.
67.
HagiwaraA, FujitaS, OhnoY, et al.Variability and standardization of quantitative imaging: Monoparametric to multiparametric quantification, radiomics, and artificial intelligence. Invest Radiol, 2020; 55(9):601–616.
68.
KangC, LeeC, SongH, et al.Variability matters: Evaluating inter-rater variability in histopathology for robust cell detection. Paper presented at: European Conference on Computer Vision. 2022.
69.
ObuchowiczR, OszustM, PiorkowskiA. Interobserver variability in quality assessment of magnetic resonance images. BMC Med Imaging, 2020; 20(1):109–110.
70.
RyvaB, ZhangK, AsthanaA, et al.Wheat germ agglutinin as a potential therapeutic agent for leukemia. Front Oncol, 2019; 9:100.
71.
ClarkRK, Galantino‐HomerHL. Wheat germ agglutinin as a counterstain for immunofluorescence studies of equine hoof lamellae. Exp Dermatol, 2014; 23(9):677–678.
72.
DesantisS, CorrieroA, AconeF, et al.Lectin histochemistry on the dorsal epidermis of the Breton dog. Acta Histochem, 2003; 105(1):73–79.
73.
KostrominovaTY. Application of WGA lectin staining for visualization of the connective tissue in skeletal muscle, bone, and ligament/tendon studies. Microsc Res Tech, 2011; 74(1):18–22.
74.
EmdeB, HeinenA, GödeckeA, et al.Wheat germ agglutinin staining as a suitable method for detection and quantification of fibrosis in cardiac tissue after myocardial infarction. Eur J Histochem, 2014; 58(4).
75.
JohnsenAR, HausnerM, SchnellA, et al.Evaluation of fluorescently labeled lectins for noninvasive localization of extracellular polymeric substances in Sphingomonas biofilms. Appl Environ Microbiol, 2000; 66(8):3487–3491.
76.
LichtenbergM, Kirketerp‐MøllerK, KvichLA, et al.Single cells and bacterial biofilm populations in chronic wound infections. APMIS, 2024; 132(12):1071–1077.
77.
WeaverAJJr, BrandenburgKS, SanjarF, et al.Clinical utility of PNA-FISH for burn wound diagnostics: A noninvasive, culture-independent technique for rapid identification of pathogenic organisms in burn wounds. J Burn Care Res, 2019; 40(4):464–470.
78.
MalicS, HillKE, HayesA, et al.Detection and identification of specific bacteria in wound biofilms using peptide nucleic acid fluorescent in situ hybridization (PNA FISH). Microbiology (Reading), 2009; 155(Pt 8):2603–2611.
79.
WelchK, CaiY, StrømmeM. A method for quantitative determination of biofilm viability. J Funct Biomater, 2012; 3(2):418–431.
80.
MondsRD, O’TooleGA. The developmental model of microbial biofilms: Ten years of a paradigm up for review. Trends Microbiol, 2009; 17(2):73–87.
81.
RatheeN, PahalS, SheoranD. Evaluating the uncertainty of classification due to image resizing techniques for satellite image classification. Mapan, 2021; 36(2):243–251.
82.
ShahFA, RuscsákK, PalmquistA. 50 years of scanning electron microscopy of bone—a comprehensive overview of the important discoveries made and insights gained into bone material properties in health, disease, and taphonomy. Bone Res, 2019; 7(1):15.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
