Segmentation of Three-dimensional Electron Tomographic Images

  • Achilleas S. Frangakis
  • Reiner Hegerl


The intuitive understanding of the process of segmentation is that of a compartmentalization of the image into coherent regions and the extraction of independent objects. Perhaps the most sophisticated segmentation mechanism is human vision, which is capable of interpreting a large variety of groups, associating them into classes and compartments, as well as finding relationships among them. Computer-based image segmentation algorithms typically perform only a single task, which is coupled to a specific application. Humans use a large variety of different criteria to segment images, e.g. similarity, proximity, continuity and symmetry. In electron tomography, the observer usually searches for a known shape or multiply occurring shapes to guide his segmentation. The separation criteria used are the gray value and the contrast between the feature and the environment. In a general sense, the aim is to group pixels or voxels into subsets which correspond to meaningful regions or objects.When regarding pictures by eye, one has an intuitive sense for the boundaries of meaningful objects and regions. When using the computer, however, it is difficult to find quantitative criteria which define meaningful areas on the basis of pixel properties such as contours, brightness, color, texture, etc.


Binary Image Segmentation Result Manual Segmentation Segmentation Technique Speed Function 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bajaj, C., Yu, Z. and Auer, M. (2003). Volumetric feature extraction and visualization of tomographic molecular imaging. J. Struct. Biol. 144:132–143.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ballard, D. H. and Brown, C. M. (1982). Computer Vision. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  3. Baumeister, W., Grimm, R. and Walz, J. (1999). Electron tomography of molecules and cells. Trends Cell Biol. 9:81–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Frangakis, A. S. and Hegerl, R. (2001). Noise reduction in electron tomographic reconstructions using nonlinear anisotropic diffusion. J. Struct. Biol. 135:239–250.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Frangakis, A. S. and Hegerl, R. (2002). Segmentation of two-and three-dimensional data from electron microscopy using eigenvector analysis. J. Struct. Biol. 138:105–113.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kass, M., Witkin, A. and Terzopoulos, D. (1988). Snakes: active contour models. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 1:362–385.Google Scholar
  7. Li, Y., Leith, A. and Frank, J. (1997). Tinkerbell—a tool for interactive segmentation of 3D data. J. Struct. Biol. 120:266–275.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Malik, J., Belognie, S., Leung, T. and Shi, J. (2001). Contour and texture analysis for image segmentation. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 43:7–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Malladi, R., Sethian, J. A. and Vemuri, B. C. (1996). A fast level set based algorithm for topology-independent shape modeling. J. Math. Imag. Vis. 6:269–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Marsh, B. J., Mastronarde, D.N., Buttle, K. F., Howell, K. E. and McIntosh, J. R. (2001). Organellar relationships in the Golgi region of the pancreatic beta cell line, HIT-T15, visualized by high resolution electron tomography. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 98:2399–2406.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Medalia, O., Weber, I., Frangakis, A. S., Nicastro, D., Gerisch, G. and Baumeister, W. (2002). Macromolecular architecture in eukaryotic cells visualized by cryoelectron tomography. Science 298:1209–1213.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Osher, S. and Sethian, J. A. (1988). Fronts propagating with curvature dependent speed: algorithms based on Hamilton-Jacobi formulation. J. Comput. Phys. 79:12–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Perkins, G.A., Renken, C.W., Song, J. Y., Frey, T. G., Young, S. J., Lamont, S., Martone, M. E., Lindsey, S. and Ellisman, M. H. (1997). Electron tomography of large, multicomponent biological structures. J. Struct. Biol. 120:219–227.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Russ, J. C. (2002). The Image Processing Handbook. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.Google Scholar
  15. Sethian, J. A. (1996). Level Set Methods Evolving Interfaces in Geometry, Fluid Mechanics, Computer Vision, and Materials Science. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Shi, J. and Malik, J. (1997). Normalized cuts and image segmentation. Paper presented at: Proceedings of the IEEE Conferences on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.Google Scholar
  17. Volkmann, N. (2002). A novel three-dimensional variant of the watershed transform for segmentation of electron density maps. J. Struct. Biol. 138:123–129.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Weickert, J. (1999). Anisotropic Diffusion in Image Processing, B. G. Teubner Stuttgart.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Achilleas S. Frangakis
    • 1
  • Reiner Hegerl
    • 2
  1. 1.EMBL, European Molecular Biology LaboratoryHeidelbergGermany
  2. 2.Max-Planck-Institut für BiochemieMartinsriedGermany

Personalised recommendations