Early identification of pathogenic bacteria in food, water, and bodily fluids is very important and yet challenging, owing to sample complexities and large sample volumes that need to be rapidly screened. Existing screening methods based on plate-counting or molecular analysis present some tradeoffs with regards to the detection time, accuracy/sensitivity, cost, and sample preparation complexity. Here we present a computational live bacteria detection system that periodically captures coherent microscopy images of bacterial growth inside a 60-mm-diameter agar-plate and analyzes these time-lapsed holograms using deep neural networks for rapid detection of bacterial growth and classification of the corresponding species. The performance of our system was demonstrated by rapid detection of Escherichia coli and total coliform bacteria (i.e., Klebsiella aerogenes and Klebsiella pneumoniae subsp. pneumoniae) in water samples. These results were confirmed against gold-standard culture-based results, shortening the detection time of bacterial growth by >12 h as compared to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-approved analytical methods. Our experiments further confirmed that this method successfully detects 90% of bacterial colonies within 7–10 h (and >95% within 12 h) with a precision of 99.2-100%, and correctly identifies their species in 7.6–12 h with 80% accuracy. Using pre-incubation of samples in growth media, our system achieved a limit of detection (LOD) of ~1 colony forming unit (CFU)/L in ≤ 9 h of total test time. This computational bacteria detection and classification platform is highly cost-effective (~$0.6 per test) and high-throughput with a scanning speed of 24 cm2/min over the entire plate surface, making it highly suitable for integration with the existing analytical methods currently used for bacteria detection on agar plates. Powered by deep learning, this automated and cost-effective live bacteria detection platform can be transformative for a wide range of applications in microbiology by significantly reducing the detection time, also automating the identification of colonies, without labeling or the need for an expert.
Rapid and accurate identification of live microorganisms is of great importance for a wide range of applications1–8, including drug discovery screening assays1–3, clinical diagnoses4, microbiome studies5,6, and food and water safety7,8. Waterborne diseases affect more than 2 billion people worldwide9, causing substantial economic burden; for example, treatment of waterborne diseases costs more than $2 billion annually in the United States (US) alone, with 90 million cases recorded per year10.
total coliform bacteria and Escherichia coli (E. coli) in drinking water, which indicates fecal contamination. Analytical methods used to detect E. coli and total coliforms are based on culturing the obtained samples on solid agar plates (e.g., the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1103.1 and EPA 1604 methods) or in liquid media (e.g., Colilert test), followed by visual recognition and counting by an expert, as described in the EPA guidelines11–13. While the use of liquid growth media for the detection of fecal coliform bacteria provides high sensitivity and specificity, it requires at least 18 h for the final read-out. The use of solid agar plates is a relatively more cost-effective method and provides flexibility for the volume of the sample to be analyzed, which can vary from 100 mL to several liters by using a membrane filtration technique to enhance sensitivity. However, this traditional culture-based detection method requires the colonies to grow to a certain macroscopic size for visibility, which often takes 24–48 h in the case of bacterial samples. Alternatively, molecular detection methods14,15 based on e.g., the amplification of nucleic acids can reduce the assay time to a few hours, but they generally lack the sensitivity for detecting bacteria at very low concentrations, e.g., 1 colony-forming unit (CFU) per 100-1000 mL, and are not capable of differentiating between live and dead microorganisms.16 Furthermore, there is no EPA-approved nucleic acid-based analytical method17 for detecting coliforms in water samples.
colony detection with high sensitivity (routinely achieving e.g., 1 CFU per 100-1000 mL in less than 12 h), to provide a powerful alternative to the currently available EPA-approved gold-standard analytical methods that (1) are slow, taking ~24–48 h, and (2) require experts to read and quantify samples. To address this important need, various other approaches have been investigated for the detection of total coliform bacteria and E. coli in water samples, including solid phase cytometry18, droplet based micro-optical lens arrays19, fluorimetry20, luminometry21, and fluorescence microscopy22. Despite the fact that these methods provide high sensitivity and some time savings, they cannot handle large sample sizes (e.g., ≥100 mL) or cannot perform automated classification of bacterial colonies.
microorganisms and colony growth, here we present a time-lapse coherent imaging platform that uses two different deep neural networks (DNNs) for its operation. The first DNN is used to detect bacterial growth as early as possible, and the second one is used to classify the type of growing bacteria, based on the spatio-temporal features obtained from the coherent images of an incubated agar-plate (see Fig. 1). In this live bacteria detection system, which is integrated with an incubator, lens-free holographic images of the agar-plate sample are captured by a monochromatic complementary metal–oxide– semiconductor (CMOS) image sensor that is mounted on a translational stage. The system rapidly scans the entire area of two separate agar plates (~ 56.52 cm2) every 30 min, and utilizes these time-resolved holographic images for accurate detection, classification, and counting of the growing colonies as early as possible (see Fig. 2a). This unique system enables high-throughput periodic monitoring of an incubated sample by scanning a 60-mm diameter agar-plate in 87 s with an image resolution of <4 μm; it continuously calculates differential images of the sample of interest for the early and accurate detection of bacterial growth. The spatio-temporal features of each non-static object on the plate are continuously analyzed using deep learning to yield the count of bacterial growth, and to automatically identify the type(s) of bacteria growing on different parts of the agar-plate.
bacteria, i.e., E. coli, Klebsiella aerogenes (K. aerogenes), and Klebsiella pneumoniae (K. pneumoniae), and achieved a
limit of detection (LOD) of ~1 CFU/L in ≤ 9 h of total test time. Moreover, we achieved detection time savings of more
than 12 h as compared to the gold-standard EPA methods23, which usually require at least 24 h to obtain a result. We also quantified the growth statistics of these three different species and provided a detailed growth analysis of each type of bacteria over time. Our detection and classification neural network models were built, trained and validated with ~16,000 individual colonies resulting from 71 independent experiments and were blindly tested with 965 individual colonies collected from 15 independent experiments that were never used in the training phase. In our blind testing, the trained models demonstrated 80% detection sensitivity within 6–9 h, 90% detection sensitivity within 7–10 h, and >95% detection sensitivity within 12 h, while maintaining ~99.2-100% precision at any time point after 7 h, also achieving correct identification of 80% of all three the species within 7.6–12 h. In terms of species-specific accuracy of our classification network, within 12 h of incubation we achieved ~97.2%, ~84.0%, and ~98.5% classification accuracy for E. coli, K. aerogenes, and K. pneumoniae, respectively. These results confirm the transformative potential of our platform, which not only enables highly sensitive, rapid and cost-effective detection of live bacteria (with a cost of $0.6 per test), but also provides a powerful and versatile tool for microbiology research.
We demonstrated our system by monitoring bacterial colony growth within 60-mm-diameter agar-plates, and quantitatively analyzed the capabilities of the platform for early detection of bacterial growth and classification of bacterial species. To demonstrate its proof-of-concept, we aimed to automatically detect, classify, and count E. coli and coliform bacteria in water samples using our deep learning-based platform. Throughout our training and blind testing experiments, we used water suspensions spiked with coliform bacteria, including E. coli, K. aerogenes, and K. pneumoniae, and chlorine stressed E. coli. A chromogenic agar medium designed for the specific detection and counting of E. coli and other coliform bacteria in food and water samples was used as a culture medium for specificity (see the Methods section for details). This chromogenic medium results in blue color for E. coli colonies and mauve color for the colonies of other coliform bacteria (e.g., K. aerogenes and K. pneumoniae). Additionally, it inhibits the growth of different bacteria (e.g., Bacillus subtilis), or yields colorless colonies in the presence of other bacteria in the sample24.
Following the sample preparation method illustrated in Fig. 2a, the sample is placed inside the lens-free imaging system with the agar surface facing the image sensor. After an initialization step, the platform automatically captures time-lapsed holographic images of two separate Petri dishes (covering a total sample area of 28.26 x 2 = 56.52 cm2) every 30 min over a duration of 24 h starting from the incubation time; these individual holograms are digitally stitched together and rapidly reconstructed to reveal the bacterial growth patterns on the agar surface (see the Methods section). The reconstructed images of the sample captured at different time points are computationally processed using a differential image analysis method to automatically detect and classify bacterial growth and colonies using two different trained DNNs (see Fig. 3), which will be detailed next.
Design and training of neural networks for bacterial growth detection and classification
We designed a two-step framework for bacterial growth detection and classification. The first step selects colony candidates with differential image analysis and refines the results with a detection DNN. We designed a pseudo-3D (P3D) DenseNet25 architecture to process our complex-valued (i.e., phase and amplitude) time-lapse image stacks (see the Methods section). In each time-lapse imaging experiment, we used 4 time-consecutive frames (4 × 0.5 = 2 h) as a running window for differential image analysis to extract individual regions-of-interest (ROIs) containing objects that changed their amplitude and/or phase signatures as a function of time. These initially-detected objects that were extracted by the differential analysis algorithm were either growing colonies or surface impurities, e.g., from spreading the sample on the agar surface, evaporation of air bubbles in the agar plate, or coherent light speckles. We then used a DNN-based detection model to eliminate non-bacterial objects, and only kept the growing colonies (i.e., the true positives), as illustrated in Fig. 2b. We used sensitivity (or true positive rate, TPR) and precision (or positive predictive value, PPV) measurements to quantify our results. Sensitivity is defined as:
where TP refers to the number of true positive predictions from our system, and P refers to the total number of colonies resulting from manual plate-counting after 24 h (i.e., the ground truth). Precision is defined as:
where FP refers to the number of false positive predictions from our system.
In total 13,712 growing colonies (E. coli, K. aerogenes, and K. pneumoniae) and 30,000 non-colony objects captured from 66 separate agar plates were used in the training phase. Another 2,597 colonies and 13,078 non-colony objects from 5 independent plates were used as validation dataset to finalize our network models, and achieved a TPR of ~95% and a PPV of ~95% once the network converged, which took ~ 4 h of training time. Examples of the training loss and detection accuracy curves are shown in Supplementary Fig. S1.
The second step further classifies the species of the detected colonies with a classification DNN model following a similar network architecture. To accommodate different growth rates of bacterial colonies, we use a longer time window in this classification neural network, containing 8 consecutive frames (8 × 0.5 = 4 h) for each sub-ROI. Since the bacterial growth detection network uses a shorter running time window of 2 h, there is a natural 2-hour time delay between the successful detection of a growing colony and the classification of its species. The network was trained with 7,919 growing colonies, which contained 3,362 E. coli, 1,880 K. aerogenes, and 2,677 K. pneumoniae colonies, and it was validated with 340 E. coli, 205 K. aerogenes, and 988 K. pneumoniae colonies from 6 independent plates, and reached a validation classification accuracy of ~89% for E. coli, ~95% for K. aerogenes, and ~98% for K. pneumoniae when the network model converged (Supplementary Fig. S2).
After these network models were finalized through the training and validation data, we tested their generalization capabilities with an additional set of experiments that were never seen by the networks before; the results of these blind tests are detailed next.
Blind testing results on early detection of bacterial growth
First, we blindly tested the performance of our system in early detection of bacterial colonies with 965 colonies from 15 plates that were not presented during the network training or validation stages. We compared the predicted number of growing colonies on the sample within the first 14 h of incubation against a ground truth colony count obtained from plate counting after 24 h of incubation time. Each of the 3 sensitivity curves (Figs. 4a–4c) were averaged across repeated experiments for the same species, e.g., 4 experiments for K. pneumoniae, 7 experiments for E. coli, and 4 experiments for K. aerogenes, so that each data point was calculated from ~300 colonies. The results demonstrated that our system was able to detect 80% of true positive colonies within ~6.0 h of incubation for K. pneumoniae, ~6.8 h of incubation for E. coli, and ~8.8 h of incubation for K. aerogenes, respectively. It further detected 90% of true positives after ~1 additional hour of incubation, and >95% of the true positive colonies of all of the 3 species within 12 h. The results also reveal that the early detection sensitivities in Figs. 4a–4c are dependent on the length of the lag phase of each tested bacteria species, which demonstrates inter-species variations. For example, K. pneumoniae started to grow earlier and faster than E. coli and K. aerogenes, whereas K. aerogenes did not reach to a detectable growth size until 5 h of incubation. Furthermore, when the tails of the sensitivity curves are examined, one can find out that some of the E. coli colonies showed late “wake-up” behavior, as highlighted by the purple arrow in Fig. 4b. Although most of the E. coli colonies were detected within ~10 h of incubation time, some of them did not emerge until ~11 h after the start of the incubation phase.
We also quantified the false positive rate of our platform with the PPV curve as shown in Fig. 4d, which was averaged across all the experiments covering all the species, i.e., 965 colonies from 15 agar-plates. The precision can be low at the beginning of the experiments (the first 4 h of incubation), because the number of detected true positive colonies is very small, especially for K. aerogenes. This means even a single false positive-detected colony can dramatically affect the precision calculation. Nevertheless, the precision quickly rises up to ~100% within 6 h of incubation and is maintained at 99.2-100% for all the tested species after 7 h of incubation.
We should emphasize here that the results presented in Fig. 4 represent the lower limits of the detection capabilities of our system since we calculated these sensitivities with regard to the number of true positive colonies after 24 h of incubation, whereas some of these colonies actually did not exist at the early stages due to delayed growth; stated differently in some cases, there were no colonies present at the early stages of the incubation period. We also note that the rising sensitivity curves in our results stand for the emergence of new bacterial colonies, in addition to the growth of colonies. Even though the sensitivity curves converge to flat lines after 12 h, the colonies keep growing exponentially until much later. Therefore, our system detects emerging colonies at an early stage, when they first appear, forming micro-scale features invisible to the naked eye.
These observations also indicate that our system can be very effective and used for high-throughput quantitative studies to better understand microorganism behavior under different conditions, such as the evaluation of the differences in growth rates between stressed bacteria (e.g., under nutrient deprivation or chlorine treatment) and normal bacteria.26–30 There are several reasons to detect and enumerate chlorine stressed or injured coliform bacteria. First of all, the detection of injured E.coli or total coliform bacteria is directly related to the sensitivity of the detection platform.30 For an effective and sensitive detection platform, the false negative results should be avoided for public health safety. Another important reason is that the detection of injured E.coli or low numbers of E.coli in water samples is correlated to Salmonella outbreaks, a foodborne pathogen causing 1.2 million illnesses and ~500 deaths per year in the US31, which forms an indirect indicator of contamination in irrigation water.32 To evaluate the capabilities of our system to detect injured bacteria, we prepared and imaged 3 agar plates containing chlorine-stressed E.coli (see the Methods section), and characterized their growth using our detection workflow as summarized in Fig. 4e. Our results indicate that we can detect colony formation for chlorine-stressed E. coli on average with a ~2 h delay compared to the regular E. coli strain.
Blind testing results on classification of growing bacteria
In addition to providing significant detection time savings while also achieving a very good sensitivity and precision for early detection of bacterial growth, our method also provides automated classification of the corresponding species of the detected bacteria using a trained neural network. Therefore, an additional advantage of our system is its capability to further classify total coliform sub-species, which is not possible with traditional agar-plate counting methods. For example, both K. pneumoniae and K. aerogenes colonies appear mauve in our agar-plates. However, since our classification neural network does not only rely on the byproducts of the colorimetric reactions, it can successfully distinguish between different species based on their unique spatiotemporal growth signatures acquired by our platform at the micro-scale.
Fig. 5 shows our blind testing results on species classification using the same experiments reported in the blinded early-detection tests, containing 965 colonies of 3 different species from 15 agar-plates. In these results, if a colony had not been detected in the previous step (i.e., a false negative event compared to the 24 h reading), it was naturally not sent to the classification neural network. We defined the recovery rate as the number of colonies correctly classified into their corresponding species using our system, divided by the total number of colonies counted after 24 h. As the classification of each individual colony is an independent event, we calculated the recovery rate for each bacteria species (reported in Figs. 5a–5c) using all of the colonies detected in the previous step, i.e., 336, 280, and 339 colonies of E. coli, K. aerogenes, and K. pneumoniae, respectively. The shaded area in each curve represents the highest and lowest recovery rates found in all the corresponding experiments at each time point. The classification neural network correctly classified ~80% of all of the colonies within ~7.6 h, ~8 h, and ~12 h for K. pneumoniae, E. coli, and K. aerogenes, respectively. We once again emphasize that the results presented in Fig. 5(a-c) represent the lower limits of the classification capabilities of our system since the ground truth is acquired after 24 h of incubation. In reality, at various earlier time points within the incubation period, there was no growth for certain regions of the plates, which exhibited significantly delayed growth. To further demonstrate the classification performance of our trained neural network in a manner that is decoupled from the sensitivity of the previous detection network, we report the classification confusion matrix in Fig. 5d for all the colonies that were sent to the classification network for blind testing at 12 h after the start of the incubation. The trained network achieved classification accuracies of ~97.2%, ~84.0%, and ~98.5% for E. coli, K. aerogenes, and K. pneumoniae, respectively.
Limit of detection as a function of the total test time
We further quantified the detection limit of our system and compared its performance against both Colilert® 18, which is an EPA approved method, and traditional plate counting (Supplementary Table S1 and Supplementary Figure S3). To make up for the CFU loss during the sample transfer from the water suspension to the filter membrane, we introduced a signal amplification step by pre-incubating the water sample under test, mixing it with a growth medium for 5 h at 35 oC before the filtration step (see the Methods section for details). For each measurement, 2 agar plates were prepared and monitored at the same time for comparison, one of which was for the sample amplified with 5-h pre-incubation step before the filtering, while the other one was for the sample directly filtered and transferred to the agar plate (see Supplementary Figure S3). Both plates were incubated for the same amount of time at each imaging time point to provide a fair comparison between the two. The measurements were repeated using different concentrations of E. coli suspensions; these concentrations were compared to the average of three replicates of the same samples prepared using the Colilert®-18 method (Supplementary Figure S3). As shown in Fig. 6a, our system is able to surpass the sensitivity of Colilert®-18 within ~8 h in total (including the time for signal amplification, sample concentration, and time-lapse imaging, altogether) and reach >2 times the sensitivity of Colilert®-18 in ~9 h. We also quantified the LOD of our system by preparing and imaging 3 agar plates without bacteria, which show on average <1 CFU count from our setup throughout the test period from 5 h to 14.5 h (Fig. 6c), revealing a detection limit of µ + 3 = ~2 CFU per test, where µ and refer to the mean and standard deviation of the detected CFU count, respectively. Due to the effective signal amplification enabled by the pre-incubation step, even with the lowest bacterial concentration of ~1 CFU/L, our system was able to detect 2 CFU at 8.5 h, and 12 CFU at 9 h; in comparison, for the same contaminated water sample Colilert® 18 achieved 1.4±1.6 CFU/L after 18 hours of incubation. Furthermore, for all the concentrations we have experimented with (~1-160 CFU/L), our system successfully detected more than 2 CFU per test in ≤ 9 h of test time, including all the necessary steps i.e., the time for signal amplification, sample concentration, and time-lapse imaging; these results reveal that our system with a pre-incubation step achieves a detection limit of ~1 CFU/L within ≤ 9 h of total test time.
We also observe in Fig. 6b that without the signal amplification enabled by pre-incubation, the detection performance is negatively affected due to the low transfer rate of bacteria from the container to the agar plate (also see Supplementary Figure S4). In general, the sensitivity and LOD of our method might be further improved by increasing the pre-incubation time of the water-broth mixture, at the cost of an increase in the total time to achieve automated detection and classification.
We demonstrated a new platform for early detection and classification of bacterial colonies, which is fully compatible with the existing EPA-approved methods and can be integrated with them to considerably improve the analysis of agar plates33. The presented approach can automatically detect bacterial growth as early as in 3 h and can detect 90% of bacterial colonies within 7–10 h (and >95% within 12 h), with a precision of 99.2-100%. The system also correctly classifies ~80% of all of the tested bacterial colonies within 7.6, 8.8, and 12 h, for K. pneumoniae, E. coli, and K. aerogenes, respectively. These results present a total time saving of more than 12 h as compared to the gold-standard methods (e.g., Colilert test and Standard Method 9222 B), which require 18-24 h. In addition to automated detection of live bacteria and species classification, the rich spatio-temporal information embedded in the holographic images can be used for more advanced analysis of water samples and microbiology research in general.
Another advantage of this system is its high-throughput imaging capability of agar plates. Our prototype performs a 242-tile-scan within 87 s per agar plate, corresponding to a raw image scanning throughput of ~49 cm2/min. To leave sufficient data redundancy for image post-processing, we set a relatively large overlap of 30% on each side of the acquired holographic image, which reduces the effective imaging throughput of our platform to ~24 cm2/min. As our system is based on lens-free holographic microscopy, it does not require mechanical axial focusing at each position, and instead auto-focuses onto the object plane computationally. We characterized the spatial resolution of our system by imaging a resolution test target, as shown in Supplementary Fig. S5, achieving a linewidth resolution of ~3.5 µm, roughly equivalent to the performance a 4× objective lens with a numerical aperture (NA) of ~0.1. Compared to our system, which takes 87 s to scan an agar plate, a traditional lens-based bright-field microscope using a 4× objective lens would approximately take ~128 min to scan a plate with the same diameter (60 mm), owing to the requirement for mechanical axial focusing (see Supplementary Table S2).
Another important advantage of our system is the minimum requirement for optical alignment; the presented platform is tolerant towards structural changes, such as variations in the sample-to-sensor distance or the illumination angle. Our computational refocusing capability also enables screening of thick samples, e.g., melted agar-plates.34 An example of a 3D sample is illustrated in Supplementary Fig. S6, where E. coli colonies are formed at different depths inside the solid culture medium having a thickness of ~5 mm. For example, the colony marked with “A” grew at ~2170 m measured from the surface of the agar, whereas the colony marked with “B” was on the agar surface. Our system localizes colonies growing at different depths within a 3D culture medium using a single hologram measurement at each scanning position. However, it is a non-trivial task to image a 3D sample using a conventional lens-based microscope, because of the time required for mechanical focusing, and the refractive index mismatch between the culture medium and the air, which degrades the image resolution as a result of aberrations. Therefore, the corresponding brightfield microscopy images of the whole plates could only be acquired after 24 h of incubation.
Our platform also employs a modular design which is scalable to a larger sample size and a smaller tile-scan time interval. The monitoring field of view (FOV) of this platform is fundamentally limited by the image acquisition time and the stage moving speed. With further optimization of the hardware and control algorithms, an imaging throughput of >50 cm2/min can be reached. Alternatively, several image sensors can be installed and connected to a single computer for high-throughput parallel imaging.35 In our proof-of-concept implementation, our image processing for each time interval takes ~20 min, and fits well into our 30 min measurement period between each scan. In case a shorter time interval is desired, an image processing procedure implemented using MATLAB and Python/PyTorch programming environments can be further sped up by programming in C/C++. With the help of graphic processing units (GPUs), one can expect >10-fold time savings in
This unique platform is integrated with an incubator to keep the agar plates at a desired temperature. The incubator is a thermal glass plate which contains uniform lines of optically clear indium tin oxide (ITO) electrode for heating the sample placed on top. It is controlled with a controller, which is lightweight. Throughout the experiments, we set the temperature at the agar surface where bacteria grew at ~38 °C, so that all of the tested bacteria species could grow and develop colonies. This temperature was not optimized to promote the growth of a specific species. Therefore, adjustment of the incubation environment, its temperature and humidity can potentially be used to further accelerate colony growth and help us achieve earlier detection and identification of specific bacterial colonies. Another important parameter for growth of microorganisms is humidity. Our system can also be integrated with a controlled humidity chamber for better control and analysis of growth
dynamics of various microorganisms.37
In summary, we presented a deep learning-based live bacteria monitoring system for early detection of growing colonies and classification of colony species using deep learning. We demonstrated a proof-of-concept device using 3 types of bacteria, i.e., E. coli, K. aerogenes, and K. pneumoniae, and achieved >12 h time savings for both the early detection and the classification of growing species as compared to the gold standard EPA-approved methods. Achieving an LOD of ~1 CFU/L in ≤9 hours, we believe that this versatile system will not only benefit water and food quality monitoring, but also provide a powerful tool for microbiology research.
a. Sample preparation
Safety practices: We handled all the bacterial cultures and performed all the experiments at our Biosafety Level 2 laboratory, in accordance with the environmental, health, and safety rules of the University of California, Los Angeles.
Studied organisms: We used E. coli (Migula) Castellani and Chalmers (ATCC® 25922™) (risk level 1), K. aerogenes Tindall et al. (ATCC® 49701™) (risk level 1), and K. pneumoniae subsp. pneumoniae (Schroeter) Trevisan (ATCC®13883™) (risk level 2) as our culture organisms.
Preparation of poured agar plates: We used CHROMagar™ ECC (product no. EF322, DRG International, Inc., Springfield, NJ, USA) chromogenic substrate mixture as the solid growth medium for the detection of E. coli and total coliform colonies. 8.2 g of CHROMagar™ ECC was mixed with 250 mL of reagent grade water (product no. 23-249-581, Fisher Scientific, Hampton, NH, USA), using a magnetic stirrer bar. The mixture was then heated to 100 °C on a hot plate while being stirred regularly. After cooling the mixture to ~50 °C, 10 mL of the mixture was dispensed into Petri dishes (60 mm × 15 mm) (product no. FB0875713A, Fisher Scientific, Hampton, NH, USA). The agar plates were allowed to solidify, sealed using a parafilm (product no. 13-374-16, Fisher Scientific, Hampton, NH, USA), and covered with aluminum foil to keep them in dark before use. They were stored at 4 °C and were used within two weeks of preparation.
Preparation of melted agar plates: 3.28 g of CHROMagar™ ECC was mixed with 100 mL of reagent grade water using a magnetic stirrer bar, and the mixture was heated to 100 °C. After the mixture cooled to ~40 °C, 1 mL of bacterial suspension was mixed with the agar and dispensed into the Petri dishes. The plates were either incubated in a benchtop incubator (product no. 51030400, ThermoFisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) or in our imaging platform (for monitoring the bacterial growth digitally).
We used tryptic soy agar to culture E. coli at 37 °C and K. aerogenes at 35 °C, and nutrient agar to culture K. pneumoniae at 37 °C. 20 g of tryptic soy agar (product no. DF0369-17-6, Fisher Scientific, Hampton, NH, USA) or 11.5 g of nutrient agar (product no. DF0001-17-0, Fisher Scientific, Hampton, NH, USA) were suspended in 500 mL of reagent grade water using a magnetic stirrer bar. The mixture was boiled on a hot plate, and then autoclaved at 121 °C for 15 min. After the mixture cooled to ~50 °C, 15 mL of the mixture was dispensed into the Petri dishes (100 mm × 15 mm) (product no. FB0875713, Fisher Scientific, Hampton, NH, USA), which were then sealed with parafilm and covered with aluminum foil to keep them in dark before use. They were stored at 4 °C until use.
Preparation of chlorine stressed E. coli samples: We used E. coli grown on tryptic soy agar plates and incubated for 48 h at 37oC. 50 mL disposable centrifuge tubes were used as a sample container and the sample size was 50 mL. 500 mL reagent grade water was filtered for sterilization using a disposable vacuum filtration unit (product no. FB12566504, Fisher Scientific, Hampton, NH, USA). A fresh chlorine suspension was prepared in a 50 mL disposable centrifuge tube to have a final concentration of 0.2 mg/mL using sodium hypochlorite (product no. 425044, Sigma Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA), mixed vigorously, and covered with aluminum foil.38 10% [w/v] sodium thiosulfate (product no. 217263, Sigma Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) in reagent grade water was prepared and 1 mL of the solution was filtered using a sterile disposable syringe and a syringe filter membrane (product no. SLGV004SL, Fisher Scientific, Hampton, NH, USA) for sterilization. Water suspensions were prepared by spiking E. coli into filtered water samples. 50 L of chlorine suspension (i.e. 0.2 ppm) was added to the test water sample and a timer counted the chlorine exposure time. The reaction was stopped at 10 minutes of chlorine exposure by adding 50 L sodium thiosulfate into the test water sample and mixed vigorously immediately to stop the chlorination reaction. CHROMagar™ ECC plates were inoculated with 200 L of chlorine stressed suspension, dried in the biosafety cabinet for at most 30 min and then placed on the setup for lens-free imaging. In addition, three TSA plates and one ECC ChromoSelect Selective Agar plate (product no. 85927, Sigma Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) were inoculated with 1 mL of the control sample (not exposed to chlorine) and 0.2 ppm chlorine stressed E. coli water sample and dried under biosafety cabinet for about 1-2 h with gentle mixing of Petri dishes with some time intervals. After drying, the plates were sealed with parafilm and incubated at 37oC for 24 h. After the incubation, the bacterial colonies grown on the agar plates were counted and E. coli concentrations of control samples and the chlorine stressed E. coli samples were compared. If the achieved reduction in colony count was between 2.0-4.0 log, then the images of CHROMagar™ ECC plates captured using the lens-free imaging platform were used for further analysis.
Preparation of culture plates for lens-free imaging: A bacterial suspension in a phosphate buffer solution (PBS) (product no. 20-012-027, Fisher Scientific, Hampton, NH, USA) was prepared every day from a solid agar plate incubated for 24 h. The concentration of the suspension was measured using a spectrophotometer (model no. ND-ONE-W, Thermo Fisher), and the suspension was then diluted in the PBS to have a final concentration of 1–200 CFU per 0.1 mL. 100 µL of the diluted suspension was spread on an CHROMagar™ ECC plate using an L-shaped spreader (product no. 14-665-230, Fisher Scientific, Hampton, NH, USA). The plate was covered with its lid, inverted, and incubated at 37 °C in our optical platform (Fig. 2).
Preparation of concentrated broth: 180 g of tryptic soy broth (product no. R455054, Fisher Scientific, Hampton, NH, USA) was added into 1 L reagent grade water and heated to 100 oC by continuously mixing using a stirrer bar. The suspension was then cooled to 50 oC and filter sterilized using a disposable filtration unit. The broth concentrate was stored at 4 oC and used in one week after preparation.
Preparation of samples for comparison measurements: We evaluated the performance of our method in comparison to Colilert® 18, which is an EPA-approved enzyme based analytical method for several types of regulated water samples (e.g., drinking water, surface water, ground water) to detect and plate counting using TSA plates and ECC ChromoSelect Selective Agar plates (Supplementary Figure S3). Two bottles of 1 L of reagent grade water were filtered using the disposable vacuum filtration units and 0.2 L of the concentrated broth was added into one of the 1 L sample bottles. The bottles covered with aluminum foil and stored in the biosafety cabinet overnight. A glass vacuum filtration unit was used for filtration of 1 L water samples. The components of the unit were covered with aluminum foil and sterilized using the autoclave. The disposable nitrocellulose filter membranes (product no. HAWG04705, EMD Millipore, Danvers, MA, USA) used in the glass filtration unit were also sterilized using the autoclave. A bacteria suspension was prepared by spiking bacteria into 50 mL reagent grade water using a disposable inoculation loop from a TSA plate containing E. coli colonies. The suspension was mixed gently to have uniform distribution of bacteria. Three TSA plates, 3 ECC ChromoSelect Selective Agar plates, 4 CHROMagar™ ECC plates were removed from refrigerator and kept at room temperature for 30 min.
Three bottles of 120 mL disposable vessels with sodium thiosulfate (product no. WV120SBST-200, IDEXX Laboratories Inc., Westbrook, ME, USA) were filled with 100 mL filter sterilized reagent grade water. 0.1 mL of bacterial suspension was spiked into 1 L water sample, 1.2 L water sample (1 L water + 0.2 L concentrated broth), 3 bottles of 100 mL water samples, 3 TSA plates and 3 ECC ChromoSelect Selective Agar plates, sequentially. The timer was started immediately after adding the spike into the suspensions.
First, the suspensions on TSA plates and ECC ChromoSelect Selective Agar were spread using L-shaped disposable spreaders. Then, the water sample with broth was mixed for about a minute and then stored in 35 oC for 5 h. One Colilert® 18 reagent (product no. 98-27164-00, IDEXX Laboratories Inc., Westbrook, ME, USA) was added into each 100 mL bacterial suspension and the mixture was shaken. The content of bottle was poured into a Quanti-Tray 2000 bag (product no. 98-21675-00, IDEXX Laboratories Inc., Westbrook, ME, USA) and after removing bubbles in each well, the bag was sealed using Quanti-Tray Sealer (product no. 98-09462-01, IDEXX Laboratories Inc., Westbrook, ME, USA). Three bags sealed and labelled with the experiment details were incubated at 35 oC for 18 h. Next, 30 mL filtered reagent grade water was used to moisturize the membrane in the glass filtration unit and then E. coli contaminated 1 L water sample was filtered at a pressure of 50 kPa. The bottle was rinsed using 150 mL of sterilized reagent grade water and the solution was filtered on the unit (Supplementary Figure S7). The funnel was rinsed using 50 mL of sterilized reagent grade water twice. After the filtration was complete, the membrane was removed and placed onto a CHROMagar™ ECC plate face down. Gentle pressure was applied on the membrane using a tweezer to remove any air bubbles between the agar and the membrane. Then, a 30 g of weight was put on the membrane to provide continuous pressure during the transfer of bacteria from the membrane to the agar plate (Supplementary Figure S8). After 5 min of incubation, the membrane was peeled off from the agar surface gently and put into another agar facing up. The agar containing the membrane was incubated at the benchtop incubator at 35 oC and the agar containing the transferred bacteria was incubated at the lens-free imaging platform for time-lapse imaging. After 5 h of incubation, the bottle containing 1.2 L suspension was filtered using the same procedure as described before for filtration of 1 L sample. The agar plate containing the transferred bacteria was incubated at the second sample tray of the lens-free imaging setup for time-lapse imaging while the agar containing the membrane was incubated at the benchtop incubator.
b. Design of the high-throughput time-resolved microorganism monitoring platform
Our platform consists of five modules: (1) a holographic imaging system, (2) a mechanical translational system, (3) an incubation unit, (4) a control circuit, and (5) a controlling program. Each module is explained in detail below.
c. Data acquisition
We prepared inoculated agar plates of pure bacterial colonies (see the Sample Preparation subsection under the Methods for details), and captured images of an entire agar plate at 30-minute intervals. The illumination light was set to a wavelength of 532 nm and an intensity of ~400 μW. To maximize the image acquisition speed, the captured images were first saved into a computer memory buffer and then written to hard disk by another independent thread. At the end of each experiment (i.e., after 24 h of incubation), the sample plate was imaged using a benchtop scanning microscope (Olympus IX83) in reflection mode, and the resulting images were automatically stitched to a full-FOV image, used for comparison. Subsequently, the plate was disposed of as solid biohazardous waste. We populated data (i.e., time-lapse lens-free images) corresponding to ~6,969 E. coli, ~2,613 K. aerogenes, and ~6,727 K. pneumoniae individual bacterial colonies to train and validate our models. Another 965 colonies of 3 different species from 15 independent agar-plates were used to blindly test our machine learning models.
d. Image processing and analysis
The acquired lens-free images are processed using custom-developed image processing and deep learning algorithms. There are five major image processing steps for the early detection and automated classification and counting of colonies. These steps are described in detail below.
i. Image stitching to obtain the image of the entire plate area: Following the acquisition of holographic images using the
All the frames are normalized so that the mean value is 50, and they are saved as unsigned 8-bit integer (0-255) arrays. ii. Colony candidate selection by differential analysis: When a new frame is acquired at time t, it is cross-registered to the
iii. DNN-enabled detection of growing bacterial colonies: Following the colony candidate selection process outlined
Fig. S9. Our network was implemented in Python (v3.7.2) with the PyTorch Library (v1.0.1). The network was
iv. DNN-enabled classification of bacterial colony species: Once the true bacterial colonies are selected, they grow for
e. Colony counting: The respective ground truth information on the growing colonies in each experiment was created after
f. Calculation of imaging throughput
In Supplementary Table S2, we compared the imaging throughput of our system and a conventional lens-based scanning microscope in terms of the space-bandwidth product (SBP)46 using the following formula:
where is the effective pixel-count of a frame, is the half-pitch resolution, r is the digital sampling factor along the x and y directions, and represents the independent spatial information contained in the phase and amplitude images of the holographic reconstruction, while represents the amplitude-only information contained in an image captured using the standard lens-based bright-field scanning microscope. In the lens-based microscope, we used a color camera with a pixel size of 7.4 µm. Therefore, for a 4× objective lens the image resolution is limited to ~3.7 µm, owing to the Nyquist
sampling limit. Without loss of generality, we set .47
Acknowledgments: The authors acknowledge the funding of ARO (Contract # W911NF-17-1-0161), Koc Group and
HHMI. The authors would also like to acknowledge IDEXX Laboratories Inc. for loaning the Quanti-Tray Sealer and Drs.
Janine R. Hutchison and Richard M. Ozanich from Pacific Northwest National Laboratory for sharing their assistance on
the chlorination of bacteria samples.
1. Sandgren, A. et al. Tuberculosis drug resistance mutation database. PLoS medicine 6, e1000002 (2009). 2. Arain, T. M., Resconi, A. E., Hickey, M. J. & Stover, C. K. Bioluminescence screening in vitro (Bio-Siv)
assays for high-volume antimycobacterial drug discovery. Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy 40, 1536–1541 (1996).
3. Jacobs, W. R. et al. Rapid assessment of drug susceptibilities of Mycobacterium tuberculosis by means of
4. Goodacre, R. et al. Rapid identification of urinary tract infection bacteria using hyperspectral whole-
5. Lagier, J.-C. et al. Culturing the human microbiota and culturomics. Nature Reviews Microbiology 1
6. Fierer, N. et al. Forensic identification using skin bacterial communities. Proceedings of the National
7. Koydemir, H. C. et al. Rapid imaging, detection and quantification of Giardia lamblia cysts using mobile-
8. Oliver, S. P., Jayarao, B. M. & Almeida, R. A. Foodborne pathogens in milk and the dairy farm
environment: food safety and public health implications. Foodbourne Pathogens & Disease 2, 115–129 (2005).
9. World Water Day.
10. DeFlorio-Barker, S., Wing, C., Jones, R. M. & Dorevitch, S. Estimate of incidence and cost of recreational
11. Method 1604: total coliforms and Escherichia coli in water by membrane filtration using a simultaneous
detection technique (MI Medium). (United States, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 2002).
12. Current Waterborne Disease Burden Data & Gaps | Healthy Water | CDC.
13. US EPA. Analytical Methods Approved for Compliance Monitoring under the Long Term 2 Enhanced
14. Deshmukh, R. A., Joshi, K., Bhand, S. & Roy, U. Recent developments in detection and enumeration of
15. Amann, R. & Fuchs, B. M. Single-cell identification in microbial communities by improved fluorescence in
16. Kang, D.-K. et al. Rapid detection of single bacteria in unprocessed blood using Integrated Comprehensive
17. Title 40: Protection of Environment. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations vol. 136.3. 18. Van Poucke, S. O. & Nelis, H. J. A 210‐min solid phase cytometry test for the enumeration of Escherichia
19. Kim, M. et al. Optofluidic ultrahigh-throughput detection of fluorescent drops. Lab on a Chip 15, 1417–
20. Tryland, I., Braathen, H., Wennberg, A., Eregno, F. & Beschorner, A.-L. Monitoring of β-D-Galactosidase
activity as a surrogate parameter for rapid detection of sewage contamination in urban recreational water. Water 8, 65 (2016).
21. Van Poucke, S. O. & Nelis, H. J. Limitations of highly sensitive enzymatic presence-absence tests for
22. London, R. et al. An Automated System for Rapid Non-Destructive Enumeration of Growing Microbes.
23. EPA Microbiological Alternate Test Procedure (ATP) Protocol for Drinking Water, Ambient Water,
Wastewater, and Sewage Sludge Monitoring Methods. (United States, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 2010).
24. CHROMagarTM ECC Product Leaflet.
25. Huang, G., Liu, Z., van der Maaten, L. & Weinberger, K. Q. Densely Connected Convolutional Networks.
26. Shapiro, J. A. The significances of bacterial colony patterns. BioEssays 17, 597–607 (1995). 27. Su, P.-T. et al. Bacterial Colony from Two-Dimensional Division to Three-Dimensional Development.
28. Farrell Fred D., Gralka Matti, Hallatschek Oskar & Waclaw Bartlomiej. Mechanical interactions in bacterial
colonies and the surfing probability of beneficial mutations. Journal of The Royal Society Interface 14, 20170073 (2017).
29. Sheats Julian, Sclavi Bianca, Cosentino Lagomarsino Marco, Cicuta Pietro & Dorfman Kevin D. Role of
growth rate on the orientational alignment of Escherichia coli in a slit. Royal Society Open Science 4, 170463.
30. LeChevallier, M. W. & McFeters, G. A. Enumerating Injured Coliforms in Drinking Water. Journal
31. CDC-Salmonella-Factsheet. https://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/pdf/CDC-Salmonella-Factsheet.pdf. 32. Liu, H., Whitehouse, C. A. & Li, B. Presence and Persistence of Salmonella in Water: The Impact on
33. Alternate Test Procedures in Clean Water Act Analytical Methods. https://www.epa.gov/cwa-
34. Sanders, E. R. Aseptic Laboratory Techniques: Plating Methods. J Vis Exp (2012) doi:10.3791/3064. 35. Zhang, Y. et al. Motility-based label-free detection of parasites in bodily fluids using holographic speckle
36. Isikman, S. O. et al. Lens-free optical tomographic microscope with a large imaging volume on a chip.
37. Cobo, M. P. et al. Visualizing bacterial colony morphologies using time-lapse imaging chamber MOCHA.
38. Hutchison, J. R. et al. Consistent production of chlorine-stressed bacteria from non-chlorinated secondary
sewage effluents for use in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Alternate Test Procedure protocol. Journal of Microbiological Methods 163, 105651 (2019).
39. Colilert 18 - IDEXX US. https://www.idexx.com/en/water/water-products-services/colilert-18/. 40. Preibisch, S., Saalfeld, S. & Tomancak, P. Globally optimal stitching of tiled 3D microscopic image
41. Goodman, J. W. Introduction to Fourier Optics. (Roberts and Company Publishers, 2005). 42. Greenbaum, A. et al. Wide-field computational imaging of pathology slides using lens-free on-chip
43. Zhang, Y., Wang, H., Wu, Y., Tamamitsu, M. & Ozcan, A. Edge sparsity criterion for robust holographic
44. Qiu, Z., Yao, T. & Mei, T. Learning Spatio-Temporal Representation with Pseudo-3D Residual Networks.
45. Kingma, D. P. & Ba, J. Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization. arXiv:1412.6980 [cs] (2014). 46. Wang, H. et al. Computational out-of-focus imaging increases the space–bandwidth product in lens-based
47. Greenbaum, A. et al. Increased space-bandwidth product in pixel super-resolved lensfree on-chip
Figure 1. High-throughput bacterial colony growth detection and classification system. (a) Schematic of the device. (b) Photograph of the lens-free imaging system. (c) Detailed illustration of various components of the system.
Figure 2. Schematics demonstrating the workflow of the microorganism monitoring system. (a) Bacterial sample preparation workflow. (b) Steps of the image and data processing algorithms for automated detection of growing colonies and classification of their species. The scale bars for the holographic images of the growing colonies (E. coli and K. aerogenes) and a static particle (dust) are 100 µm.
Figure 3. Images captured using the microorganism monitoring system. (a) Whole agar-plate image of mixed E. coli and K. aerogenes colonies, after 23.5 h of incubation. (b) Example images (i.e., amplitude and phase) of the individual growing colonies detected by a trained deep neural network. The time points of detection and classification of growing colonies are annotated with blue arrows. The scale bar is 100 µm.
Figure 4. Sensitivity of growing colony detection using our trained neural network for (a) K. pneumoniae, (b) E. coli, and K. aerogenes. (d) Precision of growing colony detection using our trained neural network for all three species. Pink arrow indicates the time for late “wake-up” behavior for some of the E. coli colonies. (e) Characterizing the growth speed of chlorine-stressed E. coli using our system. There is a ~2 h delay of colony formation for chlorine-stressed E. coli (the orange curve) compared to the unstressed E. coli strain (the blue curve).
Figure 5. Classification performance of our trained neural network for (a) K. pneumoniae, (b) E. coli, and (c) K. aerogenes colonies. The green shaded area in each curve represents the highest and lowest recovery rates found in all the corresponding experiments at each time point. (d) The blind testing confusion matrix of classifying all the colonies that were sent to our trained neural network after 12 h our incubation. A diagonal entry of 1.0 means 100% classification accuracy for that species. The number of colonies that were tested by the classification network in (d): 325 (E. coli), 334 (K. pneumoniae), and 256 (K. aerogenes).
Figure 6. Quantification of the LOD of our system. (a) The CFU count from our system is plotted against the CFU/L
counts of the spiked samples, calculated independently using the Colilert®18 method after 18 hours of incubation. CFU
counts acquired with our platform at different time points are colored from blue to yellow, which corresponds to 5 to 14.5
hours of total test time, including the signal amplification step that involves liquid culture media (5 h). (b) Without signal
amplification, the LOD is decreased due the low transfer rate from filter membrane to the agar surface (see Supplementary
Figures S3 and S4). (c) As a control experiment, we prepared and imaged 3 agar plates which show <1 CFU count from
our setup throughout the test period from 5 h to 14.5 h. (d)The LOD of our system is ~11 CFU/L at 8.5 h and ~1 CFU/L at ≤9 h.