Organizations: Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China · Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenzhen, China · Department of Pathology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangzhou, China · Department of Electronic Engineering, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR 999077, China · Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong SAR, China
Immunohistochemical (IHC) staining enables precise molecular profiling of protein expression, with over 200 clinically available antibody-based tests in modern pathology. However, comprehensive IHC analysis is frequently limited by insufficient tissue quantities in small biopsies. Therefore, virtual multiplex staining emerges as an innovative solution to digitally transform H&E images into multiple IHC representations, yet current methods still face three critical challenges: (1) inadequate semantic guidance for multi-staining, (2) inconsistent distribution of immunochemistry staining, and (3) spatial misalignment across different stain modalities. To overcome these limitations, we present a prompt-guided framework for virtual multiplex IHC staining using only uniplex training data (PGVMS). Our framework introduces three key innovations corresponding to each challenge: First, an adaptive prompt guidance mechanism employing a pathological visual language model dynamically adjusts staining prompts to resolve semantic guidance limitations (Challenge 1). Second, our protein-aware learning strategy (PALS) maintains precise protein expression patterns by direct quantification and constraint of protein distributions (Challenge 2). Third, the prototype-consistent learning strategy (PCLS) establishes cross-image semantic interaction to correct spatial misalignments (Challenge 3).
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: The comparison of traditional IHC staining and virtual staining workflows. From (a) to (c), they are conventional IHC staining, biomarker-specific virtual staining and our PGVMS.
Fig. 2: Three challenges of virtual multi-staining. (a) Inadequate semantic guidance for multi-staining. (b) Inconsistent distribution of immunochemistry staining. (c) Spatial misalignment of pathological semantics.
Fig. 3: The framework of PGVMS. (a) Overall architecture of PGVMS, including the pathological semantics–style guided (PSSG) generator and schematic overviews of the protein-aware learning strategy (PALS) and the prototype-consistent learning strategy (PCLS). (b) and (c) show detailed illustrations of PALS and PCLS in the bottom row, highlighting their key components and operations.
Type
Method
HER2
ER
Quality (reference)
Pathology
Perception
Quality (reference)
Pathology
Perception
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
IOD ×107
Pearson-R ↑
FID ↓
DISTS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
IOD ×107
Pearson-R ↑
FID ↓
DISTS ↓
One-to-one
CycleGAN [ 6 ]
12.2042
0.1588
+4.5848
0.1995
63.8952
0.2864
13.2516
0.2187
-1.6250
0.2916
54.1309
0.2730
Pix2Pix [ 4 ]
12.9840
0.1676
-2.5782
0.2986
84.3667
0.2699
14.7293
0.2200
-5.8452
0.6307
90.6261
0.3050
CUT [ 5 ]
13.8998
0.1680
-2.9478
0.7164
53.2911
0.2641
14.2172
0.2201
-4.5073
0.5841
45.8074
0.2630
ASP [ 10 ]
14.1841
0.2004
-5.7422
0.0659
50.8364
0.2517
14.2088
0.2178
-4.5875
0.4802
54.7745
0.2705
TABLE I: COMPARISON OF VIRTUAL STAINING PERFORMANCE ON MIST DATASET. THE BEST SCORES ARE IN BOLD. MODELS ARE GROUPED INTO ONE-TO-ONE AND ONE-TO-MANY CATEGORIES.
Type
Method
HER2
ER
Quality (reference)
Pathology
Perception
Quality (reference)
Pathology
Perception
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
IOD ×108
Pearson-R ↑
FID ↓
DISTS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
IOD ×107
Pearson-R ↑
FID ↓
DISTS ↓
One-to-one
CycleGAN [ 6 ]
10.1229
0.0930
+1.9836
0.3071
143.8269
0.3385
17.3148
0.4406
+0.8744
0.3878
50.9366
0.2545
Pix2Pix [ 4 ]
11.3910
0.1228
-0.9739
0.6214
117.3533
0.3027
20.7537
0.4931
-1.0956
0.2171
129.9073
0.3050
CUT [ 5 ]
10.9131
0.1227
-1.2030
-0.0613
63.3108
0.2657
19.4466
0.4745
-1.0011
0.0705
41.8358
0.2618
ASP [ 10 ]
11.2034
0.1245
-1.1742
-0.0988
63.9972
0.2658
19.5277
0.4834
-0.6886
0.1810
37.9753
0.2644
TABLE II: COMPARISON OF VIRTUAL STAINING PERFORMANCE ON IHC4BC DATASET. THE BEST SCORES ARE IN BOLD. MODELS ARE GROUPED INTO ONE-TO-ONE AND ONE-TO-MANY CATEGORIES.
Fig. 4: Virtual IHC-stained image results of different methods on the MIST dataset. The first column is the H&E-stained images. Columns 2 to 14 are the images virtually stained by different methods. The last column is the ground truth. The figure also demonstrates virtual IHC results alongside positive cell visualization from DeepLIIF.
Fig. 5: Consistent with the protein progression tendency. The horizontal axis (abscissa) represents the sample index, while the vertical axis (ordinate) denotes the accumulated optical density (OD) value. The figure illustrates the accumulated OD curves of various virtual staining methods for IHC positive regions, comparing the virtual results with the reference IHC images on the MIST and IHC4BC datasets. The results of the ControlNet model are excluded because they deviate significantly from the ground truth.
Fig. 6: Virtual IHC-stained image results of different methods on the IHC4BC dataset. The first column is the H&E-stained images. Columns 2 to 14 are the images virtually stained by different methods. The last column is the ground truth. The figure also demonstrates virtual IHC results alongside positive cell visualization from DeepLIIF.
Method
MIST
IHC4BC
HER2
ER
PR
Ki67
HER2
ER
PR
Ki67
CycleGAN
0.453
0.570
0.534
0.767
0.495
0.600
0.479
0.771
Pix2Pix
0.490
0.671
0.671
0.847
0.422
0.595
0.666
0.613
CUT
0.457
0.610
0.664
0.807
0.258
0.573
0.492
0.565
ASP
0.378
0.623
0.637
0.759
0.256
0.547
0.559
0.799
PyramidP2P
0.587
0.695
0.705
0.842
0.505
0.497
0.640
0.686
TABLE III: Classification accuracy (%) of virtual staining results on MIST and IHC4BC datasets. HER2: 4-class (0, 1+, 2+, 3+); ER, PR, Ki67: binary (negative/positive). Models are grouped into one-to-one and one-to-many categories.
Fig. 7: Visual comparison illustrating the severe cell spatial misalignment issue in TDKStain results, where virtual staining causes substantial cell displacement relative to the input H&E image. In contrast, our PGVMS method preserves accurate cell spatial localization.
Type
Method
MIST
IHC4BC
HER2
ER
PR
Ki67
Mean
HER2
ER
PR
Ki67
Mean
One-to-one
CycleGAN
102.1581
52.9350
125.7399
48.0381
82.2178
218.4938
44.1311
81.4923
49.0361
98.2884
Pix2Pix
95.9983
189.5522
182.9658
216.5276
171.2610
153.2364
105.1925
95.7887
128.3961
120.6534
CUT
62.6960
39.4071
32.4882
35.4223
42.5034
80.8654
32.3410
39.4285
247.6296
100.0661
ASP
39.9833
52.4421
38.3425
43.7905
43.6396
76.8791
25.4769
31.9873
20.9709
38.8285
Pyramid
151.2503
153.7980
145.9719
172.3845
155.8512
237.9637
172.1971
162.0819
106.7118
169.7386
TABLE IV: Feature-level FID between virtual IHC and ground-truth IHC computed using the pathology foundation model CONCH. Lower values indicate better alignment. The best and second-best results are highlighted in bold and underlined , respectively.
Fig. 8: Pathologist evaluation of virtual IHC-stained images on the MIST datasets across three criteria: cellular localization, staining heterogeneity, and staining intensity.
Fig. 9: Pathologist evaluation of virtual IHC-stained images on the IHC4BC datasets across three criteria: cellular localization, staining heterogeneity, and staining intensity.
Fig. 10: Virtual multiplex IHC generation from H&E-stained input images. For each H&E input, the first row (gray background) displays PGVMS-generated staining for HER2, ER, PR, and Ki-67, and the second row (yellow background) shows the corresponding ground-truth IHC images.
Fig. 11: Visualization of the effects of PALS, PCLS, and PSSG on our PGVMS. The color-coded rectangles indicate regions corresponding to different experimental configurations: black for the input H&E image, yellow for the baseline output, green for baseline + PALS, blue for baseline + PALS + PCLS, orange for baseline + PALS + PCLS + PSSG, and red for the ground truth.
Baseline
PALS
PCLS
PSSG
Quality
Pathology
Perception
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
IOD ×107
Pearson-R ↑
FID ↓
DISTS ↓
✓
14.2183
0.2046
-3.1237
0.6229
45.6044
0.2598
✓
✓
14.6252
0.2205
-2.3128
0.8436
49.7711
0.2577
✓
✓
✓
14.4773
0.2195
-2.0626
0.8361
39.2908
0.2508
✓
✓
13.7738
0.1905
-5.0098
0.3756
62.5494
0.2709
✓
✓
✓
13.0808
0.1887
-2.9507
0.3998
67.4985
0.2813
TABLE V: ABLATION STUDY OF STAIN TRANSFER PERFORMANCE ON MIST DATASET. THE BEST SCORES ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN BOLD.
Guidance
Quality
Pathology
Perception
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
IOD ×107
Pearson-R ↑
FID ↓
DISTS ↓
One Hot
14.9029
0.2310
-2.1429
0.8729
38.5514
0.2379
CLIP
14.2745
0.1895
-1.4198
0.8678
39.2263
0.2454
CONCH
14.3421
0.2032
-0.3223
0.8649
38.0654
0.2344
TABLE VI: ABLATION STUDY OF GUIDANCE MECHANISM ON MIST DATASET. THE BEST SCORES ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN BOLD.
Method
Quality
Pathology
Perception
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
IOD ×107
Pearson-R ↑
FID ↓
DISTS ↓
w/o bias
14.0289
0.2099
-2.2577
0.7400
58.2488
0.2482
w/ bias
14.3421
0.2062
-0.3223
0.8648
38.0654
0.2344
TABLE VII: ABLATION STUDY OF IMAGE-GUIDED BIAS MECHANISM ON MIST DATASET. THE BEST SCORES ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN BOLD.
Pooling Strategy
Quality
Pathology
Perception
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
IOD ×107
Pearson-R ↑
FID ↓
DISTS ↓
Only Maxpooling
14.5682
0.2184
-1.7611
0.7890
53.5903
0.2522
Only Avgpooling
14.6032
0.2086
-2.4378
0.7607
83.3022
0.2646
Max & Avg Pooling
14.3421
0.2032
-0.3223
0.8648
38.0654
0.2344
TABLE VIII: ABLATION STUDY OF POOLING STRATEGY ON MIST DATASET. THE BEST SCORES ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN BOLD.
Guidance
Quality
Pathology
Perception
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
IOD ×107
Pearson-R ↑
FID ↓
DISTS ↓
Addition
13.8117
0.1904
-1.5385
0.7942
53.1891
0.2451
Cross Attention
13.8461
0.2028
-2.4021
0.8041
55.5236
0.2438
PGSN
14.3421
0.2032
-0.3223
0.8649
38.0654
0.2344
TABLE IX: ABLATION STUDY OF FUSION MECHANISM ON MIST DATASET. THE BEST SCORES ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN BOLD.
Normalization Strategy
Quality
Pathology
Perception
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
IOD ×107
Pearson-R ↑
FID ↓
DISTS ↓
Only IN
14.4614
0.2184
-3.2292
0.7939
69.9662
0.2600
Only LN
15.6425
0.2887
-3.9779
0.7672
153.7774
0.3414
Both IN&LN
14.3421
0.2032
-0.3223
0.8649
38.0654
0.2344
TABLE X: ABLATION STUDY OF NORMALIZATION STRATEGY ON MIST DATASET. THE BEST SCORES ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN BOLD.
FOD α
Quality
Pathology
Perception
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
IOD ×107
Pearson-R ↑
FID ↓
DISTS ↓
1.0
14.6189
0.2115
-2.2031
0.8331
43.8208
0.2395
1.4
14.6242
0.2078
-1.7750
0.8598
38.3692
0.2372
1.8
14.3421
0.2032
-0.3223
0.8649
38.0654
0.2344
2.2
14.2708
0.2197
-1.8733
0.8507
43.6559
0.2449
TABLE XI: ABLATION STUDY OF FOD α ON MIST DATASET. THE BEST SCORES ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN BOLD.
Guidance
Quality
Pathology
Perception
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
IOD ×107
Pearson-R ↑
FID ↓
DISTS ↓
PLIP
14.2897
0.2111
+0.6578
0.8476
41.4264
0.2511
MUSK
14.7346
0.2089
-2.5387
0.8408
40.6992
0.2499
CONCH
14.3421
0.2032
-0.3223
0.8649
38.0654
0.2344
TABLE XII: ABLATION STUDY OF PATHOLOGICAL GUIDANCE MECHANISM ON MIST DATASET. THE BEST SCORES ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN BOLD.
Method
PSNR
SSIM
No Blur
3×3
5×5
7×7
No Blur
3×3
5×5
7×7
CycleGAN
13.3060
13.4611
13.5518
13.6656
0.2000
0.2264
0.2401
0.2561
Pix2Pix
14.3445
14.4810
14.5597
14.6546
0.2143
0.2407
0.2558
0.2726
CUT
14.2183
14.3632
14.4553
14.5692
0.2047
0.2318
0.2466
0.2633
ASP
14.2746
14.4244
14.5189
14.6330
0.2144
0.2406
0.2553
0.2719
Pyramid
14.3320
14.4816
14.5731
14.6877
0.2137
0.2402
0.2554
0.2715
TABLE XIII: COMPARISON OF PSNR AND SSIM VALUES WITH DIFFERENT GAUSSIAN BLUR KERNELS
Stage
Input Size
GPU (MB)
Time
Training
512×512
16,540
125 h / 80 epochs
Inference
1024×1024
10,284
0.0208 s / tile
TABLE XIV: Computational efficiency of PGVMS during training and inference.
Length
Prompt
Quality
Pathology
Perception
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
IOD ×107
Pearson-R ↑
FID ↓
DISTS ↓
Short
1
14.4628
0.2211
-0.9492
0.8284
44.6465
0.2420
Short
2
14.2855
0.2092
-0.5466
0.8433
38.4802
0.2385
[0.8pt/2pt] Medium
3
14.2589
0.2333
-1.7759
0.7235
53.0694
0.2541
Medium
4
14.4086
0.2160
-1.4156
0.8326
40.1634
0.2410
[0.8pt/2pt] Long
5
14.4193
0.2245
-1.2309
0.7994
46.1909
0.2441
TABLE XV: ROBUSTNESS EVALUATION OF PGVMS UNDER DIFFERENT PROMPT EXPRESSIONS. THE BEST SCORES ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN BOLD.
Fig. 12: Virtual IHC-stained image results on the clinical dataset, showing four stains (HER2, ER, PR, Ki-67) and positive cell visualization obtained using DeepLIIF. The first column shows the input H&E images. Images with a gray background represent PGVMS-generated multiplex stains along with their corresponding positive cell visualization, while images with an yellow background show the ground truth multiplex stains and the associated positive cell visualization.
Fig. 13: Virtual IHC-stained image results on the clinical dataset. PGVMS preserves accurate cellular localization and realistic staining intensity across different biomarker.
Fig. 14: Virtual Ki-67-stained image results on the clinical colon cancer dataset.
Fig. 15: Virtual HepPar1 IHC-stained image results on the clinical HCC dataset.
Fig. 16: Virtual CK-stained image results on the clinical NPC dataset.
Fig. 17: Virtual EBER-stained image results on the clinical NPC dataset.
Fig. 18: Virtual PD-L1 IHC-stained image results on the clinical HNSCC dataset.
Fig. 19: Representative cross-organ virtual IHC staining results on liver, head-and-neck, colorectal, and nasopharyngeal samples. PGVMS preserves accurate cellular localization and realistic staining intensity across different biomarkers.
Virtual immunohistochemistry (IHC) staining from hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) images can accelerate diagnostics by providing preliminary molecular insight directly from routine sections, reducing the need for repeat sectioning when tissue is limited. Existing methods improve realism through contrastive objectives, prototype matching, or domain alignment, yet the generator itself receives no direct guidance from pathology foundation models. We present UNIStainNet, a SPADE-UNet conditioned on dense spatial tokens from a frozen pathology foundation model (UNI), providing tissue-level semantic guidance for stain translation. A misalignment-aware loss suite preserves stain quantification accuracy, and learned stain embeddings enable a single model to serve multiple IHC markers simultaneously. On MIST, UNIStainNet achieves state-of-the-art distributional metrics on all four stains (HER2, Ki67, ER, PR) from a single unified model, where prior methods typically train separate per-stain models. On BCI, it also achieves the best distributional metrics. A tissue-type stratified failure analysis reveals that remaining errors are systematic, concentrating in non-tumor tissue. Code is available at https://github.com/facevoid/UNIStainNet.
Jillur Rahman Saurav, Thuong Le Hoai Pham, Pritam Mukherjee +3
Department of Computer Science, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas, USA · Department of Radiology, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, USA · Department of Pathology, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, USA
Multiple instance learning (MIL) is the dominant framework for whole-slide image analysis in computational pathology, typically combining a frozen patch encoder, a projection layer, and a slide-level aggregator. While encoders and aggregators have been extensively studied, the projection layer remains a largely morphology-only bottleneck. This limits endpoints such as biomarker status and survival, which are governed by a molecular state that is not fully captured by H&E morphology. We introduce Molecularly Informed Staining Transform (MIST), a plug-in replacement for the MIL projection layer that uses paired spatial transcriptomics only during training to construct virtual molecular stains. MIST clusters gene expression profiles into cross-modal prototypes, anchors them in the frozen foundation model feature space, and uses them to reorganize H&E patch features along molecularly guided axes. It requires no transcriptomics at inference and can be inserted before standard MIL aggregators. We evaluate MIST across 23 downstream tasks and 8 MIL aggregators. MIST improves 240 of 256 configurations over the standard projection layer, with an average gain of +3.5%, observed consistently across endpoint types: +5.2% on survival prediction, +3.3% on tissue subtyping, and +2.6% on biomarker prediction. Ablations confirm that gene-derived prototypes are the primary source of the gains, while spatial, biological, and pathological analyses show that cross-modal prototype affinities capture spatially coherent molecular programs from H&E alone.
Yucheng Xing, Pei Liu, Jingying Ma +6
National University of Singapore, Singapore · Hunan University, China · Peking Union Medical College Hospital (PUMCH), China +1
Multiplex immunofluorescence (mIF) enables simultaneous single-cell quantification of multiple biomarkers within intact tissue architecture, yet its high reagent cost, multi-round staining protocols, and need for specialized imaging platforms limit routine clinical adoption. Virtual staining can synthesize mIF channels from widely available brightfield immunohistochemistry (IHC), but current translators optimize pixel-level fidelity without explicitly constraining nuclear morphology. In pathology, this gap is clinically consequential: subtle distortions in nuclei count, shape, or spatial arrangement propagate directly to quantification endpoints such as the Ki67 proliferation index, where errors of a few percent can shift treatment-relevant risk categories. This work introduces a supervision-free, architecture-agnostic conditioning strategy that injects a continuous cell probability map from a pretrained nuclei segmentation foundation model as an explicit input prior, together with a variance-preserving regularization term that matches local intensity statistics to maintain cell-level heterogeneity in synthesized fluorescence channels. The soft prior retains gradient-level boundary information lost by binary thresholding, providing a richer conditioning signal without task-specific tuning. Controlled experiments across Pix2Pix with U-Net and ResNet generators, deterministic regression U-Net, and conditional diffusion on two independent datasets demonstrate consistent improvements in nuclei count fidelity and perceptual quality, as the sole modifications. Code will be made publicly available upon acceptance.
Junhyeok Lee, Han Jang, Heeseong Eum +2
Interdisciplinary Program in Cancer Biology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea · Interdisciplinary Program in Bioengineering, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea · Department of Biomedical Sciences, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea +3