MorphoCLIP: Text-Supervised Contrastive Learning for Perturbation Matching in Cell Painting Images
Organizations: Northeastern University · Northeastern University Portland, ME, USA
Abstract
Cell Painting microscopy captures how cells change after a chemical or genetic perturbation. Connecting these images to the perturbations that produced them could make large imaging screens easier to search and interpret, but the task remains difficult because biological effects are subtle and technical variation is substantial. We introduce MorphoCLIP, a contrastive model that links Cell Painting profiles with text descriptions of compounds, CRISPR knockouts, and ORF overexpressions. The model keeps its vision and language backbones frozen and trains only a compact cross-channel module and projection layers, so it can be trained on a single consumer GPU. On held-out CPJUMP1 data, MorphoCLIP searches in both directions: from a cell image to its perturbation description and from a description to matching cell images. In both cases, a correct match appears among the top ten results much more often than expected by chance. Adding a replicate-alignment loss makes profiles from repeated experiments more consistent, although this improvement does not yet translate into reliable gene-compound matching. Gene-aware labels and plate correction also show no consistent retrieval benefit. These findings suggest that text supervision can help organize chemical and genetic Cell Painting data. Matching compounds with genetic perturbations, however, remains an open problem.
Figures & tables
| Ch | Stain | Target |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | MitoTracker / Alexa 647 | Mitochondria |
| 2 | Phalloidin / Alexa 568 | Actin |
| 3 | WGA / Alexa 488 | Golgi / plasma membrane |
| 4 | Concanavalin A / Alexa 488 | Endoplasmic reticulum |
| 5 | Hoechst 33342 | DNA / nucleus |
| Split | Direction | R@1 | R@5 | R@10 | Med. rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Val | well image text | 5.9 | 23.3 | 39.4 | 14 |
| well text image | 4.1 | 15.3 | 23.5 | 30 | |
| pert. image text | 4.1 | 20.4 | 38.8 | 13 | |
| pert. text image | 5.1 | 18.4 | 39.8 | 13 | |
| random, single positive | 1.0 | 5.1 | 10.2 | 49.5 | |
| random, well text image | 1.0 | 5.0 | 9.7 | 99 |
| Validation | Test | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run | Change from control | i t | t i | Med. | i t | t i | Med. |
| Base model | 100-epoch schedule, random batches | 38.8 | 39.8 | 13 | 37.2 | 44.2 | 14 |
| Control | none | 37.8 | 37.8 | 13 | 50.0 | 41.9 | 10 |
| Soft labels | 37.8 | 42.9 | 14 | 44.2 | 47.7 | 12 | |
| Replicate loss | 44.9 | 41.8 | 13 | 47.7 | 46.5 | 12 | |
| Plate offsets | condition-relative correction | 41.8 | 38.8 | 13 | 41.9 | 43.0 | 12 |
| Track | Base | Replicate loss | Plate offsets | All three | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Compound A549 | short | 0.353 (0.392) | 0.435 (0.458) | 0.327 (0.384) | 0.497 (0.493) |
| long | 0.513 (0.526) | 0.650 (0.583) | 0.503 (0.513) | 0.703 (0.626) | |
| Compound U2OS | short | 0.297 (0.344) | 0.379 (0.404) | 0.310 (0.351) | 0.422 (0.439) |
| long | 0.369 (0.413) | 0.471 (0.474) | 0.395 (0.421) | 0.503 (0.496) | |
| CRISPR A549 | short | 0.173 (0.286) | 0.271 (0.343) | 0.092 (0.239) | 0.340 (0.375) |
| long | 0.183 (0.296) | 0.376 (0.356) | 0.134 (0.282) | 0.366 (0.385) |
| Model | Compound A549 | Compound U2OS | CRISPR A549 | CRISPR U2OS | ORF U2OS | Mean |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CellCLIP [ 8 ] | 0.366 | 0.353 | 0.020 | 0.118 | 0.119 | 0.195 |
| MorphoCLIP base | 0.353 | 0.297 | 0.173 | 0.026 | 0.043 | 0.178 |
| replicate loss | 0.435 | 0.379 | 0.271 | 0.049 | 0.099 | 0.247 |
| MorphoCLIP, all three | 0.497 | 0.422 | 0.340 | 0.078 | 0.099 | 0.287 |
| Method | Dataset | Task | Metric | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CellProfiler [ 4 ] | CPJUMP1 | Compound target matching | FR range | 4.3–25.1% |
| MorphoCLIP base | CPJUMP1 | Compound target matching | FR range | 7.5–31.5% |
| CellCLIP [ 8 ] | RxRx3-core | CORUM gene–gene | Recall | 0.354 |
| CWA-MSN [ 6 ] | RxRx3-core | CORUM gene–gene | Recall | 0.386 |