| Literature DB >> 18673504 |
Coralie Apfeldorfer1, Kristina Ulrich, Gareth Jones, David Goodwin, Susie Collins, Emanuel Schenck, Virgile Richard.
Abstract
Historically, histopathology evaluation is performed by a pathologist generating a qualitative assessment on thin tissue sections on glass slides. In the past decade, there has been a growing interest for tools able to reduce human subjectivity and improve workload. Whole slide scanning technology combined with object orientated image analysis can offer the capacity of generating fast and reliable results. In the present study, we combined the use of these emerging technologies to characterise a mouse model for chronic asthma. We monitored the inflammatory changes over five weeks by measuring the number of neutrophils and eosinophils present in the tissue, as well as, the bronchiolar associated lymphoid tissue (BALT) area on whole lungs sections. We showed that inflammation assessment could be automated efficiently and reliably. In comparison to human evaluation performed on the same set of sections, computer generated data was more descriptive and fully quantitative. Moreover optimisation of our detection parameters allowed us to be to more sensitive and to generate data in a larger dynamic range to traditional experimental evaluation, such as bronchiolar lavage (BAL) inflammatory cell counts obtained by flow cytometry. We also took advantage of the fact that we could increase the number of samples to be analysed within a day. Such optimisation allowed us to determine the best study design and experimental conditions in order to increase statistical significance between groups. In conclusion, we showed that combination of whole slide digital scanning and image analysis could be fully automated and deliver more descriptive and biologically relevant data over traditional methods evaluating histopathological pulmonary changes observed in this mouse model of chronic asthma.Entities:
Year: 2008 PMID: 18673504 PMCID: PMC2500097 DOI: 10.1186/1746-1596-3-S1-S16
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diagn Pathol ISSN: 1746-1596 Impact factor: 2.644
Figure 1Comparison between manual and computerised assessment of pulmonary inflammation in mouse receiving House Dust Mite (HDM) extracts over 5 weeks. A. Manual assessment of pulmonary inflammation in mouse performed by a pathologist. B. Automated assessment of pulmonary inflammation done by combining 3 signs of inflammation: total number of neutrophils detected, total number of eosinophils detected and total area covered by inflammatory cells.
Figure 2Influence of the normalisation factor on mucin secretion detection levels. A, B and C Panels show classification views of a mouse tissue section after analysis. The red surface represents the area covered by mucin (our nominator), and the light green surface represents the tissue area used for normalisation purposes (our denominator). We used at first the whole tissue section (excluding the air space) as shown in panel A, which generated the results shown in the graph D. We then excluded alveolar tissue as shown in panel B, and generated the results shown in the graph E. At last we excluded inflammatory infiltrate as shown in panel C, and generated the results shown in the graph F.
Relative influence of the number of sections per animal and the number of animals per group on mucin detection levels. The numbers shown here represent the fold of changes over control group required to reach statistical significance.
| Mucin | Number of animals | |||||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |
| 2 sections | 4.78 | 3.39 | 2.83 | 2.52 | 2.32 | 2.17 | 2.07 | 1.98 |
| 3 sections | 4.22 | 3.08 | 2.61 | 2.34 | 2.17 | 2.04 | 1.95 | 1.88 |
| 4 sections | 3.95 | 2.92 | 2.50 | 2.25 | 2.09 | 1.98 | 1.89 | 1.82 |
| 5 sections | 3.79 | 2.83 | 2.43 | 2.20 | 2.05 | 1.94 | 1.85 | 1.79 |
| Eosinophils | Number of animals | |||||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |
| 2 sections | 8.79 | 5.46 | 4.25 | 3.61 | 3.22 | 2.94 | 2.74 | 2.58 |
| 3 sections | 7.65 | 4.90 | 3.88 | 3.33 | 2.98 | 2.75 | 2.57 | 2.43 |
| 4 sections | 7.11 | 4.63 | 3.69 | 3.19 | 2.87 | 2.65 | 2.48 | 2.35 |
| 5 sections | 6.80 | 4.47 | 3.58 | 3.10 | 2.80 | 2.59 | 2.43 | 2.31 |
| Neutrophils | Number of animals | |||||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |
| 2 sections | 3.89 | 2.89 | 2.47 | 2.23 | 2.07 | 1.96 | 1.88 | 1.81 |
| 3 sections | 3.69 | 2.77 | 2.38 | 2.16 | 2.02 | 1.91 | 1.83 | 1.77 |
| 4 sections | 3.59 | 2.71 | 2.34 | 2.13 | 1.99 | 1.89 | 1.81 | 1.75 |
| 5 sections | 3.53 | 2.68 | 2.31 | 2.11 | 1.97 | 1.87 | 1.79 | 1.73 |