AIMS: Histomorphometric analysis is a widely used technique to assess changes in tissue structure and function. Commercially available programs that measure histomorphometric parameters can be cost-prohibitive. In this study, we compared an inexpensive method of histomorphometry to a current proprietary software program. METHODS AND RESULTS: Image J and Adobe Photoshop(®) were used to measure static and kinetic bone histomorphometric parameters. Photomicrographs of Goldner's trichrome-stained femurs were used to generate black-and-white image masks, representing bone and non-bone tissue, respectively, in Adobe Photoshop(®) . The masks were used to quantify histomorphometric parameters (bone volume, tissue volume, osteoid volume, mineralizing surface and interlabel width) in Image J. The resultant values obtained using Image J and the proprietary software were compared and differences found to be statistically non-significant. CONCLUSIONS: The wide-ranging use of histomorphometric analysis for assessing the basic morphology of tissue components makes it important to have affordable and accurate measurement options available for a diverse range of applications. Here we have developed and validated an approach to histomorphometry using commonly and freely available software that is comparable to a much more costly, commercially available software program.
AIMS: Histomorphometric analysis is a widely used technique to assess changes in tissue structure and function. Commercially available programs that measure histomorphometric parameters can be cost-prohibitive. In this study, we compared an inexpensive method of histomorphometry to a current proprietary software program. METHODS AND RESULTS: Image J and Adobe Photoshop(®) were used to measure static and kinetic bone histomorphometric parameters. Photomicrographs of Goldner's trichrome-stained femurs were used to generate black-and-white image masks, representing bone and non-bone tissue, respectively, in Adobe Photoshop(®) . The masks were used to quantify histomorphometric parameters (bone volume, tissue volume, osteoid volume, mineralizing surface and interlabel width) in Image J. The resultant values obtained using Image J and the proprietary software were compared and differences found to be statistically non-significant. CONCLUSIONS: The wide-ranging use of histomorphometric analysis for assessing the basic morphology of tissue components makes it important to have affordable and accurate measurement options available for a diverse range of applications. Here we have developed and validated an approach to histomorphometry using commonly and freely available software that is comparable to a much more costly, commercially available software program.
Authors: Harry R Davis; Lizbeth M Hoos; Glen Tetzloff; Maureen Maguire; Li-ji Zhu; Michael P Graziano; Scott W Altmann Journal: Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol Date: 2007-01-11 Impact factor: 8.311
Authors: A M Parfitt; M K Drezner; F H Glorieux; J A Kanis; H Malluche; P J Meunier; S M Ott; R R Recker Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 1987-12 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Erica L Jackson; Kenneth P Olive; David A Tuveson; Roderick Bronson; Denise Crowley; Michael Brown; Tyler Jacks Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2005-11-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Daniel A De Ugarte; Devin Puapong; Jason Roostaeian; Nicole Gillis; Eric W Fonkalsrud; James B Atkinson; James C Y Dunn Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2003-06-01 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Madhu S Kumar; Stefan J Erkeland; Ryan E Pester; Cindy Y Chen; Margaret S Ebert; Phillip A Sharp; Tyler Jacks Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2008-02-28 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Manuel V Blanco; Hilda R Vega; Rodolfo Giuliano; Daniel R Grana; Francisco Azzato; Jorge Lerman; Jose Milei Journal: J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) Date: 2010-11-04 Impact factor: 3.738
Authors: Matthew Stuible; Anna Moraitis; Annie Fortin; Stefan Saragosa; Aida Kalbakji; Mario Filion; Gilles B Tremblay Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2014-01-20 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Youngjae Jeong; Salah A Daghlas; Yixia Xie; Molly A Hulbert; Ferris M Pfeiffer; Mark R Dallas; Catherine L Omosule; R Scott Pearsall; Sarah L Dallas; Charlotte L Phillips Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2018-06-22 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Nicholas J Hanne; Andrew J Steward; Marci R Sessions; Hannah L Thornburg; Huaxin Sheng; Jacqueline H Cole Journal: J Biomech Eng Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 2.097
Authors: Samuel Herberg; Galina Kondrikova; Khaled A Hussein; Maribeth H Johnson; Mohammed E Elsalanty; Xingming Shi; Mark W Hamrick; Carlos M Isales; William D Hill Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2014-10-28 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: Lakshman Singh; Tracy A Brennan; Elizabeth Russell; Jung-Hoon Kim; Qijun Chen; F Brad Johnson; Robert J Pignolo Journal: Bone Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: Samuel Herberg; Galina Kondrikova; Khaled A Hussein; Sudharsan Periyasamy-Thandavan; Maribeth H Johnson; Mohammed E Elsalanty; Xingming Shi; Mark W Hamrick; Carlos M Isales; William D Hill Journal: Tissue Eng Part A Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 3.845
Authors: Muhammad A Awadeen; Fouad A Al-Belasy; Laila E Ameen; Mohamad E Helal; Mohammed E Grawish Journal: World J Stem Cells Date: 2020-01-26 Impact factor: 5.326