| Literature DB >> 31470620 |
Alma Valor1, Eduardo J Arista Romeu1, Galileo Escobedo2, Adriana Campos-Espinosa3, Ivette Irais Romero-Bello3, Javier Moreno-González3, Diego A Fabila Bustos1,4, Suren Stolik1, Jose Manuel de la Rosa Vázquez5, Carolina Guzmán6.
Abstract
Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease is a highly prevalent condition worldwide that increases the risk to develop liver fibrosis, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma. Thus, it is imperative to develop novel diagnostic tools that together with liver biopsy help to differentiate mild and advanced degrees of steatosis. Ex-vivo liver samples were collected from mice fed a methionine-choline deficient diet for two or eight weeks, and from a control group. The degree of hepatic steatosis was histologically evaluated, and fat content was assessed by Oil-Red O staining. On the other hand, fluorescence spectroscopy was used for the assessment of the steatosis progression. Fluorescence spectra were recorded at excitation wavelengths of 330, 365, 385, 405, and 415 nm by establishing surface contact of the fiber optic probe with the liver specimens. A multi-variate statistical approach based on principal component analysis followed by quadratic discriminant analysis was applied to spectral data to obtain classifiers able to distinguish mild and moderate stages of steatosis at the different excitation wavelengths. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves were computed to compare classifier's performances for each one of the five excitation wavelengths and steatosis stages. Optimal sensitivity and specificity were calculated from the corresponding ROC curves using the Youden index. Intensity in the endogenous fluorescence spectra at the given wavelengths progressively increased according to the time of exposure to diet. The area under the curve of the spectra was able to discriminate control liver samples from those with steatosis and differentiate among the time of exposure to the diet for most of the used excitation wavelengths. High specificities and sensitivities were obtained for every case; however, fluorescence spectra obtained by exciting with 405 nm yielded the best results distinguishing between the mentioned classes with a total classification error of 1.5% and optimal sensitivities and specificities better than 98.6% and 99.3%, respectively.Entities:
Keywords: endogenous fluorescence spectroscopy; liver steatosis; multi-variate analysis
Year: 2019 PMID: 31470620 PMCID: PMC6749569 DOI: 10.3390/molecules24173150
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Endogenous fluorescence spectra from control (MCC), and steatosis (MCD2w, and MCD8w) groups, after the spectral sensitivity correction, at excitation wavelengths of (a) 330, (b) 365 nm, (c) 385 nm, (d) 405 nm, and (e) 415 nm. The spectra are presented as mean ± standard deviation of all gathered spectral observations.
Figure 2Area under the curve (AUC) of the spectra measured on liver samples of the three different groups MCC, MCD2w and MCD8w—at different excitation wavelengths indicated in the horizontal axis. The bar heights correspond to the mean AUC value for one group and the error-bars stand for the corresponding standard deviation. The symbols over some of the bars indicate that the null hypothesis that the given group is significantly different from some other group could be rejected at p < 0.05 (Tukey test): @—versus MCC, §—versus MCD2w, &—versus MCD8w.
Correlation between fluorescence measurements and lipid quantification from morphometry.
| Correlation Test | AUC330 nm vs. Lipid Cont. a | AUC365 nm vs. Lipid Cont. a | AUC385 nm vs. Lipid Cont. a | AUC405 nm vs. Lipid Cont. a | AUC415 nm vs. Lipid Cont. a | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spearman | Correl. coeff. b | 0.57538 * | 0.24901 | 0.7572 * | 0.75833 * | 0.72632 * |
| 0.00508 | 0.26378 | 4.50604 × 10−5 | 4.32295 × 10−5 | 4.29233 × 10−4 | ||
a Lipid content. b Correlation coefficient. * Positive correlation at p < 0.05 significance level.
Confusion matrix of the quadratic discriminant analysis (QDA) classification and cross validation models performed on the first six principal components of spectral data gathered with different excitation lights on the three possible liver groups—MCC, MCD2w, and MCD8w.
| Excitation Wavelength (nm) | Actual Group (A-Number a) | Predicted Group (Classification, Cross-Validation b) | Percent of Success c | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MCC | MCD2w | MCD8w | |||
| 330 | MCC (132) | 117, 115 | 15, 16 | 0, 1 | 88.6, 87.1 |
| MCD2w (130) | 2, 4 | 128, 126 | 0, 0 | 98.5, 96.9 | |
| MCD8w (111) | 0, 1 | 5, 5 | 106, 105 | 95.5, 94.6 | |
| Total (373) | 119, 120 | 148, 147 | 106, 106 | ||
| 365 | MCC (133) | 133, 133 | 0, 0 | 0, 0 | 100.0, 100.0 |
| MCD2w (125) | 4, 6 | 121, 118 | 0, 1 | 96.8, 94.4 | |
| MCD8w (116) | 0, 0 | 0, 1 | 116, 114 | 100.0, 98.3 | |
| Total (374) | 137, 139 | 121, 119 | 116, 115 | ||
| 385 | MCC (136) | 135, 135 | 1, 1 | 0, 0 | 99.3, 99.3 |
| MCD2w (129) | 1, 4 | 127, 124 | 1, 1 | 98.5, 96.1 | |
| MCD8w (128) | 1, 1 | 0, 0 | 127, 126 | 99.2, 98.4 | |
| Total (393) | 137, 140 | 128, 125 | 128, 127 | ||
| 405 | MCC (145) | 145, 145 | 0, 0 | 0, 0 | 100.0, 100.0 |
| MCD2w (131) | 2, 3 | 129, 128 | 0, 0 | 98.5, 97.7 | |
| MCD8w (125) | 1, 1 | 1, 1 | 123, 123 | 98.4, 98.4 | |
| Total (401) | 148, 149 | 130, 129 | 123, 123 | ||
| 415 | MCC (137) | 137, 136 | 0, 0 | 0, 1 | 100.0, 99.3 |
| MCD2w (68) | 1, 1 | 67, 67 | 0, 0 | 98.5, 98.5 | |
| MCD8w (124) | 2, 2 | 0, 0 | 122, 123 | 98.4, 99.2 | |
| Total (329) | 140, 139 | 67, 67 | 122, 124 | ||
a Actual number of observations, corresponding to 100%, according to the supplied diet. b Number of observations assigned to the given group by (classification model, cross validation). c Percentage of successful appointments of the observations to their actual group by (classification, cross-validation).
Figure 3Canonical score plots obtained by the quadratic discriminant analysis (QDA) applied to the six firsts principal component (PC) values obtained from all observed spectra normalized at 600 nm using excitation lights of: (a) 330 nm, (b) 365 nm, (c) 385 nm, (d) 405 nm, and (e) 415 nm. Distribution of every single collected measurement are represented for every group in their corresponding regions: MCC (green squares in blue pattern), MCD2w (gray stars in gray pattern), and MCD8w (red diamonds in pink pattern). The mean value of each group is represented by an “×.” The curved lines mark the boundaries between regions. The inset in the lower right corner serves as a common legend to all the graphs.
Classification error rate of the quadratic discriminant model applied using the classification and cross-validation strategies.
| Excitation Light (nm) | MCC (Classif., Cross)% a | MCD2w (Classif., Cross)% a | MCD8w (Classif., Cross)% a | Total (Classif., Cross)% a |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 330 | 11.4, 12.9 | 1.5, 3.1 | 4.5, 5.4 | 5.9, 7.2 |
| 365 | 0.0, 0.0 | 3.2, 5.6 | 0.0, 1.7 | 1.1, 2.4 |
| 385 | 0.7, 0.7 | 1.6, 3.9 | 0.8, 1.6 | 1.0, 2.0 |
| 405 | 0.0, 0.0 | 1.5, 2.3 | 1.6, 1.6 | 1.0, 1.3 |
| 415 | 0.0, 0.7 | 1.5, 1.5 | 1.6, 1.6 | 0.9, 1.2 |
a Error rate, in percent, expressed for (classification, cross-validation) schemes.
Area under the curve (AUC) for the ROC curves, together with the indexes that asses the performance of fluorescence spectroscopy as a diagnostic tool of liver-steatosis degree, obtained from the spectra recorded under each excitation wavelength in every of the three classification groups.
| Excitation Wavelength (nm) | Parameter | MCC a | MCD2w b | MCD8w c | Average |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 330 | AUC | 0.980 | 0.973 | 0.995 | 0.983 |
| Optimal Sensitivity | 0.909 | 0.985 | 0.973 | 0.956 | |
| 1 − Optimal Specificity | 0.041 | 0.128 | 0.031 | 0.067 | |
| Optimal cut-off | 0.359 | 0.341 | 0.287 | ||
| 365 | AUC | 0.998 | 0.990 | 0.998 | 0.995 |
| Optimal Sensitivity | 0.977 | 0.96 | 1.000 | 0.979 | |
| 1 − Optimal Specificity | 0.008 | 0.032 | 0.008 | 0.016 | |
| Optimal cut-off | 0.841 | 0.295 | 0.116 | ||
| 385 | AUC | 0.994 | 0.991 | 0.992 | 0.993 |
| Optimal Sensitivity | 0.985 | 0.977 | 0.977 | 0.980 | |
| 1 − Optimal Specificity | 0.016 | 0.049 | 0.011 | 0.025 | |
| Optimal cut-off | 0.847 | 0.155 | 0.434 | ||
| 405 | AUC | 0.997 | 0.997 | 0.993 | 0.996 |
| Optimal Sensitivity | 0.986 | 0.992 | 0.992 | 0.990 | |
| 1 − Optimal Specificity | 0.004 | 0.007 | 0.007 | 0.006 | |
| Optimal cut-off | 0.548 | 0.554 | 0.222 | ||
| 415 | AUC | 0.994 | 0.996 | 0.997 | 0.996 |
| Optimal Sensitivity | 0.985 | 0.985 | 0.992 | 0.988 | |
| 1 − Optimal Specificity | 0.031 | 0.027 | 0 | 0.019 | |
| Optimal cut-off | 0.456 | 0.363 | 0.003 |
MCC vs (MCD2w + MCD8w); MCD2w vs (MCC + MCD8w); MCD8w vs (MCC + MCD2w).
Figure 4Group mean spectra with spectral sensitivity correction and normalization at 600 nm, used excitation lights are indicated in the legend, bars indicate the standard deviation: (a) MCC group; (b) MCD2w group; (c) MCD8w group.
Distribution of the number of measured fluorescence spectra per group and excitation wavelength.
| 330 nm | 365 nm | 385 nm | 405 nm | 415 nm | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MCC | 132 | 133 | 136 | 145 | 137 | 683 |
| MCD2w | 130 | 125 | 129 | 131 | 68 | 583 |
| MCD8w | 111 | 116 | 128 | 125 | 124 | 604 |
| Total | 373 | 374 | 393 | 401 | 329 | 1870 |