Literature DB >> 31840849

MicroCT vascular network analysis program: Development, validation, and comparison to manufacturer software.

John Peters1,2, Luke Vest1,2, Matthew Schuelke3, Silviya P Zustiak2, Andrew F Hall2, Sarah McBride-Gagyi1.   

Abstract

The dependence on angiogenesis for bone repair makes accurate measuring of vascular networks of great importance to orthopedic researchers. A three-dimensional imaging modality like microcomputed tomography (µCT) would better capture these networks than histology. There are commercially available programs to analyze vessel networks in three dimensions, but these may be too costly for laboratories. Alternatively, µCT trabecular software could be used but may not be appropriate. The goal of this project was to develop a vascular network analysis protocol based on freely or commonly available software and compare its performance to that of a µCT trabecular analysis software. The protocol developed, called vascular network analysis or VNA, relies on two modules in Fiji ImageJ and a custom MATLAB program. We validated the software and compared it to a µCT trabecular analysis program (MicroCT) using in silico models of increasing complexity and differing homogeneity. In general, VNA outcomes were significantly different from true values, but most were within an acceptable percent error (<10%). VNA and MicroCT performed almost identically for volume but significantly differently for average vessel diameter. For the homogenous models, the average diameters differed only slightly but were starkly different for the heterogeneous models. In the most heterogeneous system, the MicroCT software overestimated average diameter by about 650% from true. VNA was within 1% of true for the same model. In conclusion, we have developed a program to analyze vascular networks from MicroCT scans which is easily accessible, insensitive to network homogeneity, and of higher accuracy compared to a µCT trabecular analysis software.
© 2019 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  MicroCT; angiogenesis; bone repair; software; vascular networks

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31840849      PMCID: PMC7790441          DOI: 10.1002/jor.24568

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orthop Res        ISSN: 0736-0266            Impact factor:   3.494


  13 in total

1.  Angiogenesis in bone regeneration.

Authors:  Kurt D Hankenson; Michael Dishowitz; Chancellor Gray; Mara Schenker
Journal:  Injury       Date:  2011-04-12       Impact factor: 2.586

2.  Recombinant human vascular endothelial growth factor enhances bone healing in an experimental nonunion model.

Authors:  H Eckardt; M Ding; M Lind; E S Hansen; K S Christensen; I Hvid
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2005-10

3.  Prevention of fracture healing in rats by an inhibitor of angiogenesis.

Authors:  M R Hausman; M B Schaffler; R J Majeska
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 4.398

4.  Hypoxia and VEGF up-regulate BMP-2 mRNA and protein expression in microvascular endothelial cells: implications for fracture healing.

Authors:  Pierre J Bouletreau; Stephen M Warren; Jason A Spector; Ziv M Peled; Rene P Gerrets; Joshua A Greenwald; Michael T Longaker
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 4.730

5.  Micro computed tomography for vascular exploration.

Authors:  Lyubomir Zagorchev; Pierre Oses; Zhen W Zhuang; Karen Moodie; Mary Jo Mulligan-Kehoe; Michael Simons; Thierry Couffinhal
Journal:  J Angiogenes Res       Date:  2010-03-05

6.  Angiogenesis is required for stress fracture healing in rats.

Authors:  Ryan E Tomlinson; Jennifer A McKenzie; Anne H Schmieder; Gregory R Wohl; Gregory M Lanza; Matthew J Silva
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2012-10-05       Impact factor: 4.398

7.  Altered fracture repair in the absence of MMP9.

Authors:  Céline Colnot; Zachary Thompson; Theodore Miclau; Zena Werb; Jill A Helms
Journal:  Development       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 6.868

8.  Bone formation during distraction osteogenesis is dependent on both VEGFR1 and VEGFR2 signaling.

Authors:  Kimberly A Jacobsen; Zainab S Al-Aql; Chao Wan; Jennifer L Fitch; Stephanie N Stapleton; Zachary D Mason; Robert M Cole; Shawn R Gilbert; Thomas L Clemens; Elise F Morgan; Thomas A Einhorn; Louis C Gerstenfeld
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 6.741

9.  Vascular endothelial growth factor stimulates bone repair by promoting angiogenesis and bone turnover.

Authors:  John Street; Min Bao; Leo deGuzman; Stuart Bunting; Franklin V Peale; Napoleone Ferrara; Hope Steinmetz; John Hoeffel; Jeffrey L Cleland; Ann Daugherty; Nicholas van Bruggen; H Paul Redmond; Richard A D Carano; Ellen H Filvaroff
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2002-07-12       Impact factor: 11.205

10.  Antagonizing the αv β3 integrin inhibits angiogenesis and impairs woven but not lamellar bone formation induced by mechanical loading.

Authors:  Ryan E Tomlinson; Anne H Schmieder; James D Quirk; Gregory M Lanza; Matthew J Silva
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 6.741

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.