Comparison between digital and optical microscopy: Analysis in a mouse gut inflammation model

Pereira E Silva,Airton; Nicolau Campos,Sylvia   Maria; Guimarães,Isabelle   Mazza; Agate Platais Brasil Teixeira,Gerlinde

doi:10.3892/br.2017.950

Comparison between digital and optical microscopy: Analysis in a mouse gut inflammation model

Authors:
- Airton Pereira E Silva
- Sylvia Maria Nicolau Campos
- Isabelle Mazza Guimarães
- Gerlinde Agate Platais Brasil Teixeira
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Gastrointestinal Immunology Group, Department of Immunobiology, Institute of Biology, Federal Fluminense University, Niterói, Rio de Janeiro 24020‑150, Brazil
Published online on: July 21, 2017 https://doi.org/10.3892/br.2017.950
Pages: 247-250

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

Virtual microscopy is currently widely used for various purposes, such as teaching, archiving, collaborations and research. Although the cost of this technique has reduced, it continues to be expensive for the majority of laboratories in developing countries. The Graduate Program in Pathology at the Federal Fluminense University (Niterói, Brazil) has acquired equipment for virtual microscopy. However, this novel method faced prejudice, as students and technicians were skeptical about its reliability. Thus, the aim of the current study was to evaluate whether virtual microscopy is a reliable method of analysis for our research. Thus, a mouse gut inflammation model developed by our research group was used in the present study. Analysis was performed using optical microscopy and digital imaging using the APERIO scanning system and the ImageScope® software. Intestinal epithelial cells (IECs), intra epithelial leucocytes (IEL), and villi number and area were evaluated. No significant differences were observed in villi number, IEC and IEL; however, the villi area was significantly smaller when measured using the computer. Thus, the present study indicates that virtual microscopy is a trustworthy method for research purposes.

View Figures

View References

1	Boyce BF: Whole slide imaging: Uses and limitations for surgical pathology and teaching. Biotech Histochem. 90:321–330. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Bogner A, Jouneau PH, Thollet G, Basset D and Gauthier C: A history of scanning electron microscopy developments: Towards ‘wet-STEM’ imaging. Micron. 38:390–401. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Hawkes PW: The correction of electron lens aberrations. Ultramicroscopy. 156:A1–A64. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	Banavar SR, Chippagiri P, Pandurangappa R, Annavajjula S and Rajashekaraiah PB: Image montaging for creating a virtual pathology slide: An innovative and economical tool to obtain a whole slide image. Anal Cell Pathol (Amst). 2016:90849092016.PubMed/NCBI
5	Dee FR: Virtual microscopy in pathology education. Hum Pathol. 40:1112–1121. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Silage DA and Gil J: Digital image tiles: A method for the processing of large sections. J Microsc. 138:221–227. 1985. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Westerkamp D and Gahm T: Non-distorted assemblage of the digital images of adjacent fields in histological sections. Anal Cell Pathol. 5:235–247. 1993.PubMed/NCBI
8	Furness PN: The use of digital images in pathology. J Pathol. 183:253–263. 1997. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Arena ET, Rueden CT, Hiner MC, Wang S, Yuan M and Eliceiri KW: Quantitating the cell: Turning images into numbers with ImageJ. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Dev Biol. 2016.PubMed/NCBI
10	Entenberg D, Rodriguez-Tirado C, Kato Y, Kitamura T, Pollard JW and Condeelis J: In vivo subcellular resolution optical imaging in the lung reveals early metastatic proliferation and motility. Intravital. 4:1–11. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar
11	Indu M, Rathy R and Binu MP: ‘Slide less pathology’: Fairy tale or reality? J Oral Maxillofac Pathol. 20:284–288. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12	Pantanowitz L, Valenstein PN, Evans AJ, Kaplan KJ, Pfeifer JD, Wilbur DC, Collins LC and Colgan TJ: Review of the current state of whole slide imaging in pathology. J Pathol Inform. 2:362011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
13	García-Rojo M, Sánchez J, de la Santa E, Durán E, Ruiz JL, Silva A, Rubio FJ, Rodríguez AM, Meléndez B, González L, et al: Automated image analysis in the study of lymphocyte subpopulation in eosinophilic oesophagitis. Diagn Pathol. 9:S72014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Higgins C: Applications and challenges of digital pathology and whole slide imaging. Biotech Histochem. 90:341–347. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15	Rocha R, Vassallo J, Soares F, Miller K and Gobbi H: Digital slides: Present status of a tool for consultation, teaching, and quality control in pathology. Pathol Res Pract. 205:735–741. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	Hamilton PW, Wang Y and McCullough SJ: Virtual microscopy and digital pathology in training and education. APMIS. 120:305–315. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
17	Camparo P, Egevad L, Algaba F, Berney DM, Boccon-Gibod L, Compérat E, Evans AJ, Grobholz R, Kristiansen G, Langner C, et al: Utility of whole slide imaging and virtual microscopy in prostate pathology. APMIS. 120:298–304. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18	Lundström C, Thorstenson S, Waltersson M, Persson A and Treanor D: Summary of 2(nd) Nordic symposium on digital pathology. J Pathol Inform. 6:52015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
19	Teixeira G, Paschoal PO, de Oliveira VL, Pedruzzi MM, Campos SM, Andrade L and Nóbrega A: Diet selection in immunologically manipulated mice. Immunobiology. 213:1–12. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
20	Yu W, Freeland DMH and Nadeau KC: Food allergy: Immune mechanisms, diagnosis and immunotherapy. Nat Rev Immunol. 16:751–765. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
21	Dogan S, Astvatsatourov A, Deserno TM, Bock F, Shah-Hosseini K, Michels A and Mösges R: Objectifying the conjunctival provocation test: Photography-based rating and digital analysis. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 163:59–68. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
22	Bachert C, Borchard U, Wedi B, Klimek L, Rasp G, Riechelmann H, Schultze-Werninghaus G, Wahn U and Ring J: Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Guidelines of the DGAI in association with the DDG. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 4:264–275. 2006.(In German). View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
23	Campos SM, de Oliveira VL, Lessa L, Vita M, Conceição M, Andrade LA and Teixeira GA: Maternal immunomodulation of the offspring's immunological system. Immunobiology. 219:813–821. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
24	Paschoal PO, Campos SM, Pedruzzi MM, Garrido V, Bisso M, Antunes DM, Nobrega AF and Teixeira G: Food allergy/hypersensitivity: Antigenicity or timing? Immunobiology. 214:269–278. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
25	Casuccio GS, Janocko PB, Lee RJ, Kelly JF, Dattner SL and Mgebroff JS: The use of computer controlled scanning electron microscopy in environmental studies. J Air Pollut Control Assoc. 33:937–943. 1983. View Article : Google Scholar
26	Apotheker H and Jako GJ: A microscope for use in dentistry. J Microsurg. 3:7–10. 1981. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
27	Fisher RB and Parsons DS: The gradient of mucosal surface area in the small intestine of the rat. J Anat. 84:272–282. 1950.PubMed/NCBI
28	Wood HO: The surface area of the intestinal mucosa in the rat and in the cat. J Anat. 78:103–105. 1944.PubMed/NCBI
29	Marsh MN: Intestinal Manifestations of food hypersensitivity. 34. Raven Press; New York, NY: 1995
30	Oberhuber G, Granditsch G and Vogelsang H: The histopathology of coeliac disease: Time for a standardized report scheme for pathologists. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 11:1185–1194. 1999. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
31	Dickson BC, Streutker CJ and Chetty R: Coeliac disease: An update for pathologists. J Clin Pathol. 59:1008–1016. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI