Cargando…

How to Quantify Penile Corpus Cavernosum Structures with Histomorphometry: Comparison of Two Methods

The use of morphometrical tools in biomedical research permits the accurate comparison of specimens subjected to different conditions, and the surface density of structures is commonly used for this purpose. The traditional point-counting method is reliable but time-consuming, with computer-aided me...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Felix-Patrício, Bruno, De Souza, Diogo Benchimol, Gregório, Bianca Martins, Costa, Waldemar Silva, Sampaio, Francisco José
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4564595/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26413547
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/832156
Descripción
Sumario:The use of morphometrical tools in biomedical research permits the accurate comparison of specimens subjected to different conditions, and the surface density of structures is commonly used for this purpose. The traditional point-counting method is reliable but time-consuming, with computer-aided methods being proposed as an alternative. The aim of this study was to compare the surface density data of penile corpus cavernosum trabecular smooth muscle in different groups of rats, measured by two observers using the point-counting or color-based segmentation method. Ten normotensive and 10 hypertensive male rats were used in this study. Rat penises were processed to obtain smooth muscle immunostained histological slices and photomicrographs captured for analysis. The smooth muscle surface density was measured in both groups by two different observers by the point-counting method and by the color-based segmentation method. Hypertensive rats showed an increase in smooth muscle surface density by the two methods, and no difference was found between the results of the two observers. However, surface density values were higher by the point-counting method. The use of either method did not influence the final interpretation of the results, and both proved to have adequate reproducibility. However, as differences were found between the two methods, results obtained by either method should not be compared.