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
_version_ 1782389459437748224
author Felix-Patrício, Bruno
De Souza, Diogo Benchimol
Gregório, Bianca Martins
Costa, Waldemar Silva
Sampaio, Francisco José
author_facet Felix-Patrício, Bruno
De Souza, Diogo Benchimol
Gregório, Bianca Martins
Costa, Waldemar Silva
Sampaio, Francisco José
author_sort Felix-Patrício, Bruno
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4564595
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Hindawi Publishing Corporation
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45645952015-09-27 How to Quantify Penile Corpus Cavernosum Structures with Histomorphometry: Comparison of Two Methods Felix-Patrício, Bruno De Souza, Diogo Benchimol Gregório, Bianca Martins Costa, Waldemar Silva Sampaio, Francisco José Biomed Res Int Research Article 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. Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2015 2015-08-27 /pmc/articles/PMC4564595/ /pubmed/26413547 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/832156 Text en Copyright © 2015 Bruno Felix-Patrício et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Felix-Patrício, Bruno
De Souza, Diogo Benchimol
Gregório, Bianca Martins
Costa, Waldemar Silva
Sampaio, Francisco José
How to Quantify Penile Corpus Cavernosum Structures with Histomorphometry: Comparison of Two Methods
title How to Quantify Penile Corpus Cavernosum Structures with Histomorphometry: Comparison of Two Methods
title_full How to Quantify Penile Corpus Cavernosum Structures with Histomorphometry: Comparison of Two Methods
title_fullStr How to Quantify Penile Corpus Cavernosum Structures with Histomorphometry: Comparison of Two Methods
title_full_unstemmed How to Quantify Penile Corpus Cavernosum Structures with Histomorphometry: Comparison of Two Methods
title_short How to Quantify Penile Corpus Cavernosum Structures with Histomorphometry: Comparison of Two Methods
title_sort how to quantify penile corpus cavernosum structures with histomorphometry: comparison of two methods
topic Research Article
url 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
work_keys_str_mv AT felixpatriciobruno howtoquantifypenilecorpuscavernosumstructureswithhistomorphometrycomparisonoftwomethods
AT desouzadiogobenchimol howtoquantifypenilecorpuscavernosumstructureswithhistomorphometrycomparisonoftwomethods
AT gregoriobiancamartins howtoquantifypenilecorpuscavernosumstructureswithhistomorphometrycomparisonoftwomethods
AT costawaldemarsilva howtoquantifypenilecorpuscavernosumstructureswithhistomorphometrycomparisonoftwomethods
AT sampaiofranciscojose howtoquantifypenilecorpuscavernosumstructureswithhistomorphometrycomparisonoftwomethods