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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |