Cargando…

Comparison of methods for quantifying primordial follicles in the mouse ovary

BACKGROUND: Accurate evaluation of primordial follicle numbers in mouse ovaries is an essential endpoint for studies investigating how endogenous and exogenous insults, such as maternal aging and chemotherapy, impact the ovarian reserve. In this study, we compared and contrasted two methods for coun...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sarma, Urooza C., Winship, Amy L., Hutt, Karla J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7560236/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33054849
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13048-020-00724-6
_version_ 1783595040781631488
author Sarma, Urooza C.
Winship, Amy L.
Hutt, Karla J.
author_facet Sarma, Urooza C.
Winship, Amy L.
Hutt, Karla J.
author_sort Sarma, Urooza C.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Accurate evaluation of primordial follicle numbers in mouse ovaries is an essential endpoint for studies investigating how endogenous and exogenous insults, such as maternal aging and chemotherapy, impact the ovarian reserve. In this study, we compared and contrasted two methods for counting healthy primordial follicles following exposure to cyclophosphamide (75 mg/kg), a well-established model of follicle depletion. The first was the fractionator/optical dissector technique, an unbiased, assumption-free stereological approach for quantification of primordial follicle numbers. While accurate, highly reproducible and sensitive, this method relies on specialist microscopy equipment and software, requires specific fixation, embedding and sectioning parameters to be followed, and is largely a manual process that is tedious and time-consuming. The second method was the more widely used serial section and direct count approach, which is relatively quick and easy. We also compared the impacts of different fixatives, embedding material and section thickness on the overall results for each method. RESULTS: Direct counts resulted in primordial follicle numbers that were significantly lower than those obtained by stereology, irrespective of fixation and embedding material. When applied to formalin fixed tissue, the direct count method did not detect differences in follicle numbers between saline and cyclophosphamide treated groups to the same degree of sensitivity as the gold standard stereology method (referred to as the Reference standard). However, when Bouin’s fixative was used, direct counts and stereology were comparable in their ability to detect follicle depletion caused by cyclophosphamide. CONCLUSIONS: This work indicates that the direct count method can produce similar results to stereology when Bouin’s fixative is used instead of formalin. The findings presented here will assist others to select the most appropriate experimental approach for accurate follicle enumeration, depending on whether the primary objective of the study is to determine absolute primordial follicle numbers or relative differences between groups.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7560236
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75602362020-10-16 Comparison of methods for quantifying primordial follicles in the mouse ovary Sarma, Urooza C. Winship, Amy L. Hutt, Karla J. J Ovarian Res Research BACKGROUND: Accurate evaluation of primordial follicle numbers in mouse ovaries is an essential endpoint for studies investigating how endogenous and exogenous insults, such as maternal aging and chemotherapy, impact the ovarian reserve. In this study, we compared and contrasted two methods for counting healthy primordial follicles following exposure to cyclophosphamide (75 mg/kg), a well-established model of follicle depletion. The first was the fractionator/optical dissector technique, an unbiased, assumption-free stereological approach for quantification of primordial follicle numbers. While accurate, highly reproducible and sensitive, this method relies on specialist microscopy equipment and software, requires specific fixation, embedding and sectioning parameters to be followed, and is largely a manual process that is tedious and time-consuming. The second method was the more widely used serial section and direct count approach, which is relatively quick and easy. We also compared the impacts of different fixatives, embedding material and section thickness on the overall results for each method. RESULTS: Direct counts resulted in primordial follicle numbers that were significantly lower than those obtained by stereology, irrespective of fixation and embedding material. When applied to formalin fixed tissue, the direct count method did not detect differences in follicle numbers between saline and cyclophosphamide treated groups to the same degree of sensitivity as the gold standard stereology method (referred to as the Reference standard). However, when Bouin’s fixative was used, direct counts and stereology were comparable in their ability to detect follicle depletion caused by cyclophosphamide. CONCLUSIONS: This work indicates that the direct count method can produce similar results to stereology when Bouin’s fixative is used instead of formalin. The findings presented here will assist others to select the most appropriate experimental approach for accurate follicle enumeration, depending on whether the primary objective of the study is to determine absolute primordial follicle numbers or relative differences between groups. BioMed Central 2020-10-14 /pmc/articles/PMC7560236/ /pubmed/33054849 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13048-020-00724-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Sarma, Urooza C.
Winship, Amy L.
Hutt, Karla J.
Comparison of methods for quantifying primordial follicles in the mouse ovary
title Comparison of methods for quantifying primordial follicles in the mouse ovary
title_full Comparison of methods for quantifying primordial follicles in the mouse ovary
title_fullStr Comparison of methods for quantifying primordial follicles in the mouse ovary
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of methods for quantifying primordial follicles in the mouse ovary
title_short Comparison of methods for quantifying primordial follicles in the mouse ovary
title_sort comparison of methods for quantifying primordial follicles in the mouse ovary
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7560236/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33054849
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13048-020-00724-6
work_keys_str_mv AT sarmauroozac comparisonofmethodsforquantifyingprimordialfolliclesinthemouseovary
AT winshipamyl comparisonofmethodsforquantifyingprimordialfolliclesinthemouseovary
AT huttkarlaj comparisonofmethodsforquantifyingprimordialfolliclesinthemouseovary