Application of morphometry methods to assess histopathology in preclinical studies

Review
УДК 616-093:616-018
DOI: 10.57034/2618723X-2024-01-04

Ya.A. Guschin,
head of department of histology and pathomorphology,
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7656-991X

Research and manufacturing company “Home оf Pharmacy”,
188663, Russia, Leningrad oblast, Vsevolozhskiy district, Kuzmolovskiy t.s., Zavodskaya st. 3–245.

E-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: preclinical studies histology morphometry planimetry stereology
Acknowledgements

The study was performed without external funding.

For citation:

Guschin Ya.A. Application of morphometry methods to assess histopathology in preclinical studies. Laboratory Animals for Science. 2024; 1. https://doi.org/10.57034/2618723X-2024-01-04

Abstract

Morphometry is one of the most important methods of preclinical studies. It is an integral part of microscopy analysis. The main problems of microscopic analysis are variability of microscopic findings, absence of uniformity of the terms and definitions, the subjectivity of the pathologist’s perception. Thus, the traditional histopathologic description does not can use for a full and objective assessment of experimental disease. The pathologist can evaluate the whole of microscopic findings and make a diagnosis. However, he can overlook small differences, that can be critical for comparative analysis. Application of morphometry methods helps to detect small differences in the degree of severity of microscopic findings. Counting of tissue’s elements, measurement their size or using semiquantitative scales allows to reduce or, even, exclude the subjectivity of the perception. This review describes methods of quantitative and qualitative morphometry based on commonly used types of measurement scales. The descriptive histology is the simplest means of analyzing. It is a search method and applies in every research for assessment of samples, detection target organs, determining the frequency of developing changes in animal’s groups. Pathologists use the most frequently semiquantitative scales. It is a simple method, that do not need special equipment. It allows to compare the degree of severity of the effects of a test sample on target organs, in contrast to descriptive analyze. Conversion qualitative data about the pathological findings to quantitative data allows significantly increase reliability and reproducibility of results of research. But, one must carefully choose a scoring scale according to modeled disease. The quantitative morphometry includes planimetry and stereology. It needs special measuring tools or software. The result of quantitative analisis allows to compare the degree of severity of a pathological process and to detect how many times the one effect is bigger, then another one. Also, it makes it possible to mathematically model the processes, calculating dose-response relationships for example. Planimetry based on linear measurements and counting of elements in a two-dimensional plane of tissue slice. The result of stereometric measurements is quantitative characteristics of elements in the whole volume of the object, in contrast to planimetry, where the result is quantitative characteristics of elements in part of the object. The method has maximum objectivity and reliability, but time-consuming and needs carefully a pre-planning and an applying rigorous sampling methods. Described methods are not completely interchangeable. They can be taken in combination, that increases the quality of research.

Conflict of interest

The author declares no conflict of interest requiring disclosure in this article

References

  1. Gibson-Corley K.N., Olivier A.K., Meyerholz D.K. Principles for valid histopathologic scoring in research // Vet. Pathol. 2013. Vol. 50. N. 6. P. 1007–1015. DOI: 10.1177/0300985813485099.
  2. Baak Jan P.A., Oort Jan. A Manual of Morphometry in Diagnostic Pathology. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1983. 208 p.
  3. Crissman J.W., Goodman D.G., Hildebrandt P.K. et al. Best practices guideline: toxicologic histopathology // Toxicol. Pathol. 2004. Vol. 32. N. 1. P. 126–131. DOI: 10.1080/01926230490268756.
  4. Шуравин П.В. Описание гистологических препаратов: руководство. Москва: Simple Pathology, 2020. 209 c. [Shuravin P.V. Opisanie gistologicheskix preparatov: rukovodstvo. Moskva: Simple Pathology, 2020. 209 p. (In Russ.)].
  5. Hamilton P.W., Allen D.C. Morphometry in histopathology // J. Pathol. 1995. Vol. 175. N. 4. P. 369–379. DOI: 10.1002/path.1711750403.
  6. Зиматкин С.М. Гистология, цитология и эмбриология: учебное пособие. 2-е изд. Минск: Вышэйшая школа. 2013. 229 с. [Zimatkin S.M. Histology, cytology and embryology: a textbook. 2nd ed. Minsk: Vyshehishaya shkola. 2013. 229 p. (In Russ.)].
  7. Орлов А.И. Теория измерений как часть методов анализа данных: размышления над переводом статьи П.Ф. Веллемана и Л. Уилкинсона // Социология: методология, методы, математическое моделирование. 2012. № 35. С. 155–174. [Orlov A.I. Teoriya izmerenij kak chast’ metodov analiza danny’x: razmy’shleniya nad perevodom stat’i P.F. Vellemana i L. Uilkinsona // Sotsiologiya: metodologiya, metody, matematicheskoe modelirovanie. 2012. N. 35. P. 155–174. (In Russ.)].
  8. Савина А.Г., Блок А.В. Роль и место измерительных шкал в математической статистике // Проблемы современной науки и образования. 2015. № 3 (33). С. 71–75. [Savina A.G., Blok A.V. Rol’ i mesto izmeritel’ny’x shkal v matematicheskoj statistike // Problemy sovremennoi nauki i obrazovaniya. 2015. N. 3 (33). P. 71–75 (In Russ.)].
  9. Stevens S.S. On the Theory of Scales of Measurement // Science. 1946 Vol. 103. N. 2684. P. 677–680. DOI: 10.1126/science.103.2684.677.
  10. Shackelford C., Long G., Wolf J. et. al. Qualitative and quantitative analysis of nonneoplastic lesions in toxicology studies // Toxicol. Pathol. 2002. Vol. 30. N. 1. P. 93–96. DOI: 10.1080/01926230252824761.
  11. Schafer K.A., Eighmy J., Fikes J.D. et al. Use of Seve­rity Grades to Characterize Histopathologic Changes // Toxicologic Pathology. 2018. Vol 46. N. 3. P. 256–265. DOI: 10.1177/0192623318761348.
  12. Автандилов Г.Г. Медицинская морфометрия. Руководство. Москва: Медицина, 1990. 384 c. [Avtandilov G.G. Medicinskaya morfometriya. Rukovodstvo. Moskva: Meditsina, 1990. 384 p. (In Russ.)].
  13. Ochs M., Mühlfeld C. Quantitative microscopy of the lung: a problem-based approach. Part 1: basic principles of lung stereology // Am. J. Physiol. Lung Cell Mol. Physiol. 2013. Vol. 305. N. 1. P. 15–22. DOI: 10.1152/ajplung.00429.2012.
  14. West M.J. Basic Stereology for Biologists and Neuroscientists // Cold Spring Harb. Protoc. 2012. P. 203.
  15. Schneider J.P., Ochs M. Stereology of the lung // Methods Cell Biol. 2013. Vol. 113. P. 257–294. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-407239-8.00012-4.
  16. Mandarim-de-Lacerda C.A., Del Sol M. Tips for studies with quantitative morphology (morphometry and stereology) // Int. J. Morphol. 2017. Vol. 35. N. 4. P. 1482–1494. DOI: 10.4067/S0717-95022017000401482.
  17. Boyce R.W., Dorph-Petersen K.A., Lyck L., Gunder­sen H.J. Design-based stereology: introduction to basic concepts and practical approaches for estimation of cell number // Toxicol. Pathol. 2010. Vol. 38. N. 7. P. 1011–1025. DOI: 10.1177/0192623310385140.
Received: 2023-12-25
Reviewed: 2024-01-26
Accepted for publication: 2024-02-13

You may be interested

NPO "Home of Pharmacy"

188663, Russia, Leningradskaya oblast', Vsevolozhskij rajon, g.p. Kuz'molovskij, Zavodskaya ulica, 3-245

© 2020 ООО «ИД «Русский врач»