Cell Counting in Human Endobronchial Biopsies - Disagreement of 2D versus 3D Morphometry

Vlad A Bratu, Veit J Erpenbeck, Antonia Fehrenbach, Tanja Rausch, Susanne Rittinghausen, Norbert Krug, Jens M Hohlfeld and Heinz Fehrenbach

PLOS ONE, 2014, vol. 9, issue 3, 1-12

Abstract: Question: Inflammatory cell numbers are important endpoints in clinical studies relying on endobronchial biopsies. Assumption-based bidimensional (2D) counting methods are widely used, although theoretically design-based stereologic three-dimensional (3D) methods alone offer an unbiased quantitative tool. We assessed the method agreement between 2D and 3D counting designs in practice when applied to identical samples in parallel. Materials and Methods: Biopsies from segmental bronchi were collected from healthy non-smokers (n = 7) and smokers (n = 7), embedded and sectioned exhaustively. Systematic uniform random samples were immunohistochemically stained for macrophages (CD68) and T-lymphocytes (CD3), respectively. In identical fields of view, cell numbers per volume unit (NV) were assessed using the physical disector (3D), and profiles per area unit (NA) were counted (2D). For CD68+ cells, profiles with and without nucleus were separately recorded. In order to enable a direct comparison of the two methods, the zero-dimensional CD68+/CD3+-ratio was calculated for each approach. Method agreement was tested by Bland-Altmann analysis. Results: In both groups, mean CD68+/CD3+ ratios for NV and NA were significantly different (non-smokers: 0.39 and 0.68, p

Date: 2014
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0092510 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 92510&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0092510

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0092510

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().