4.5 Article

In vivo measurement of epidermal thickness changes associated with tumor promotion in murine models

Journal

JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL OPTICS
Volume 15, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

SPIE-SOC PHOTO-OPTICAL INSTRUMENTATION ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1117/1.3455508

Keywords

confocal microscopy; cancer; noninvasive imaging; hyperplasia; image segmentation

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [5-T32-CA106195-05]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The characterization of tissue morphology in murine models of pathogenesis has traditionally been carried out by excision of affected tissues with subsequent immunohistological examination. Excision-based histology provides a limited two-dimensional presentation of tissue morphology at the cost of halting disease progression at a single time point and sacrifice of the animal. We investigate the use of noninvasive reflectance mode confocal scanning laser microscopy (rCSLM) as an alternative tool to biopsy in documenting epidermal hyperplasia in murine models exposed to the tumor promoter 12-O-tetradecanoylphorbol-13-acetate (TPA). An automated technique utilizing average axial rCSLM reflectance profiles is used to extract epidermal thickness values from rCSLM data cubes. In comparisons to epidermal thicknesses determined from hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stained tissue sections, we find no significant correlation to rCSLM-derived thickness values. This results from method-specific artifacts: physical alterations of tissue during H&E preparation in standard histology and specimen-induced abberations in rCSLM imaging. Despite their disagreement, both histology and rCSLM methods reliably measure statistically significant thickness changes in response to TPA exposure. Our results demonstrate that in vivo rCSLM imaging provides epithelial biologists an accurate noninvasive means to monitor cutaneous pathogenesis. (C) 2010 Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers. [DOI: 10.1117/1.3455508]

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available