4.0 Article

Development of a fast, objective, quantitative methodology to monitor angiogenesis in the chicken chorioallantoic membrane during development

期刊

出版社

U B C PRESS
DOI: 10.1387/ijdb.103119ev

关键词

angiogenesis; chicken embryo; CAM; hypoxia; image analysis

资金

  1. Institute for the Promotion of Innovation through Science and Technology in Flanders (IWT-Vlaanderen)
  2. K.U.Leuven

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent research investigates the role of different gas concentrations during incubation, on chicken growth, quality and health post hatch. One of the parameters of chicken development which changes under different gas concentrations is angiogenesis in the chorioallantoic membrane (CAM). To be able to perform large incubation experiments under different conditions, angiogenesis in the whole CAM must be quantified objectively and easily. In this paper, a fast, objective, quantitative methodology to assess changes in the overall vascular development in the CAM of chicken embryos is presented. Samples were taken with minimal disturbance by emptying the egg, so that the CAM stayed attached to the shell, which was then cut in pieces. We employed a commercial digital camera and a macro lens set at 5x magnification to take pictures with sufficient contrast and resolution (2.64 mu m/pixel). These were processed with computer algorithms to calculate the vascular fraction (VF) and the fractal dimension (FD) automatically on binary images. The ratio of the repeatability and reproducibility variation compared to the parts variation was 0.32 for VF and 0.21 for FD. In a validation experiment (n=284), one group was incubated under hypoxic conditions and the other under normoxic conditions. It was shown that early hypoxia stimulated angiogenesis, while chronic hypoxia impeded growth with significant differences between both groups, which is in accordance with literature data. Thus, we report here a method to asses overall angiogenesis in the CAM under different incubation conditions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据