4.7 Article

Quantitative Visualization of Hypoxia and Proliferation Gradients Within Histological Tissue Sections

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2019.00397

关键词

hypoxia; tumor microenvironment; digital pathology; immunofluorescence; image analysis; distance mapping; biological gradient; tissue cytometry

资金

  1. Terry Fox New Frontiers Research Program [PPG14-1036]
  2. Ontario Graduate Scholarship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The formation of hypoxic microenvironments within solid tumors is known to contribute to radiation resistance, chemotherapy resistance, immune suppression, increased metastasis, and an overall poor prognosis. It is therefore crucial to understand the spatial and molecular mechanisms that contribute to tumor hypoxia formation to improve the efficacy of radiation treatment, develop hypoxia-directed therapies, and increase patient survival. The objective of this study is to present a number of complementary novel methods for quantifying tumor hypoxia and proliferation in multiplexed immunofluorescence images, especially in relation to the location of perfused blood vessels. A standard marker analysis strategy is to take a positive pixel count approach, in which a threshold for positive stain is used to compute a positive area fraction for hypoxia. This work is a reassessment of that approach, utilizing not only cell segmentation but also distance to nearest blood vessel in order to incorporate spatial information into the analysis. We describe a reproducible pipeline for the visualization and quantitative analysis of hypoxia using a vessel distance analysis approach. This methodological pipeline can serve to further elucidate the relationship between vessel distance and microenvironment-linked markers such as hypoxia and proliferation, can help to quantify parameters relating to oxygen consumption and hypoxic tolerance in tissues, as well as potentially serve as a hypothesis generating tool for future studies testing hypoxia-linked markers.

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

4.7
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