4.6 Article

Validation of a morphometric method for evaluating fibroblast numbers in normal and pathologic tissues

Journal

EXPERIMENTAL DERMATOLOGY
Volume 12, Issue 4, Pages 403-411

Publisher

BLACKWELL MUNKSGAARD
DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0625.2003.00023.x

Keywords

fibroblast; human skin; dermal equivalent; image analysis

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this work was to validate an image analysis method, based on cell nuclei form factor determination, for counting fibroblasts within human dermis. We first used reconstructed dermal equivalents in which fibroblasts can also be counted directly after lysis of the collagen matrix. We found a good correlation between the results of direct counting and those of image analysis from day 10 to day 28 of culture. When applied to young normal donors' skin biopsies fixed in Bouin's solution and embedded in paraffin, the image analysis method yielded mid-dermis fibroblast counts of between 2100 and 4100 per mm(3) of fresh tissue. A nuclear form factor (FF) comprised between 0.35 and 0.84 was found to be a biologic marker of fibroblasts. This was confirmed after fibroblast discrimination from other cell types, which had rounder nuclei (FF greater than or equal to 0.85) and were identified either by their location (e.g. endothelial cells) or by labeling with specific antibodies (e.g. lymphocytes and monocytes/macrophages). Similar results were obtained with seven healthy donors' skin biopsies that had been frozen in nitrogen liquid and cryostat-sectioned, showing that this counting method is independent of the histologic procedure. Finally, analysis of samples of hypertrophic scars from two patients revealed that fibroblast density in some parts of the dermis was more than twice the value found in other parts presenting a fibroblast density almost normal, showing that this cell counting method can also be used to assess fibroblast heterogeneity within a given tissue.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available