4.4 Article

Automated three-dimensional detection and counting of neuron somata

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE METHODS
卷 180, 期 1, 页码 147-160

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2009.03.008

关键词

Neuron counting; Neuron density; NeuN; GAD67; Ca(2+)-sensitive dye; Two-photon; Widefield

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present a novel approach for automated detection of neuron somata. A three-step processing pipeline is described on the example of confocal image stacks of NeuN-stained neurons from rat somato-sensory cortex. It results in a set of position landmarks, representing the midpoints of all neuron somata. In the first step, foreground and background pixels are identified, resulting in a binary image. It is based on local thresholding and compensates for imaging and staining artifacts. Once this pre-processing guarantees a standard image quality, clusters of touching neurons are separated in the second step, using a marker-based watershed approach. A model-based algorithm completes the pipeline. It assumes a dominant neuron population with Gaussian distributed volumes within one microscopic field of view. Remaining larger objects are hence split or treated as a second neuron type. A variation of the processing pipeline is presented, showing that our method can also be used for co-localization of neurons in multi-channel images. As an example, we process 2-channel stacks of NeuN-stained somata, labeling all neurons, counterstained with GAD67, labeling GABAergic interneurons, using an adapted pre-processing step for the second channel. The automatically generated landmark sets are compared to manually placed counterparts. A comparison yields that the deviation in landmark position is negligible and that the difference between the numbers of manually and automatically counted neurons is less than 4%. In consequence, this novel approach for neuron counting is a reliable and objective alternative to manual detection. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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