Comparative Histomorphometric Analysis of Jejunum Layers Using QuPath and Fiji Software
Keywords:
Histomorphometry, Jejunum, QuPath, Fiji, Histological Image AnalysisAbstract
Background: Histopathological examination is essential for assessing tissue conditions. Histomorphometry provides a quantitative approach to analyzing tissue structures. Various software applications, including QuPath and Fiji, facilitate histological image analysis. However, differences in measurement techniques or tools may affect the outcomes. This study aims to evaluate the measurement results and agreement between QuPath and Fiji in measuring jejunum histological layers.
Methods: Hematoxylin-eosin-stained human jejunum slides were analyzed using Leica DM500 at 4×, 10×, and 40× magnifications. Calibrated images were processed for histomorphometry using QuPath and Fiji. Measurements of the mucosa, submucosa, and muscularis externa layers were performed and compared using an independent t-test and Bland-Altman analysis.
Results: The results showed that the mucosa was the thickest layer, followed by the muscularis externa, and the submucosa was the thinnest. Both software tools yielded fairly similar measurements, with just minor variations between the numbers. The independent t-test showed no statistically significant differences, while the Bland-Altman analysis revealed a strong agreement between the two methods. The data showed that any disparities were within acceptable limits, confirming the reliability of both QuPath and Fiji for histomorphometric assessments.
Conclusion: QuPath and Fiji yielded statistically identical measurements, demonstrating their interchangeability for histomorphometric analysis. Researchers may trust either software to quantify histological structures or layers.
References
1. Bankhead P, Loughrey MB, Fernández JA, Dombrowski Y, McArt DG, Dunne PD, et al. QuPath: Open source software for digital pathology image analysis. Scientific reports. 2017;7(1):16878. 10.1038/s41598-017-17204-5.
2. Jones TR, Kang IH, Wheeler DB, Lindquist RA, Papallo A, Sabatini DM, et al. CellProfiler Analyst: data exploration and analysis software for complex image-based screens. BMC Bioinformatics. 2008;9(1):482. 10.1186/1471-2105-9-482.
3. Schindelin J, Arganda-Carreras I, Frise E, Kaynig V, Longair M, Pietzsch T, et al. Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis. Nature methods. 2012;9(7):676-82. 10.1038/nmeth.2019.
4. Sommer C, Hoefler R, Samwer M, Gerlich DW. A deep learning and novelty detection framework for rapid phenotyping in high-content screening. Molecular Biology of the Cell. 2017;28(23):3428-36. 10.1091/mbc.e17-05-0333.
5. Rueden CT, Schindelin J, Hiner MC, DeZonia BE, Walter AE, Arena ET, et al. ImageJ2: ImageJ for the next generation of scientific image data. BMC Bioinformatics. 2017;18(1):529. 10.1186/s12859-017-1934-z.
6. Berg S, Kutra D, Kroeger T, Straehle CN, Kausler BX, Haubold C, et al. ilastik: interactive machine learning for (bio)image analysis. Nature methods. 2019;16(12):1226-32. 10.1038/s41592-019-0582-9.
7. Orfahli LM, Rezaei M, Figueroa BA, Crawford AV, Annunziata MJ, Rao M, et al. Histomorphometry in Peripheral Nerve Regeneration: Comparison of Different Axon Counting Methods. The Journal of surgical research. 2021;268:354-62. 10.1016/j.jss.2021.06.060.
8. Lozano-Gerona J, García-Otín Á-L. ImageJ-based semiautomatic method to analyze senescence in cell culture. Analytical Biochemistry. 2018;543:30-2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ab.2017.11.020.
9. Seyyedin S, Nazem MN. Histomorphometric study of the effect of methionine on small intestine parameters in rat: an applied histologic study. Folia morphologica. 2017;76(4):620-9. 10.5603/FM.a2017.0044.
10. Aderibigbe OB, Sogunle O, Tokunbo E, Abiola SS, Ladokun OA, Olusola A. Pelletized feed of different particle sizes: Effects on performance, carcass characteristics and intestinal morphology of two strains of broiler chicken. Pertanika Journal of Tropical Agricultural Science. 2013;36:127-44.
11. Cahyani LMM, Setiasih NLE, Heryani LGSS. Struktur Histologi dan Histomorfometri Duodenum Babi Landrace. Indonesia Medicus Veterinus. 2019:513-22.
12. Eristiawan IGE, Setiasih NLE, Suastika P, Heriyani LGSS, Susari NNW. Struktur Histologi dan Histomorfometri Usus Halus Bagian Jejunum Sapi Bali. Indonesia Medicus Veterinus. 2021:71-81%@ 2477-6637. 10.19087/imv.2020.10.1.71.
13. Bello A, Danmaigoro A. Histomorphological observation of the small intestine of Red Sokoto Goat: a review. MOJ Anatomy & Physiology. 2019;6(3).
14. Collins JT, Nguyen A, Badireddy M. Anatomy, abdomen and pelvis, small intestine. StatPearls [Internet]: StatPearls Publishing; 2024.
15. Al-Nakkash L, Mason D, Ismail N, Bowman T, Ahlert J, Rubin M, et al. Exercise Training Prevents the Loss of Wall Thickness and Lowers Expression of Alzheimer's Related Proteins in 3xTg Mouse Jejunum. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2022;19(21). 10.3390/ijerph192114164.
16. Trbojević-Stanković JB, Milićević NM, Milosević DP, Despotović N, Davidović M, Erceg P, et al. Morphometric study of healthy jejunal and ileal mucosa in adult and aged subjects. Histology and histopathology. 2010;25(2):153-8. 10.14670/hh-25.153.
17. Di Donato P, Penninck D, Pietra M, Cipone M, Diana A. Ultrasonographic measurement of the relative thickness of intestinal wall layers in clinically healthy cats. Journal of feline medicine and surgery. 2014;16(4):333-9. 10.1177/1098612x13509080.
18. Diana A, Freccero F, Giancola F, Linta N, Pietra M, Luca V, et al. Ex vivo ultrasonographic and histological morphometry of small intestinal wall layers in horses. Veterinary radiology & ultrasound : the official journal of the American College of Veterinary Radiology and the International Veterinary Radiology Association. 2022;63(3):353-63. 10.1111/vru.13059.
