FISH and chips: automation of fluorescent dot counting in interphase cell nuclei.

Fluorescence in situ hybridization allows the enumeration of chromosomal abnormalities in interphase cell nuclei. This process is called dot counting. To estimate the distribution of chromosomes per cell, a large number of cells have to be analyzed, especially when the frequency of aberrant cells is low. Automation of dot counting is required because manual counting is tedious, fatiguing, and time-consuming. We developed a completely automated fluorescence microscope system that can examine 500 cells in approximately 15 min to determine the number of labeled chromosomes (seen as dots) in each cell nucleus. This system works with two fluorescent dyes, one for the DNA hybridization dots and one for the cell nucleus. After the stage has moved to a new field, the image is automatically focused, acquired by a Photometrics KAF 1400 camera (Photometrics Ltd., Tuscon, AZ, USA), and then analyzed on a Macintosh Quadra 840AV (Apple Computer, Inc., Cupertino, CA, USA) computer. After the required number of cells has been analyzed, the user may interact to correct the computer by working with a gallery of the cell images. The automated dot counter has been tested on a number of normal specimens where 4,'6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI) was used for the nucleus counterstain and a centromeric 8 probe was used to mark the desired chromosome. The slides contained lymphocytes from cultured blood. We compared the results of the dot counter with manual counting. Manually obtained results, published in the literature, were used as the "ground truth." For a normal specimen, 97.5% of cells will have two dots. Fully automated scanning of 13 slides showed that an average of 89% of all nuclei were counted correctly. In other words, an average of 11% has to be interactively corrected, using a monitor display. The machine accuracies, after interactive correction, are comparable to panels of human experts (manual). The fully automatically obtained results are biased with respect to manual counting. An error analysis is given, and different causes are discussed.

[1]  H Geldermann,et al.  [Automatization of chromosome analysis with the computer]. , 1970, Humangenetik.

[2]  I T Young,et al.  Automatic detection and localization of sister chromatid exchanges. , 1976, The journal of histochemistry and cytochemistry : official journal of the Histochemistry Society.

[3]  T. W. Ridler,et al.  Picture thresholding using an iterative selection method. , 1978 .

[4]  F. Meyer.  Iterative image transformations for an automatic screening of cervical smears. , 1979, The journal of histochemistry and cytochemistry : official journal of the Histochemistry Society.

[5]  Jim Piper,et al.  Automation of chromosome analysis , 1980 .

[6]  Jean Serra,et al.  Image Analysis and Mathematical Morphology , 1983 .

[7]  Xinhua Zhuang,et al.  Image Analysis Using Mathematical Morphology , 1987, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[8]  Ian T. Young,et al.  Acuity: Image Analysis for the Personal Computer , 1988 .

[9]  R. Aikens,et al.  Chapter 16 Solid-State Imagers for Microscopy , 1988 .

[10]  R. Aikens,et al.  Solid-state imagers for microscopy. , 1989, Methods in cell biology.

[11]  Lucas J. van Vliet,et al.  A nonlinear laplace operator as edge detector in noisy images , 1989, Comput. Vis. Graph. Image Process..

[12]  D. Pinkel,et al.  Aneuploidy detection by analysis of interphase nuclei using fluorescence in situ hybridization with chromosome-specific probes. , 1989, Progress in clinical and biological research.

[13]  H. Tanke,et al.  Detection of chromosome aberrations in interphase tumor nuclei by nonradioactive in situ hybridization. , 1989, Cancer genetics and cytogenetics.

[14]  F. Ramaekers,et al.  Numerical chromosome 1, 7, 9, and 11 aberrations in bladder cancer detected by in situ hybridization. , 1991, Cancer research.

[15]  P. Nederlof,et al.  Quantification of inter- and intra-nuclear variation of fluorescence in situ hybridization signals. , 1992, Cytometry.

[16]  A. Raap,et al.  Statistical methods in interphase cytogenetics: an experimental approach. , 1993, Cytometry.

[17]  Detection of Monosomy 7 and Trisomy 8 in Myeloid Neoplasia: A Comparison of Banding and Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization , 1993 .

[18]  Ian T. Young,et al.  Methods for CCD camera characterization , 1994, Electronic Imaging.

[19]  H. Netten,et al.  Autofocusing in microscopy based on the OTF and sampling , 1994 .

[20]  A D Carothers,et al.  Counting, measuring, and mapping in FISH-labelled cells: sample size considerations and implications for automation. , 1994, Cytometry.

[21]  K. Castleman,et al.  Dot count proportion estimation in FISH specimens , 1995 .

[22]  H. Netten,et al.  Automation of spot counting in interphase cytogenetics using brightfield microscopy. , 1996, Cytometry.