Image processing techniques to quantify microprojections on outer corneal epithelial cells

It is widely accepted that cellular microprojections (microvilli and/or microplicae) of the corneal surface are essential to maintain the functionality of the tissue. To date, the characterization of these vital structures has been made by analysing scanning or transmission electron microscopy images of the cornea by methods that are intrinsically subjective and imprecise (qualitative or semiquantitative methods). In the present study, numerical data concerning three microprojection features were obtained by an automated method and analysed to establish which of them showed less variability. We propose that the most stable microprojection characteristic would be a useful sign in early detection of epithelial damage or disease. With this aim, the scanning electron microscopy images of 220 corneal epithelial cells of nine rabbits were subjected to several image processing techniques to quantify microprojection density, microprojection average size and surface covered by microprojections (SCM). We then assessed the reliability of the methods used and performed a statistical analysis of the data. Our results show that the thresholding process, the basis of all image processing techniques used in this work, is highly reliable in separating microprojections from the rest of the cell membrane. Assessment of histogram information from thresholded images is a good method to quantify SCM. Amongst the three studied variables, SCM was the most stable (with a coefficient of variation of 15.24%), as 89.09% of the sample cells had SCM values ≥ 40%. We also found that the variability of SCM was mainly due to intercellular differences (the cell factor contribution represented 88.78% of the total variation in the analysed cell areas). Further studies are required to elucidate how healthy corneas maintain high SCM values.

[1]  M A Lemp,et al.  The precorneal tear film. I. Factors in spreading and maintaining a continuous tear film over the corneal surface. , 1970, Archives of ophthalmology.

[2]  M. Doughty Impact of brief exposure to balanced salts solution or cetylpyridinium chloride on the surface appearance of the rabbit corneal epithelium – a scanning electron microscopy study , 2003, Current eye research.

[3]  Frank Y. Shih,et al.  Image Segmentation , 2007, Encyclopedia of Biometrics.

[4]  R. Pfister The normal surface of corneal epithelium: a scanning electron microscopic study. , 1973, Investigative ophthalmology.

[5]  M. Lemp Report of the National Eye Institute/Industry workshop on Clinical Trials in Dry Eyes. , 1995, The CLAO journal : official publication of the Contact Lens Association of Ophthalmologists, Inc.

[6]  M. Karnovsky,et al.  A formaldehyde-glutaraldehyde fixative of high osmolality for use in electron-microscopy , 1965 .

[7]  N. Burstein Preservative cytotoxic threshold for benzalkonium chloride and chlorhexidine digluconate in cat and rabbit corneas. , 1980, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[8]  M. Doughty On the Evaluation of the Corneal Epithelial Surface by Scanning Electron Microscopy , 1990, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[9]  I. Gipson,et al.  MUC16 mucin is expressed by the human ocular surface epithelia and carries the H185 carbohydrate epitope. , 2003, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[10]  S. Blümcke,et al.  The stereo ultrastructure of the external and internal surface of the cornea. , 1967, Journal of ultrastructure research.

[11]  C. Harding,et al.  A comparative study of corneal epithelial cell surfaces utilizing the scanning electron microscope. , 1974, Investigative ophthalmology.

[12]  M. Abelson,et al.  Preservative-free artificial tear preparations. Assessment of corneal epithelial toxic effects. , 1992, Archives of ophthalmology.

[13]  D. Altman,et al.  STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT , 1986, The Lancet.

[14]  N. Otsu A threshold selection method from gray level histograms , 1979 .

[15]  I. Gipson,et al.  Distribution of mucins at the ocular surface. , 2004, Experimental eye research.

[16]  J L Ojeda,et al.  The three‐dimensional microanatomy of the rabbit and human cornea. A chemical and mechanical microdissection‐SEM approach , 2001, Journal of anatomy.

[17]  L. Sakkas,et al.  Conjunctival surface changes in patients with Sjogren's syndrome: a transmission electron microscopy study. , 2006, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[18]  R. Pfister,et al.  The effects of ophthalmic drugs, vehicles, and preservatives on corneal epithelium: a scanning electron microscope study. , 1976, Investigative ophthalmology.

[19]  J M Bland,et al.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement , 1986 .

[20]  P. J. Murphy,et al.  Changes in the tear film and ocular surface from dry eye syndrome , 2004, Progress in Retinal and Eye Research.

[21]  A. Beckett,et al.  AKUFO AND IBARAPA. , 1965, Lancet.

[22]  Ching Y. Suen,et al.  A threshlod selection method based on multiscale and graylevel co-occurrence matrix analysis , 2005, Eighth International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition (ICDAR'05).

[23]  I. Gipson,et al.  Epithelial mucins of the ocular surface: structure, biosynthesis and function. , 2001, Experimental eye research.

[24]  R. Beuerman,et al.  Ultrastructure of the human cornea , 1996, Microscopy research and technique.

[25]  Joan Serra,et al.  Image segmentation , 2003, Proceedings 2003 International Conference on Image Processing (Cat. No.03CH37429).

[26]  S. Collin,et al.  A Comparative SEM Study of the Vertebrate Corneal Epithelium , 2000, Cornea.