An automated mapping method for Nissl-stained mouse brain histologic sections

BACKGROUND Histologic evaluation of the central nervous system is often a critical endpoint in in vivo efficacy studies, and is considered the essential component of neurotoxicity assessment in safety studies. Automated image analysis is a powerful tool that can radically reduce the workload associated with evaluating brain histologic sections. NEW METHOD We developed an automated brain mapping method that identifies neuroanatomic structures in mouse histologic coronal brain sections. The method utilizes the publicly available Allen Brain Atlas to map brain regions on digitized Nissl-stained sections. RESULTS The method's accuracy was first assessed by comparing the mapping results to structure delineations from the Franklin and Paxinos (FP) mouse brain atlas. Brain regions mapped from FP Nissl-stained sections and calculated volumes were similar to structure delineations and volumes derived from corresponding FP illustrations. We subsequently applied our method to mouse brain sections from an in vivo study where the hippocampus was the structure of interest. Nissl-stained sections were mapped and hippocampal boundaries transferred to adjacent immunohistochemically stained sections. Optical density quantification results were comparable to those from time-consuming, manually drawn hippocampal delineations on the IHC-stained sections. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHODS Compared to other published methods, our method requires less manual input, and has been validated comprehensively using a secondary atlas, as well as manually annotated brain IHC sections from 68 study mice. CONCLUSIONS We propose that our automated brain mapping method enables greater efficiency and consistency in mouse neuropathologic assessments.

[1]  Vincent Frouin,et al.  Validation of MRI-based 3D digital atlas registration with histological and autoradiographic volumes: An anatomofunctional transgenic mouse brain imaging study , 2010, NeuroImage.

[2]  K. Scearce-Levie,et al.  Antibody-Mediated Targeting of Tau In Vivo Does Not Require Effector Function and Microglial Engagement. , 2016, Cell reports.

[3]  R. Mark Henkelman,et al.  Variability of brain anatomy for three common mouse strains , 2016, NeuroImage.

[4]  Allan R. Jones,et al.  The Allen Brain Atlas: 5 years and beyond , 2009, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[5]  Cleopatra Kozlowski,et al.  An Automated Method to Quantify Microglia Morphology and Application to Monitor Activation State Longitudinally In Vivo , 2012, PloS one.

[6]  R. Switzer,et al.  Recommended Neuroanatomical Sampling Practices for Comprehensive Brain Evaluation in Nonclinical Safety Studies , 2011, Toxicologic pathology.

[7]  Allan R. Jones,et al.  Genome-wide atlas of gene expression in the adult mouse brain , 2007, Nature.

[8]  R. Mark Henkelman,et al.  High resolution three-dimensional brain atlas using an average magnetic resonance image of 40 adult C57Bl/6J mice , 2008, NeuroImage.

[9]  Zaher Dawy,et al.  Mutual information based distance measures for classification and content recognition with applications to genetics , 2005, IEEE International Conference on Communications, 2005. ICC 2005. 2005.

[10]  Dinggang Shen,et al.  Automated Segmentation of Mouse Brain Images Using Multi-Atlas Multi-ROI Deformation and Label Fusion , 2012, Neuroinformatics.

[11]  Xin Wu,et al.  Neurostereology protocol for unbiased quantification of neuronal injury and neurodegeneration , 2015, Front. Aging Neurosci..

[12]  Cornelis H. Slump,et al.  MRI modalitiy transformation in demon registration , 2009, 2009 IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: From Nano to Macro.

[13]  Sébastien Ourselin,et al.  Automatic Structural Parcellation of Mouse Brain MRI Using Multi-Atlas Label Fusion , 2014, PloS one.

[14]  Liron Pantanowitz,et al.  Relationship between magnification and resolution in digital pathology systems , 2013, Journal of pathology informatics.

[15]  Nathalie Mandairon,et al.  Non-imaged based method for matching brains in a common anatomical space for cellular imagery , 2018, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[16]  Marc Dhenain,et al.  High-throughput 3D whole-brain quantitative histopathology in rodents , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[17]  Max A. Viergever,et al.  A survey of medical image registration , 1998, Medical Image Anal..

[18]  Shraddha Pai,et al.  Semi-automated atlas-based analysis of brain histological sections , 2011, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[19]  Anders M. Dale,et al.  Automated segmentation of neuroanatomical structures in multispectral MR microscopy of the mouse brain , 2005, NeuroImage.

[20]  Scott E Fraser,et al.  Magnetic resonance microscopy: recent advances and applications. , 2005, Current opinion in biotechnology.

[21]  R. Garman,et al.  STP Position Paper , 2013, Toxicologic pathology.

[22]  Anders M. Dale,et al.  Automated segmentation of the actively stained mouse brain using multi-spectral MR microscopy , 2008, NeuroImage.

[23]  Hongkui Zeng,et al.  Neuroinformatics of the Allen Mouse Brain Connectivity Atlas. , 2015, Methods.

[24]  Joni-Kristian Kämäräinen,et al.  Invariance properties of Gabor filter-based features-overview and applications , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing.

[25]  Max A. Viergever,et al.  Mutual-information-based registration of medical images: a survey , 2003, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[26]  Saman A. Zonouz,et al.  CloudID: Trustworthy cloud-based and cross-enterprise biometric identification , 2015, Expert Syst. Appl..

[27]  Douglas M. Bowden,et al.  NeuroNames: An Ontology for the BrainInfo Portal to Neuroscience on the Web , 2011, Neuroinformatics.

[28]  Johan H C Reiber,et al.  Automated Segmentation of in Vivo and Ex Vivo Mouse Brain Magnetic Resonance Images , 2009, Molecular imaging.

[29]  George Paxinos,et al.  The Mouse Brain in Stereotaxic Coordinates , 2001 .

[30]  Martin Styner,et al.  Parametric estimate of intensity inhomogeneities applied to MRI , 2000, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.