对微图案质量和效果进行评分的简单方法。

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q3 CELL & TISSUE ENGINEERING
Tissue engineering. Part C, Methods Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-23 DOI:10.1089/ten.TEC.2024.0141
Hui Che, Mischa Selig, Jasmin C Lauer, Melanie L Hart, Bernd Rolauffs
{"title":"对微图案质量和效果进行评分的简单方法。","authors":"Hui Che, Mischa Selig, Jasmin C Lauer, Melanie L Hart, Bernd Rolauffs","doi":"10.1089/ten.TEC.2024.0141","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Micropatterns (MPs) are widely used as a powerful tool to control cell morphology and phenotype. However, methods for determining the effectiveness of how well cells are controlled by the shape of MPs have been inconsistently used and studies rarely report on this topic, indicating lack of standardization. We introduce an evaluation score that quantitatively assesses the MP fabrication quality and effectiveness, which can be broadly used in conjunction with all currently available MP design types. This score uses four simple and quick steps: (i) scoring MP and (ii) background fabrication quality, (iii) defining the type(s) of MP of interest, and (iv) assigning so-called efficiency descriptors describing cell behavior. These steps are based on visual inspection and quick categorization of various aspects of MP fabrication quality and cell behavior, presented in illustrations and microscopy image examples intended to serve as a reference \"atlas.\" To illustrate the advantage of using this score, we determined differences in cell morphology and F-actin intensity between scored versus nonscored cells. These measurements, which could be different in other studies, were chosen because both are understood as markers of cell phenotype and function. We combined intensity-calibrated immunofluorescence microscopy and image-based single cell protein analysis. Most important, significant differences in cell morphology and cytoskeletal protein content between scored versus nonscored cells were noted: the unconditional inclusion of all experimental read-outs (i.e., all MP data regardless of MP quality and effectiveness) into the final results significantly misjudged the experimental readouts versus only including experimental read-outs of quality-controlled and effective MPs, identified by scoring. Specifically, nonscoring underestimated the F-actin intensity per cell and quantitative cellular morphometric descriptors circularity and solidity and overestimated aspect ratio. Scoring improved the precision of cellular readouts, advocating the use of a MP quality and efficiency score as a quantitative decision-supporting tool in deciding whether or not particular MPs should be used for experiments, saving time and money. This simple scoring methodology can be used for improving MP fabrication, comparing results across studies, benefiting basic science studies and potential future clinical use of MPs by introducing standardization.</p>","PeriodicalId":23154,"journal":{"name":"Tissue engineering. Part C, Methods","volume":" ","pages":"501-511"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Simple Methodology to Score Micropattern Quality and Effectiveness.\",\"authors\":\"Hui Che, Mischa Selig, Jasmin C Lauer, Melanie L Hart, Bernd Rolauffs\",\"doi\":\"10.1089/ten.TEC.2024.0141\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Micropatterns (MPs) are widely used as a powerful tool to control cell morphology and phenotype. However, methods for determining the effectiveness of how well cells are controlled by the shape of MPs have been inconsistently used and studies rarely report on this topic, indicating lack of standardization. We introduce an evaluation score that quantitatively assesses the MP fabrication quality and effectiveness, which can be broadly used in conjunction with all currently available MP design types. This score uses four simple and quick steps: (i) scoring MP and (ii) background fabrication quality, (iii) defining the type(s) of MP of interest, and (iv) assigning so-called efficiency descriptors describing cell behavior. These steps are based on visual inspection and quick categorization of various aspects of MP fabrication quality and cell behavior, presented in illustrations and microscopy image examples intended to serve as a reference \\\"atlas.\\\" To illustrate the advantage of using this score, we determined differences in cell morphology and F-actin intensity between scored versus nonscored cells. These measurements, which could be different in other studies, were chosen because both are understood as markers of cell phenotype and function. We combined intensity-calibrated immunofluorescence microscopy and image-based single cell protein analysis. Most important, significant differences in cell morphology and cytoskeletal protein content between scored versus nonscored cells were noted: the unconditional inclusion of all experimental read-outs (i.e., all MP data regardless of MP quality and effectiveness) into the final results significantly misjudged the experimental readouts versus only including experimental read-outs of quality-controlled and effective MPs, identified by scoring. Specifically, nonscoring underestimated the F-actin intensity per cell and quantitative cellular morphometric descriptors circularity and solidity and overestimated aspect ratio. Scoring improved the precision of cellular readouts, advocating the use of a MP quality and efficiency score as a quantitative decision-supporting tool in deciding whether or not particular MPs should be used for experiments, saving time and money. This simple scoring methodology can be used for improving MP fabrication, comparing results across studies, benefiting basic science studies and potential future clinical use of MPs by introducing standardization.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23154,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Tissue engineering. Part C, Methods\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"501-511\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Tissue engineering. Part C, Methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.TEC.2024.0141\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/9/23 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CELL & TISSUE ENGINEERING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tissue engineering. Part C, Methods","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.TEC.2024.0141","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CELL & TISSUE ENGINEERING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

微图案(MPs)被广泛用作控制细胞形态和表型的有力工具。然而,确定细胞受微图案形状控制的有效性的方法使用并不一致,相关研究也很少报道,这表明缺乏标准化。我们介绍了一种可量化评估多孔质谱制造质量和效果的评估分数,可广泛用于目前所有的多孔质谱设计类型。该评分采用四个简单快捷的步骤:(i) 对 MP 和 (ii) 背景制造质量进行评分,(iii) 定义感兴趣的 MP 类型,(iv) 分配描述细胞行为的所谓效率描述符。这些步骤以目测和快速分类为基础,涉及多孔质谱制造质量和细胞行为的各个方面,以插图和显微图像示例的形式呈现,旨在作为参考 "图集"。为了说明使用该评分的优势,我们确定了已评分细胞与未评分细胞在细胞形态和 F-肌动蛋白强度方面的差异。之所以选择这些在其他研究中可能不同的测量指标,是因为它们都被认为是细胞表型和功能的标记。我们结合了强度校准免疫荧光显微镜和基于图像的单细胞蛋白质分析。重要的是,我们注意到评分细胞与非评分细胞在细胞形态和细胞骨架蛋白含量方面存在显著差异:无条件地将所有实验读数(即所有 MP 数据,无论 MP 质量和有效性如何)纳入最终结果与只纳入通过评分确定的质量受控和有效的 MP 实验读数相比,明显误判了实验读数。具体来说,不评分会低估每个细胞的 F-肌动蛋白强度以及定量细胞形态描述指标圆度和实度,并高估长宽比。评分提高了细胞读数的精确度,提倡使用多孔质谱质量和效率评分作为定量决策支持工具,以决定是否在实验中使用特定的多孔质谱,从而节省时间和金钱。这种简单的评分方法可用于改进多孔质谱的制造,比较不同研究的结果,通过引入标准化使基础科学研究和多孔质谱未来可能的临床应用受益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Simple Methodology to Score Micropattern Quality and Effectiveness.

Micropatterns (MPs) are widely used as a powerful tool to control cell morphology and phenotype. However, methods for determining the effectiveness of how well cells are controlled by the shape of MPs have been inconsistently used and studies rarely report on this topic, indicating lack of standardization. We introduce an evaluation score that quantitatively assesses the MP fabrication quality and effectiveness, which can be broadly used in conjunction with all currently available MP design types. This score uses four simple and quick steps: (i) scoring MP and (ii) background fabrication quality, (iii) defining the type(s) of MP of interest, and (iv) assigning so-called efficiency descriptors describing cell behavior. These steps are based on visual inspection and quick categorization of various aspects of MP fabrication quality and cell behavior, presented in illustrations and microscopy image examples intended to serve as a reference "atlas." To illustrate the advantage of using this score, we determined differences in cell morphology and F-actin intensity between scored versus nonscored cells. These measurements, which could be different in other studies, were chosen because both are understood as markers of cell phenotype and function. We combined intensity-calibrated immunofluorescence microscopy and image-based single cell protein analysis. Most important, significant differences in cell morphology and cytoskeletal protein content between scored versus nonscored cells were noted: the unconditional inclusion of all experimental read-outs (i.e., all MP data regardless of MP quality and effectiveness) into the final results significantly misjudged the experimental readouts versus only including experimental read-outs of quality-controlled and effective MPs, identified by scoring. Specifically, nonscoring underestimated the F-actin intensity per cell and quantitative cellular morphometric descriptors circularity and solidity and overestimated aspect ratio. Scoring improved the precision of cellular readouts, advocating the use of a MP quality and efficiency score as a quantitative decision-supporting tool in deciding whether or not particular MPs should be used for experiments, saving time and money. This simple scoring methodology can be used for improving MP fabrication, comparing results across studies, benefiting basic science studies and potential future clinical use of MPs by introducing standardization.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Tissue engineering. Part C, Methods
Tissue engineering. Part C, Methods Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
3.30%
发文量
136
期刊介绍: Tissue Engineering is the preeminent, biomedical journal advancing the field with cutting-edge research and applications that repair or regenerate portions or whole tissues. This multidisciplinary journal brings together the principles of engineering and life sciences in the creation of artificial tissues and regenerative medicine. Tissue Engineering is divided into three parts, providing a central forum for groundbreaking scientific research and developments of clinical applications from leading experts in the field that will enable the functional replacement of tissues. Tissue Engineering Methods (Part C) presents innovative tools and assays in scaffold development, stem cells and biologically active molecules to advance the field and to support clinical translation. Part C publishes monthly.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信