Semiautomated quantification of the fibrous tissue response to complex three-dimensional filamentous scaffolds using digital image analysis.
biocompatibility
biomaterial
fibrosis
semiautomatic scoring
Journal
Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A
ISSN: 1552-4965
Titre abrégé: J Biomed Mater Res A
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101234237
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2022
02 2022
Historique:
revised:
24
06
2021
received:
26
01
2021
accepted:
29
07
2021
pubmed:
15
8
2021
medline:
1
4
2022
entrez:
14
8
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Fibrosis represents a relevant response to the implantation of biomaterials, which occurs not only at the tissue-material interface (fibrotic encapsulation) but also within the void fraction of complex three-dimensional (3D) biomaterial constructions (fibrotic ingrowth). Usual evaluation of the biocompatibility mostly depicts fibrosis at the interface of the biomaterial using semiquantitative scores. Here, the relations between encapsulation and infiltrating fibrotic growth are poorly represented. Virtual pathology and digital image analysis provide new strategies to assess fibrosis in a more differentiated way. In this study, we adopted a method previously used to quantify fibrosis in visceral organs to the quantification of fibrosis to 3D biomaterials. In a proof-of-concept study, we transferred the "Collagen Proportionate Area" (CPA) analysis from hepatology to the field of biomaterials. As one task of an experimental animal study, we used CPA analysis to quantify the fibrotic ingrowth into a filamentous scaffold after subcutaneous implantation. We were able to demonstrate that the application of the CPA analysis is well suited as an additional fibrosis evaluation strategy for new biomaterial constructions. The CPA method can contribute to a better understanding of the fibrotic interactions between 3D scaffolds and the host tissue responses.
Substances chimiques
Biocompatible Materials
0
Collagen
9007-34-5
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
353-364Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Anderson JM, Rodriguez A, Chang DT. Foreign body reaction to biomaterials. Semin Immunol. 2008;20:86-100.
Klopfleisch R, Jung F. The pathology of the foreign body reaction against biomaterials. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2017;105:927-940.
Klopfleisch R. Macrophage reaction against biomaterials in the mouse model - phenotypes, functions and markers. Acta Biomater. 2016;43:3-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2016.07.003
Anderson JM. Future challenges in the in vitro and in vivo evaluation of biomaterial biocompatibility, Regen. Biomaterials. 2016;3:73-77.
Keating JH, Melidone R, Garcia-Polite F. Preclinical evaluation of mesh implants: the Pathologist's perspective. Toxicol Pathol. 2019;47:379-389.
Ikarashi Y, Toyoda K, Ohsawa N, et al. Comparative studies by cell culture and in vivo implantation test on the toxicity of natural rubber latex materials. J Biomed Mater Res. 1992;26:339-356.
Huang BJ, Hu JC, Athanasiou KA. Cell-based tissue engineering strategies used in the clinical repair of articular cartilage. Biomaterials. 2016;98:1-22.
Doran PM. Cartilage tissue engineering: what have we learned in practice? Methods Mol Biol. 2015;1340:3-21.
Vig K, Chaudhari A, Tripathi S, et al. Advances in skin regeneration using tissue engineering. Int J Mol Sci. 2017;18:789.
JMesquita JA, Lacerda-Santos R, Sampaio GAM, Godoy GP, Nonaka CFW, Alves PW. Evaluation in vivo of biocompatibility of differents resin-modified cements for bonding orthodontic bands. An Acad Bras Cienc. 2017;89:2433-2443.
Zywicka B, Szymonowicz M, Bryla D, Rybak Z. Histological evaluation of the local soft tissue reaction after implanting resorbable and non-resorbable monofilament fibers. Polim Med. 2016;46:135-143.
Pita PC, Pinto FC, Lira MM, Melo Fde A, Ferreira LM, Aguiar JL. Biocompatibility of the bacterial cellulose hydrogel in subcutaneous tissue of rabbits. Acta Circul Bras. 2015;30:296-300.
Santos RL, Moura Mde F, Carvalho FG, Guenes GM, Alves PM, Pithon MM. Histological analysis of biocompatibility of ionomer cements with an acid-base reaction. Braz Oral Res. 2014;28:1-7.
Graca YL, Opolski AC, Barboza BE, et al. Biocompatibility of Ricinus communis polymer with addition of calcium carbonate compared to titanium. Experimental study in Guinea pigs. Rev Bras Cir Cardiovasc. 2014;29:272-278.
Melman L, Jenkins ED, Hamilton NA, et al. Histologic and biomechanical evaluation of a novel macroporous polytetrafluoroethylene knit mesh compared to lightweight and heavyweight polypropylene mesh in a porcine model of ventral incisional hernia repair. Hernia. 2011;15:423-431.
Faleris JA, Hernandez RM, Wetzel D, Dodds R, Greenspan DC. In-vivo and in-vitro histological evaluation of two commercially available acellular dermal matrices. Hernia. 2011;15:147-156.
Sabri F, Boughter JD Jr, Gerth D, et al. Histological evaluation of the biocompatibility of polyurea crosslinked silica aerogel implants in a rat model: a pilot study. PLoS One. 2012;7:e50686.
Cunha SA, Rached FA, Alfredo E, Leon JE, Perez DE. Biocompatibility of sealers used in apical surgery: a histological study in rat subcutaneous tissue. Braz Dent J. 2011;22:299-305.
Hussein KH, Park KM, Kang KS, Woo HM. Biocompatibility evaluation of tissue-engineered decellularized scaffolds for biomedical application. Korean J Couns Psychother. 2016;67:766-778.
Laurinavicius A, Laurinaviciene A, Dasevicius D, et al. Digital image analysis in pathology: benefits and obligation. Anal Cell Pathol. 2012;35:75-78.
Pilette C, Rousselet MC, Bedossa P, et al. Histopathological evaluation of liver fibrosis: quantitative image analysis vs semi-quantitative scores. Comparison with serum markers. J Hepatol. 1998;28:439-446.
Masseroli M, Caballero T, O'Valle F, Del Moral RM, Perez-Milena A, Del Moral RG. Automatic quantification of liver fibrosis: design and validation of a new image analysis method: comparison with semi-quantitative indexes of fibrosis. J Hepatol. 2000;32:453-464.
Wright M, Thursz M, Pullen R, Thomas H, Goldin R. Quantitative versus morphological assessment of liver fibrosis: semi-quantitative scores are more robust than digital image fibrosis area estimation. Liver Int. 2003;23:28-34.
Hui AY, Liew CT, Go MY, et al. Quantitative assessment of fibrosis in liver biopsies from patients with chronic hepatitis B. Liver Int. 2004;24:611-618.
Lazzarini AL, Levine RA, Ploutz-Snyder RJ, Sanderson SO. Advances in digital quantification technique enhance discrimination between mild and advanced liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C. Liver Int. 2005;25:1142-1149.
Zaitoun AM, Al Mardini H, Awad S, Ukabam S, Makadisi S, Record CO. Quantitative assessment of fibrosis and steatosis in liver biopsies from patients with chronic hepatitis C. J Clin Pathol. 2001;54:461-465.
O'Brien MJ, Keating NM, Elderiny S, et al. An assessment of digital image analysis to measure fibrosis in liver biopsy specimens of patients with chronic hepatitis C. Am J Clin Pathol. 2000;114:712-718.
Marcos R, Braganca B, Fontes-Sousa AP. Image analysis or stereology: which to choose for quantifying fibrosis? J Histochem Cytochem. 2015;63:734-736.
Halasz T, Horvath G, Kiss A, et al. Evaluation of histological and non-invasive methods for the detection of liver fibrosis: the values of histological and digital morphometric analysis, liver stiffness measurement and APRI score. Pathol Oncol Res. 2016;22:1-6.
Pavlides M, Birks J, Fryer E, et al. Interobserver variability in histologic evaluation of liver fibrosis using categorical and quantitative scores. Am J Clin Pathol. 2017;147:364-369.
Calvaruso V, Burroughs AK, Standish R, et al. Computer-assisted image analysis of liver collagen: relationship to Ishak scoring and hepatic venous pressure gradien. Hepatology. 2009;49:1236-1244.
Hall AR, Tsochatzis E, Morris R, Burroughs AK, Dhillon AP. Sample size requirement for digital image analysis of collagen proportionate area in cirrhotic liver. Histopathology. 2013;62:421-430.
Hall A, Germani G, Isgro G, Burroughs AK, Dhillon AP. Fibrosis distribution in explanted cirrhotic livers. Histopathology. 2012;60:270-277.
Nielsen K, Clemmese JO, Vassiliadis E, Vainer B. Liver collagen in cirrhosis correlates with portal hypertension and liver dysfunction. APMIS. 2014;122:1213-1222.
Xu S, Wang Y, Tai DCS, et al. qFibrosis: a fully-quantitative innovative method incorporating histological features to facilitate accurate fibrosis scoring in animal model and chronic hepatitis B patients. J Hepatol. 2014;61:260-269.
Tsochatzis E, Bruno S, Isgro G, et al. Collagen proportionate area is superior to other histological methods for sub-classifying cirrhosis and determining prognosis. J Hepatol. 2014;60:948-954.
Chen SH, Peng CY, Lai HC, et al. Head-to-head comparison between collagen proportionate area and acoustic radiation force impulse elastography in liver fibrosis quantification in chronic hepatitis C. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0140554.
Restellini S, Goossens N, Clement S, et al. Collagen proportionate area correlates to hepatic venous pressure gradient in non-abstinent cirrhotic patients with alcoholic liver disease. World J Hepatol. 2018;10:73-81.
Sun Y, Zhou J, Wu X, et al. Quantitative assessment of liver fibrosis (qFibrosis) reveals precise outcomes in Ishak “stable” patients on anti-HBV therapy. Sci Rep. 2018;8:2989.
Vasiljevic JD, Popovic ZB, Otasevic P, et al. Myocardial fibrosis assessment by semiquantitative, point-counting and computer-based methods in patients with heart muscle disease: a comparative study. Histopathology. 2001;38:338-343.
Daunoravicius D, Besusparis J, Zurauskas E, et al. Quantification of myocardial fibrosis by digital image analysis and interactive stereology. DIagn Pathol. 2014;9:114.
Schipke J, Brandenberger C, Rajces A, et al. Assessment of cardiac fibrosis: a morphometric method comparison for collagen quantification. J Appl Physiol. 2017;122:1019-1030.
Marcos-Garces V, Harvat M, Molina Aguilar P, Ferrandez Izquierdo A, Ruiz-Sauri A. Comparative measurement of collagen bundle orientation by Fourier analysis and semiquantitative evaluation: reliability and agreement in Masson's trichrome, Picrosirius red and confocal microscopy techniques. J Microsc. 2017;267:130-142.
Vega-Estrada A, Silvestre-Albero J, Rodriguez AE, et al. Biocompatibility and biomechanical effect of single wall carbon nanotubes implanted in the corneal stroma: a proof of concept investigation. J Ophthalmol. 2016;2016:1767.
Zhang WJ, Marx SK, Laue C, et al. HOE 077 reduces fibrotic overgrowth around the barium alginate microcapsules. Transplant Proc. 2000;32:206-209.
Zhang WJ, Laue C, Hyder A, Schrezenmeir J. Purity of alginate affects the viability and fibrotic overgrowth of encapsulated porcine islet xenografts. Transplant Proc. 2001;33:3517-3519.
Zhang H, Sun L, Wang W, Ma X. Quantitative analysis of fibrosis formation on the microcapsule surface with the use of picro-sirius red staining, polarized light microscopy, and digital image analysis. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2006;76:120-125.
Madabhushi A, Lee G. Image analysis and machine learning in digital pathology: challenges and opportunities. Med Image Anal. 2016;33:170-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2016.06.037
Jenkins ED, Melman L, Deeken CR, Greco SC, Frisella MM, Matthews BD. Evaluation of fenestrated and non-fenestrated biologic grafts in a porcine model of mature ventral incisional hernia repair. Hernia. 2010;14:599-610.
Hadi AM, Mouchaers KT, Schalij I, et al. Rapid quantification of myocardial fibrosis: a new macro-based automated analysis. Cell Oncol (Dordr). 2011;34:343-354.
Leite SN, Jordao Junio AA, Andrade TA, Masson Ddos S, Frade MA. Experimental models of malnutrition and its effect on skin trophism. An Bras Dermatol. 2011;86:681-688.
Caetano GF, Frade MA, Andrade TA, et al. Chitosan-alginate membranes accelerate wound healing. J Biomed Mater Res Part B Appl Biomater. 2015;103:1013-1022.
Caetano GF, Fronza M, Leite MN, Gomes A, Frade MA. Comparison of collagen content in skin wounds evaluated by biochemical assay and by computer-aided histomorphometric analysis. Pharm Biol. 2016;54:2555-2559.
DiEgidio P, Friedman HI, Gourdie RG, Riley AE, Yost MJ, Goodwin RL. Biomedical implant capsule formation: lessons learned and the road ahead. Ann Plast Surg. 2014;73:451-460.
Greaves NS, Iqbal SA, Hodgkinson T, et al. Skin substitute-assisted repair shows reduced dermal fibrosis in acute human wounds validated simultaneously by histology and optical coherence tomograph. Wound Repair Regen. 2015;23:483-494.
Thevenot P, Hu W, Tang L. Surface chemistry influences implant biocompatibility. Curr Top Med Chem. 2008;8:270-280.
Hogrebe NJ, Reinhardt JW, Gooch KW. Biomaterial microarchitecture: a potent regulator of individual cell behavior and multicellular organization. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2017;105:640-661.
Kamath S, Bhattacharyya D, Padukudru C, Timmons RB, Tang L. Surface chemistry influences implant-mediated host tissue responses. J Biomed Mater Res Part A. 2008;86:617-626.
Moore AL, Marshall CD, Longaker MT. Minimizing skin scarring through biomaterial design. J Funct Biomater. 2017;8:3.
Metcalfe AD, Ferguson MW. Bioengineering skin using mechanisms of regeneration and repair. Biomaterials. 2007;28:5100-5113.
Rockey DC, Bell PD, Hill JA. Fibrosis-a common pathway to organ injury and failure. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1138-1149.
Qiao XH, Zhang JJ, Gao F, et al. An experimental study: quantitatively evaluating the change of the content of collagen fibres in penis with two-dimensional shear wave elastography. Andrologia. 2017;49:e12653.
Rogojanu R, Thalhammer T, Thiem U, et al. Quantitative image analysis of epithelial and stromal area in histological sections of colorectal cancer: an emerging Diagnostic tool. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:569071.
Calabrese G, Gulino R, Giuffrida R, et al. In vivo evaluation of biocompatibility and chondrogenic potential of a cell-free collagen-based scaffold. Front Physiol. 2017;8:984.
Street JM, Souza AC, Alvarez-Prats A, et al. Automated quantification of renal fibrosis with sirius red and polarization contrast microscopy. Physiol Rep. 2014;2:e12088.
Osman OS, Selway JL, Harikumar PE, et al. A novel method to assess collagen architecture in skin. BMC Bioinform. 2013;14:260.
Sun C, Wang B, Li J, et al. Quantitative measurement of breast carcinoma fibrosis for the prediction in the risk of bone metastasis. Am J Transl Res. 2018;10:1852-1859.
Schmidt MJ, Tschoeke A, Noronha L, et al. A histochemical analysis of collagen fibers in giant cell fibroma and inflammatory fibrous hyperplasia. Acta Histochem. 2016;118:451-455.
Poppler L, Cohen J, Dolen UC, et al. Histologic, molecular, and clinical evaluation of explanted breast prostheses, capsules, and acellular dermal matrices for bacteria. Aesthet Surg J. 2015;35:653-668.
Belladonna FG, Calasans-Maia MD, Novellino Alves AT, et al. Biocompatibility of a self-adhesive gutta-percha-based material in subcutaneous tissue of mice. J Endod. 2014;40:1869-1873.
Yoo JM, Ben Amara H, Kim MK, Song JD, Koo KT. Oral tissue response to soft tissue expanders prior to bone augmentation: in vitro analysis and histological study in dogs. J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2018;48:152-163.
Mulrane L, Rexhepaj E, Penney S, Callanan JJ, Gallagher WM. Automated image analysis in histopathology: a valuable tool in medical diagnostics. Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2008;8:707-725.
Rawlins JM, Lam WL, Karoo RO, Naylor IL, Sharpe DT. Quantifying collagen type in mature burn scars: a novel approach using histology and digital image analysis. J Burn Care Res. 2006;27:60-65.
Altendorf H, Decenciere E, Jeulin D, et al. Imaging and 3D morphological analysis of collagen fibrils. J Microsc. 2012;247:161-175.