Surface fractal computation and its application to immunofluorescent histochemical studies of calpain and calpastatin in PC12 cells

The purpose of this report is to present a method which can be used to parameterize patterns of immunofluorescent staining in cultured neural cells. The algorithm is based on the observation that the variance in pixel intensity of the image is a power function of the magnitude of the area in immunof...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of neuroscience methods Vol. 103; no. 2; pp. 191 - 197
Main Authors: DePetrillo, Paolo B, Yang, Qingfeng, Rackoff, Jamie, SanMiguel, Anitza, Karimullah, Kamran
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: Amsterdam Elsevier B.V 30-11-2000
Elsevier Science
Subjects:
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The purpose of this report is to present a method which can be used to parameterize patterns of immunofluorescent staining in cultured neural cells. The algorithm is based on the observation that the variance in pixel intensity of the image is a power function of the magnitude of the area in immunofluorescently stained PC12 cells. This property is used to derive the fractal dimension ( D) of the region of interest (ROI), and corresponds to the complexity of the pixel intensity associated with the ROI, which is analogous to a fractal surface. We show that the measure is useful in characterizing immunofluorescent staining patterns, and apply this measure to study the effects of ethanol exposure on μ-calpain and calpastatin-associated immunoreactivity. Exposure of PC12 cells to ethanol (80 mM) × 48 h resulted in alterations in immunofluorescent signal (Control vs ethanol) associated with actin, calpastatin and μ-calpain: 2289 ± 166 vs 1709 ± 69, P < 0.01; 1681 ± 38 vs 2224 ± 95, P < 0.001; 1823 ± 39 vs 2841 ± 68, P < 0.0001 respectively, magnitudes being pixel intensity units on a scale of 0–4095. D-values for the three proteins in the same order were: 2.32 ± 0.01 vs 2.31 ± 0.03, NS; 2.31 ± 0.01 vs 2.32 ± 0.01, NS; 2.16 ± 0.03 vs 2.24 ± 0.02, P < 0.01, with a possible D-value range of 2–3.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:0165-0270
1872-678X
DOI:10.1016/S0165-0270(00)00317-4