Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T23:06:39.723Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Use of an Automated Image Processing Program to Quantify Recombinant Adenovirus Particles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 January 2005

Linda J. Obenauer-Kutner ,
Rebecca Halperin ,
Peter M. Ihnat ,
Christopher P. Tully ,
Ronald W. Bordens  and
Michael J. Grace
Linda J. Obenauer-Kutner
Affiliation:
Biotechnology Development, Schering-Plough Research Institute, Union, NJ 07083, USA
Rebecca Halperin
Affiliation:
Biotechnology Development, Schering-Plough Research Institute, Union, NJ 07083, USA
Peter M. Ihnat
Affiliation:
Pharmaceutical Development, Schering-Plough Research Institute, Kenilworth, NJ 07033, USA
Christopher P. Tully
Affiliation:
Media Cybernetics, Inc., Silver Spring, MD 20910
Ronald W. Bordens
Affiliation:
Biotechnology Development, Schering-Plough Research Institute, Union, NJ 07083, USA
Michael J. Grace
Affiliation:
Biotechnology Development, Schering-Plough Research Institute, Union, NJ 07083, USA
Get access

Abstract

Electron microscopy has a pivotal role as an analytical tool in pharmaceutical research. However, digital image data have proven to be too large for efficient quantitative analysis. We describe here the development and application of an automated image processing (AIP) program that rapidly quantifies shape measurements of recombinant adenovirus (rAd) obtained from digitized field emission scanning electron microscope (FESEM) images. The program was written using the macro-recording features within Image-Pro® Plus software. The macro program, which is linked to a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, consists of a series of subroutines designed to automatically measure rAd vector objects from the FESEM images. The application and utility of this macro program has enabled us to rapidly and efficiently analyze very large data sets of rAd samples while minimizing operator time.

Keywords

automated image processing (AIP)field emission scanning electron microscope (FESEM)quantification of viral particlesrecombinant adenovirus (rAd)stabilitystatistical analysis
Type
BIOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS
Information
Microscopy and Microanalysis , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , February 2005 , pp. 37 - 41
Copyright
© 2005 Microscopy Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Baldock, R. & Graham, J. (2000). Image processing and analysis: A practical approach, pp. 289–293. New York: Oxford University Press.
Chen, Y. (1998). Digital image acquisition and presentation for high resolution SEM. Microsc Microanal 4(Suppl. 2), 68–69.Google Scholar
Coco-Martin, J.M., Lolkus, M., Ottenheim, C.P.E., Oomen, L.C.J.M., Glommestign, G.J.F., & Begg, A.C. (1998). Automatic detection of stable and unstable chromosome aberrations visualized by three-color imaging after fluorescence in situ hybridization with a painting and a pancentromeric DNA probe. Cytometry 32, 327–336.Google Scholar
Foster, B. (1997). Focus on microscopy: Easing the transition to automated image analysis. Amer Lab 36, 36–42.Google Scholar
Gatlin, C.L., Schaberg, E.S., Jordan, W.H., Kuyat, B.L., & Smith, W.C. (1993). Point counting on the macintosh: A semiautomated image analysis technique. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 15, 345–350.Google Scholar
Gonczy, P., Echeverri, C., Oegema, K., Coulson, A., Jones, S.J.M., Copley, R.R., Duperon, J., Oegema, J., Brehm, M., Cassin, E., Hannak, E., Kirkham, M., Pichler, S., Flohrs, K., Goessen, A., Leidel, S., Alleaume, A.-M., Martin, C., Ozlu, N., Bork, P., & Hyman, A.A. (2000). Functional genomic analysis of cell division in C. elegans using RNA of genes on chromosome III. Nature 408, 331–336.Google Scholar
Huh, S., Ketter, T.A., Sohn, K.H., & Lee, C. (2002). Automated cerebrum segmentation from three-dimensional sagittal brain MR images. Comput Biol Med 32, 311–328.Google Scholar
Hunt, J.A. (1998). Acquisition and processing of large dynamic range digital images. Microsc Microanal 4(Suppl. 2), 54–55.Google Scholar
Koenker, T.M. & Grover, S.A. (2002). Automated hands-free image manipulation and viewing: A useful macro feature that assists radiologists in the viewing of chest and extremity digital radiographs. J Digit Imaging 15, 166–170.Google Scholar
Mayer, T.U., Kapoor, T.M., Haggarty, S.J., King, R.W., Schreiber, S.L., & Mitchison, T.J. (1999). Small molecule inhibitor of mitotic spindle bipolarity identified in a phenotype-based screen. Science 286, 971–974.Google Scholar
Nelson, D.D., Spear, R.N., & Andrews, J.H. (2000). Automated image analysis of live/dead staining of the fungus Aureobasidium pullulans on microscope slides and leaf surfaces. Biotechniques 29, 874–880.Google Scholar
Obenauer-Kutner, L.J., Ihnat, P.M., Yang, T.-Y., Dovey-Hartman, B.J., Balu, A., Cullen, C., Bordens, R.W., & Grace, M.J. (2002). The use of field emission scanning electron microscopy to assess recombinant adenovirus stability. Hum Gene Ther 13, 1687–1696.Google Scholar
Peters, K.-R. (1998). Digital precision imaging: Every pixel counts. Microsc Microanal 4(Suppl. 2), 70–71.Google Scholar
Swedlow, J.R., Goldberg, I., Brauner, E., & Sorger, P.K. (2003). Informatics and quantitative analysis in biological imaging. Science 300, 100–102.Google Scholar