Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Clinical Pathology logoLink to Journal of Clinical Pathology
. 1993 Sep;46(9):795–800. doi: 10.1136/jcp.46.9.795

Computed cell cycle and DNA histogram analyses in image cytometry in breast cancer.

R Montironi 1, L Diamanti 1, A Santinelli 1, C Magi Galluzzi 1, M Scarpelli 1, I Giannulis 1, F Mangili 1
PMCID: PMC501511  PMID: 8227427

Abstract

AIMS--To analyse the cell cycle and DNA histogram components in data from DNA static cytometry and, in particular, to investigate the influence of the length of time the slides are exposed to the light of the cytophotometer in evaluating the G0/G1 peak. METHODS--DNA static cytometry was performed on 18 Feulgen stained imprints and six histological sections taken from six breast carcinomas. The total optical density values obtained were analysed using software commercially available as Multicycle. DNA flow cytometry was performed on the same cases. RESULTS--The proportions of nuclei related to the cell cycle components from DNA static cytometric data, obtained from Feulgen stained cytological smears, were almost identical with those obtained from DNA flow cytometric data. Moreover, additional information was obtained from the DNA static cytometry frequency histogram and the proportions of nuclei below the diploid G0/G1 peak and above the G2 phase. Discrepancies between DNA static cytometry and DNA flow cytometry were seen in the large coefficients of variation of the G0/G1 peaks obtained with the former method of analysis, even though a better correspondence was found when the exposure time of the slides to the light of the cytophometer was conspicuously shortened. The information obtained from histological sections seemed to be similar to that obtained from DNA flow cytometry when a single cell population was present; a single cell population was detected in two out of the three cases in which two distinct populations had been present in DNA flow cytometry. CONCLUSIONS--The computer analysis of DNA static cytometric data obtained from Feulgen stained cytological specimens provides the type of information on the cell cycle which is usually obtainable only from DNA flow cytometry. Correspondence with the DNA data from histological sections, however, was poor.

Full text

PDF
795

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Arends M. J., Morris R. G., Wyllie A. H. Apoptosis. The role of the endonuclease. Am J Pathol. 1990 Mar;136(3):593–608. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Auer G. U., Askensten U., Erhardt K., Fallenius A., Zetterberg A. Comparison between slide and flow cytophotometric DNA measurements in breast tumors. Anal Quant Cytol Histol. 1987 May;9(2):138–146. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Baisch H., Göhde W., Linden W. A. Analysis of PCP-data to determine the fraction of cells in the various phases of cell cycle. Radiat Environ Biophys. 1975 Jun 13;12(1):31–39. doi: 10.1007/BF02339807. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bartels P. H., Weber J. E., Bibbo M. Ploidy pattern analysis. Statistical considerations. Anal Quant Cytol Histol. 1985 Jun;7(2):126–130. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Becker R. L., Jr, Mikel U. V. Interrelation of formalin fixation, chromatin compactness and DNA values as measured by flow and image cytometry. Anal Quant Cytol Histol. 1990 Oct;12(5):333–341. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Böcking A., Adler C. P., Common H. H., Hilgarth M., Granzen B., Auffermann W. Algorithm for a DNA-cytophotometric diagnosis and grading of malignancy. Anal Quant Cytol. 1984 Mar;6(1):1–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Dean P. N., Jett J. H. Mathematical analysis of DNA distributions derived from flow microfluorometry. J Cell Biol. 1974 Feb;60(2):523–527. doi: 10.1083/jcb.60.2.523. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Elsheikh T. M., Silverman J. F., McCool J. W., Riley R. S. Comparative DNA analysis of solid tumors by flow cytometric and image analyses of touch imprints and flow cell suspensions. Am J Clin Pathol. 1992 Sep;98(3):296–304. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/98.3.296. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Felman P., French M., Souchier C., Magaud J. P., Gentilhomme O., Bryon P. A. Comparison between image and flow DNA cytometry in non-Hodgkin's lymphomas. Pathol Res Pract. 1989 Nov;185(5):709–714. doi: 10.1016/S0344-0338(89)80223-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Lee A. K., Dugan J., Hamilton W. M., Cook L., Heatley G., Kamat B., Silverman M. L. Quantitative DNA analysis in breast carcinomas: a comparison between image analysis and flow cytometry. Mod Pathol. 1991 Mar;4(2):178–182. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Montironi R., Diamanti L., Santinelli A., Scarpelli M. Computer-aided S-phase fraction determination in DNA static cytometry in breast cancer. A preliminary methodologic study on cytologic material. Anal Quant Cytol Histol. 1992 Oct;14(5):379–385. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Robinson R. A. Defining the limits of DNA cytometry. Am J Clin Pathol. 1992 Sep;98(3):275–277. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/98.3.275. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Schulte E. K. Standardization of the Feulgen reaction for absorption DNA image cytometry: a review. Anal Cell Pathol. 1991 May;3(3):167–182. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Sincock A. M. Semi-automated diagnosis of cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia grade 2 by the measurement of acid labile DNA in cytologically normal nuclei. Cancer. 1986 Jul 1;58(1):83–86. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19860701)58:1<83::aid-cncr2820580115>3.0.co;2-j. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Telford W. G., King L. E., Fraker P. J. Comparative evaluation of several DNA binding dyes in the detection of apoptosis-associated chromatin degradation by flow cytometry. Cytometry. 1992;13(2):137–143. doi: 10.1002/cyto.990130205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Uyterlinde A. M., Smeulders A. W., Baak J. P. DNA measurement errors with a scanning microdensitometer in cytologic and histologic samples of breast cancers. Anal Quant Cytol Histol. 1991 Apr;13(2):115–122. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Weber J. E., Baldessari B. A., Bartels P. H. Test statistics for detecting aneuploidy and hyperdiploidy. Anal Quant Cytol Histol. 1985 Jun;7(2):131–139. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. van Diest P. J., Smeulders A. W., Thunnissen F. B., Baak J. P. Cytomorphometry. A methodologic study of preparation techniques, selection methods and sample sizes. Anal Quant Cytol Histol. 1989 Aug;11(4):225–231. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Clinical Pathology are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES