Comparative evaluation of glomerular morphometric techniques reveals differential technical artifacts between focal segmental glomerulosclerosis and normal glomeruli

Abstract

AbstractMorphometric estimates of mean or individual glomerular volume (MGV, IGV) have biological implications, over and above qualitative histologic data. However, morphometry is time‐consuming and requires expertise limiting its utility in clinical cases. We evaluated MGV and IGV using plastic‐ and paraffin‐embedded tissue from 10 control and 10 focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS) mice (aging and 5/6th nephrectomy models) using the gold standard Cavalieri (Cav) method versus the 2‐profile and Weibel–Gomez (WG) methods and a novel 3‐profile method. We compared accuracy, bias and precision, and quantified results obtained when sampling differing numbers of glomeruli. In both FSGS and controls, we identified an acceptable precision for MGV of 10‐glomerular sampling versus 20‐glomerular sampling using the Cav method, while 5‐glomerular sampling was less precise. In plastic tissue, 2‐ or 3‐profile MGVs showed greater concordance with MGV when using Cav, versus MGV with WG. IGV comparisons using the same glomeruli reported a consistent underestimation bias with both 2‐ or 3‐profile methods versus the Cav method. FSGS glomeruli showed wider variations in bias estimation than controls. Our 3‐profile method offered incremental benefit to the 2‐profile method in both IGV and MGV estimation (improved correlation coefficient, Lin's concordance and reduced bias). In our control animals, we quantified a shrinkage artifact of 52% from tissue processed for paraffin‐embedded versus plastic‐embedded tissue. FSGS glomeruli showed overall reduced shrinkage albeit with variable artifact signifying periglomerular/glomerular fibrosis. A novel 3‐profile method offers slightly improved concordance with reduced bias versus 2‐profile. Our findings have implications for future studies using glomerular morphometry.