A comparison of diceCT and histology for determination of nasal epithelial type

• Published in: PeerJ (San Francisco, CA) Vol. 9; p. e12261
• Main Authors: Smith, Timothy D., Corbin, Hayley M., King, Scot E. E., Bhatnagar, Kunwar P., DeLeon, Valerie B.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: San Diego PeerJ, Inc 03.11.2021; PeerJ Inc
• Subjects: Chiroptera; Computed tomography; Desmodus rotundus; Dimensional analysis; Fetuses; Histology; Imaging; Iodine; Lamina propria; Mammals; Medical imaging; Microscopy; Mucosa; Nasal cavity; Olfactory epithelium; Olfactory neuroepithelium; Respiratory tract; Scanners; Septum; Soft tissues; Zoology
• ISSN: 2167-8359; 2167-8359
• DOI: 10.7717/peerj.12261

Diffusible iodine-based contrast-enhanced computed tomography (diceCT) has emerged as a viable tool for discriminating soft tissues in serial CT slices, which can then be used for three-dimensional analysis. This technique has some potential to supplant histology as a tool for identification of body tissues. Here, we studied the head of an adult fruit bat ( Cynopterus sphinx ) and a late fetal vampire bat ( Desmodus rotundus ) using diceCT and µCT. Subsequently, we decalcified, serially sectioned and stained the same heads. The two CT volumes were rotated so that the sectional plane of the slice series closely matched that of histological sections, yielding the ideal opportunity to relate CT observations to corresponding histology. Olfactory epithelium is typically thicker, on average, than respiratory epithelium in both bats. Thus, one investigator (SK), blind to the histological sections, examined the diceCT slice series for both bats and annotated changes in thickness of epithelium on the first ethmoturbinal (ET I), the roof of the nasal fossa, and the nasal septum. A second trial was conducted with an added criterion: radioopacity of the lamina propria as an indicator of Bowman’s glands. Then, a second investigator (TS) annotated images of matching histological sections based on microscopic observation of epithelial type, and transferred these annotations to matching CT slices. Measurements of slices annotated according to changes in epithelial thickness alone closely track measurements of slices based on histologically-informed annotations; matching histological sections confirm blind annotations were effective based on epithelial thickness alone, except for a patch of unusually thick non-OE, mistaken for OE in one of the specimens. When characteristics of the lamina propria were added in the second trial, the blind annotations excluded the thick non-OE. Moreover, in the fetal bat the use of evidence for Bowman’s glands improved detection of olfactory mucosa, perhaps because the epithelium itself was thin enough at its margins to escape detection. We conclude that diceCT can by itself be highly effective in identifying distribution of OE, especially where observations are confirmed by histology from at least one specimen of the species. Our findings also establish that iodine staining, followed by stain removal, does not interfere with subsequent histological staining of the same specimen.