Automated quantification of avian influenza virus antigen in different organs

Abstract As immunohistochemistry is valuable for determining tissue and cell tropism of avian influenza viruses (AIV), but time-consuming, an artificial intelligence-based workflow was developed to automate the AIV antigen quantification. Organ samples from experimental AIV infections including brai...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Maria Landmann, David Scheibner, Marcel Gischke, Elsayed M. Abdelwhab, Reiner Ulrich
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Nature Portfolio 2024-04-01
Series:Scientific Reports
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-59239-5
_version_ 1797199568874504192
author Maria Landmann
David Scheibner
Marcel Gischke
Elsayed M. Abdelwhab
Reiner Ulrich
author_facet Maria Landmann
David Scheibner
Marcel Gischke
Elsayed M. Abdelwhab
Reiner Ulrich
author_sort Maria Landmann
collection DOAJ
description Abstract As immunohistochemistry is valuable for determining tissue and cell tropism of avian influenza viruses (AIV), but time-consuming, an artificial intelligence-based workflow was developed to automate the AIV antigen quantification. Organ samples from experimental AIV infections including brain, heart, lung and spleen on one slide, and liver and kidney on another slide were stained for influenza A-matrixprotein and analyzed with QuPath: Random trees algorithms were trained to identify the organs on each slide, followed by threshold-based quantification of the immunoreactive area. The algorithms were trained and tested on two different slide sets, then retrained on both and validated on a third set. Except for the kidney, the best algorithms for organ selection correctly identified the largest proportion of the organ area. For most organs, the immunoreactive area assessed following organ selection was significantly and positively correlated to a manually assessed semiquantitative score. In the validation set, intravenously infected chickens showed a generally higher percentage of immunoreactive area than chickens infected oculonasally. Variability between the slide sets and a similar tissue texture of some organs limited the ability of the algorithms to select certain organs. Generally, suitable correlations of the immunoreactivity data results were achieved, facilitating high-throughput analysis of AIV tissue tropism.
first_indexed 2024-04-24T07:17:50Z
format Article
id doaj.art-d30b247122d045829a6b3d904d51f520
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2045-2322
language English
last_indexed 2024-04-24T07:17:50Z
publishDate 2024-04-01
publisher Nature Portfolio
record_format Article
series Scientific Reports
spelling doaj.art-d30b247122d045829a6b3d904d51f5202024-04-21T11:15:03ZengNature PortfolioScientific Reports2045-23222024-04-0114111410.1038/s41598-024-59239-5Automated quantification of avian influenza virus antigen in different organsMaria Landmann0David Scheibner1Marcel Gischke2Elsayed M. Abdelwhab3Reiner Ulrich4Institute of Veterinary Pathology, Leipzig UniversityInstitute of Molecular Virology and Cell Biology, Friedrich-Loeffler-InstitutInstitute of Molecular Virology and Cell Biology, Friedrich-Loeffler-InstitutInstitute of Molecular Virology and Cell Biology, Friedrich-Loeffler-InstitutInstitute of Veterinary Pathology, Leipzig UniversityAbstract As immunohistochemistry is valuable for determining tissue and cell tropism of avian influenza viruses (AIV), but time-consuming, an artificial intelligence-based workflow was developed to automate the AIV antigen quantification. Organ samples from experimental AIV infections including brain, heart, lung and spleen on one slide, and liver and kidney on another slide were stained for influenza A-matrixprotein and analyzed with QuPath: Random trees algorithms were trained to identify the organs on each slide, followed by threshold-based quantification of the immunoreactive area. The algorithms were trained and tested on two different slide sets, then retrained on both and validated on a third set. Except for the kidney, the best algorithms for organ selection correctly identified the largest proportion of the organ area. For most organs, the immunoreactive area assessed following organ selection was significantly and positively correlated to a manually assessed semiquantitative score. In the validation set, intravenously infected chickens showed a generally higher percentage of immunoreactive area than chickens infected oculonasally. Variability between the slide sets and a similar tissue texture of some organs limited the ability of the algorithms to select certain organs. Generally, suitable correlations of the immunoreactivity data results were achieved, facilitating high-throughput analysis of AIV tissue tropism.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-59239-5
spellingShingle Maria Landmann
David Scheibner
Marcel Gischke
Elsayed M. Abdelwhab
Reiner Ulrich
Automated quantification of avian influenza virus antigen in different organs
Scientific Reports
title Automated quantification of avian influenza virus antigen in different organs
title_full Automated quantification of avian influenza virus antigen in different organs
title_fullStr Automated quantification of avian influenza virus antigen in different organs
title_full_unstemmed Automated quantification of avian influenza virus antigen in different organs
title_short Automated quantification of avian influenza virus antigen in different organs
title_sort automated quantification of avian influenza virus antigen in different organs
url https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-59239-5
work_keys_str_mv AT marialandmann automatedquantificationofavianinfluenzavirusantigenindifferentorgans
AT davidscheibner automatedquantificationofavianinfluenzavirusantigenindifferentorgans
AT marcelgischke automatedquantificationofavianinfluenzavirusantigenindifferentorgans
AT elsayedmabdelwhab automatedquantificationofavianinfluenzavirusantigenindifferentorgans
AT reinerulrich automatedquantificationofavianinfluenzavirusantigenindifferentorgans