RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Micro-focus X-ray computed tomography (µCT) helps evaluate specimens without destroying it. However, its accuracy of quantifying bone mineral density remains to be fully elucidated. We aimed to verify the accuracy of calcification assessed by µCT, by comparing the images of identical specimens obtained via different methods such as µCT and electron probe micro analyzer (EPMA) analyses. METHODS: The maxillae, mandibles, and tibiae of five-week-old male mice were analyzed. Calcification density was analyzed using µCT. The right sides of the specimens were decalcified and processed for Azan staining. The left side of the specimens underwent elemental mapping for Ca, Mg, and P using EPMA. RESULTS: µCT revealed a significant increase in calcification levels in the following order: enamel, dentin, cortical bone, and trabecular bone. These results reflected the Ca and P levels observed in the EPMA analyses. µCT demonstrated significant differences in the degree of calcification among the enamel tissues or dentin tissues, except for dentin in the maxillary incisors and molars. However, EPMA analysis did not demonstrate significant differences in the Ca and P levels among the same tissue samples. CONCLUSIONS: EPMA elemental analysis can be used to measure Ca and P levels for evaluating the calcification rate of hard tissues. Additionally, the study results validate the evaluation of calcification density via µCT. Furthermore, µCT can evaluate even minute differences in calcification rates compared with EPMA analysis.
Asunto(s)
Electrones , Tomografía Computarizada por Rayos X , Masculino , Ratones , Animales , Huesos , Esmalte Dental , Calcificación FisiológicaRESUMEN
Phenotypic changes in culture hamper the identification and characterization of cultured podocytes and parietal epithelial cells of the Bowman's capsule (PECs). We have recently established culture conditions that restore podocytes to their differentiated phenotypes. We compared podocytes and PECs cultured under the same conditions to determine the unique characteristics of the two cell types. Performing this comparison under the same conditions accentuated these differences. Podocytes behaved like non-epithelial cells by extending cell processes even at confluence. By contrast, PECs behaved like typical epithelial cells by maintaining a polygonal appearance. Other differences were identified using immunostaining and RT-PCR; podocytes expressed high levels of podocyte-specific markers while PECs expressed high levels of PEC-specific markers. However, while podocytes expressed low levels of PEC markers, PECs expressed low levels of podocyte markers. Therefore, the identification of podocytes and PECs in culture requires the evaluation of respective cell markers and the expression of markers for other cell types.