A consideration of neural counting methods

It is often necessary to obtain unbiased estimates of neuronal or synaptic numbers. In the past, estimates were almost always done by counting profiles of these structures in single histological sections. Assumptions were then made and calculations were done to determine particle numbers or ratios. To the extent that the assumptions deviated from reality, the conclusions will be biased. That these biases are, in fact, serious has recently become apparent. To obtain unbiased particle counts, the presently available methods are serial-section reconstructions (which are accurate but cumbersome), and the recently developed disector method. The disector method, because it is unbiased and easy to use, is becoming the method of choice. The goals of this paper are to show why previous methods are biased and to describe the rationale behind the disector method so that neuroscientists can consider its appropriateness for their work.

[1]  H. Schmalbruch The number of neurons in dorsal root ganglia L4–L6 of the rat , 1987, The Anatomical record.

[2]  D. Rohrlich,et al.  Counting sectioned cells via mathematical reconstruction , 1987, The Journal of comparative neurology.

[3]  H J Gundersen,et al.  Total number of neurons and glial cells in human brain nuclei estimated by the disector and the fractionator , 1988, Journal of microscopy.

[4]  T M Mayhew,et al.  Stereological approach to the study of synapse morphometry with particular regard to estimating number in a volume and on a surface , 1979, Journal of neurocytology.

[5]  B. Pakkenberg,et al.  New stereological method for obtaining unbiased and efficient estimates of total nerve cell number in human brain areas , 1989, APMIS : acta pathologica, microbiologica, et immunologica Scandinavica.

[6]  H. Gundersen,et al.  Unbiased stereological estimation of the number of neurons in the human hippocampus , 1990, The Journal of comparative neurology.

[7]  K. Offord,et al.  Method of morphometric evaluation of spinal and autonomic ganglia. , 1974, Journal of the neurological sciences.

[8]  H. J. G. GUNDERSEN,et al.  Some new, simple and efficient stereological methods and their use in pathological research and diagnosis , 1988, APMIS : acta pathologica, microbiologica, et immunologica Scandinavica.

[9]  M. Abercrombie Estimation of nuclear population from microtome sections , 1946, The Anatomical record.

[10]  H. J. G. Gundersen,et al.  The new stereological tools: Disector, fractionator, nucleator and point sampled intercepts and their use in pathological research and diagnosis , 1988, APMIS : acta pathologica, microbiologica, et immunologica Scandinavica.

[11]  B. Cragg,et al.  Estimation of the number of synapses in a volume of nervous tissue from counts in thin sections by electron microscopy , 1974, Journal of neurocytology.

[12]  D. C. Sterio The unbiased estimation of number and sizes of arbitrary particles using the disector , 1984, Journal of microscopy.

[13]  I. Hendry A method to correct adequately for the change in neuronal size when estimating neuronal numbers after nerve growth factor treatment , 1976, Journal of neurocytology.

[14]  M. Devor,et al.  Proliferation of primary sensory neurons in adult rat dorsal root ganglion and the kinetics of retrograde cell loss after sciatic nerve section. , 1985, Somatosensory research.

[15]  Richard E. Coggeshall,et al.  Calibration of methods for determining numbers of dorsal root ganglion cells , 1990, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.