Virchows Archiv

, Volume 472, Issue 2, pp 259–269 | Cite as

Development of CD3 cell quantitation algorithms for renal allograft biopsy rejection assessment utilizing open source image analysis software

  • Andres Moon
  • Geoffrey H. Smith
  • Jun Kong
  • Thomas E. Rogers
  • Carla L. Ellis
  • Alton B. “Brad” FarrisIIIEmail author
Original Article


Renal allograft rejection diagnosis depends on assessment of parameters such as interstitial inflammation; however, studies have shown interobserver variability regarding interstitial inflammation assessment. Since automated image analysis quantitation can be reproducible, we devised customized analysis methods for CD3+ T-cell staining density as a measure of rejection severity and compared them with established commercial methods along with visual assessment. Renal biopsy CD3 immunohistochemistry slides (n = 45), including renal allografts with various degrees of acute cellular rejection (ACR) were scanned for whole slide images (WSIs). Inflammation was quantitated in the WSIs using pathologist visual assessment, commercial algorithms (Aperio nuclear algorithm for CD3+ cells/mm2 and Aperio positive pixel count algorithm), and customized open source algorithms developed in ImageJ with thresholding/positive pixel counting (custom CD3+%) and identification of pixels fulfilling “maxima” criteria for CD3 expression (custom CD3+ cells/mm2). Based on visual inspections of “markup” images, CD3 quantitation algorithms produced adequate accuracy. Additionally, CD3 quantitation algorithms correlated between each other and also with visual assessment in a statistically significant manner (r = 0.44 to 0.94, p = 0.003 to < 0.0001). Methods for assessing inflammation suggested a progression through the tubulointerstitial ACR grades, with statistically different results in borderline versus other ACR types, in all but the custom methods. Assessment of CD3-stained slides using various open source image analysis algorithms presents salient correlations with established methods of CD3 quantitation. These analysis techniques are promising and highly customizable, providing a form of on-slide “flow cytometry” that can facilitate additional diagnostic accuracy in tissue-based assessments.


Renal allograft Image analysis Immunohistochemistry Whole slide image Rejection 



Acute cellular rejection


Acute cellular rejection, type 1A


Acute cellular rejection, type 1B


Acute cellular rejection, type 2A


Acute cellular rejection, type 3


Positive pixel count


Whole slide image



Special thanks are given to the laboratories of the Emory University Department of Pathology. Thanks also to Dr. Mingqing Song of Emory University and Duke University for help in whole slide scanning.

Compliance with ethical standards

This study was reviewed and approved by the Emory University Institutional Review Board.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

428_2017_2260_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (3.7 mb)
Supplemental Figure 1 (PDF 3810 kb)
428_2017_2260_MOESM2_ESM.docx (16 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 16 kb)


  1. 1.
    Solez K, Racusen LC (2013) The Banff classification revisited. Kidney Int 83:201–206. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Solez K (2010) History of the Banff classification of allograft pathology as it approaches its 20th year. Curr Opin Organ Transplant 15:49–51. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Loupy A, Haas M, Solez K, Racusen L, Glotz D, Seron D, Nankivell BJ, Colvin RB, Afrouzian M, Akalin E, Alachkar N, Bagnasco S, Becker JU, Cornell L, Drachenberg C, Dragun D, de Kort H, Gibson IW, Kraus ES, Lefaucheur C, Legendre C, Liapis H, Muthukumar T, Nickeleit V, Orandi B, Park W, Rabant M, Randhawa P, Reed EF, Roufosse C, Seshan SV, Sis B, Singh HK, Schinstock C, Tambur A, Zeevi A, Mengel M (2017) The Banff 2015 kidney meeting report: current challenges in rejection classification and prospects for adopting molecular pathology. Am J Transplant 17:28–41. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Haas M, Sis B, Racusen LC, Solez K, Glotz D, Colvin RB, Castro MC, David DS, David-Neto E, Bagnasco SM, Cendales LC, Cornell LD, Demetris AJ, Drachenberg CB, Farver CF, Farris AB III, Gibson IW, Kraus E, Liapis H, Loupy A, Nickeleit V, Randhawa P, Rodriguez ER, Rush D, Smith RN, Tan CD, Wallace WD, Mengel M, Banff meeting report writing committee (2014) Banff 2013 meeting report: inclusion of c4d-negative antibody-mediated rejection and antibody-associated arterial lesions. Am J Transplant 14:272–283. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Racusen LC, Solez K, Colvin RB, Bonsib SM, Castro MC, Cavallo T, Croker BP, Demetris AJ, Drachenberg CB, Fogo AB, Furness P, Gaber LW, Gibson IW, Glotz D, Goldberg JC, Grande J, Halloran PF, Hansen HE, Hartley B, Hayry PJ, Hill CM, Hoffman EO, Hunsicker LG, Lindblad AS, Yamaguchi Y (1999) The Banff 97 working classification of renal allograft pathology. Kidney Int 55:713–723CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Solez K, Axelsen RA, Benediktsson H, Burdick JF, Cohen AH, Colvin RB, Croker BP, Droz D, Dunnill MS, Halloran PF, Häyry P, Jennette JC, Keown PA, Marcussen N, Mihatsch MJ, Moruzumi K, Myers BD, Nast CC, Olsen S, Racusen LC, Ramos EL, Rosen S, Sachs DH, Salomon DR, Sanfilippo F, Verani R, von Willebrand E, Yamaguchi Y (1993) International standardization of criteria for the histologic diagnosis of renal allograft rejection: the Banff working classification of kidney transplant pathology. Kidney Int 44:411–422CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Williams WW, Taheri D, Tolkoff-Rubin N, Colvin RB (2012) Clinical role of the renal transplant biopsy. Nat Rev Nephrol 8:110–121. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Furness PN, Taub N, Assmann KJ, Banfi G, Cosyns JP, Dorman AM, Hill CM, Kapper SK, Waldherr R, Laurinavicius A, Marcussen N, Martins AP, Nogueira M, Regele H, Seron D, Carrera M, Sund S, Taskinen EI, Paavonen T, Tihomirova T, Rosenthal R (2003) International variation in histologic grading is large, and persistent feedback does not improve reproducibility. Am J Surg Pathol 27:805–810CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Farris AB, Chan S, Climenhaga J, Adam B, Bellamy CO, Seron D, Colvin RB, Reeve J, Mengel M (2014) Banff fibrosis study: multicenter visual assessment and computerized analysis of interstitial fibrosis in kidney biopsies. Am J Transplant 14:897–907. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nicholson ML, McCulloch TA, Harper SJ, Wheatley TJ, Edwards CM, Feehally J, Furness PN (1996) Early measurement of interstitial fibrosis predicts long-term renal function and graft survival in renal transplantation. Br J Surg 83:1082–1085CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nicholson ML, Bailey E, Williams S, Harris KP, Furness PN (1999) Computerized histomorphometric assessment of protocol renal transplant biopsy specimens for surrogate markers of chronic rejection. Transplantation 68:236–241CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Farris AB, Adams CD, Brousaides N, Della Pelle PA, Collins AB, Moradi E, Smith RN, Grimm PC, Colvin RB (2010) Morphometric and visual evaluation of fibrosis in renal biopsies. J Am Soc Nephrol 2:176–186. Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grimm PC, Nickerson P, Gough J, McKenna R, Jeffery J, Birk P, Rush DN (1999) Quantitation of allograft fibrosis and chronic allograft nephropathy. Pediatr Transplant 3:257–270CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grimm PC, Nickerson P, Gough J, McKenna R, Stern E, Jeffery J, Rush DN (2003) Computerized image analysis of Sirius Red-stained renal allograft biopsies as a surrogate marker to predict long-term allograft function. J Am Soc Nephrol 14:1662–1668CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pape L, Henne T, Offner G, Strehlau J, Ehrich JH, Mengel M, Grimm PC (2003) Computer-assisted quantification of fibrosis in chronic allograft nephropaty by picosirius red-staining: a new tool for predicting long-term graft function. Transplantation 76:955–958. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sund S, Grimm P, Reisaeter AV, Hovig T (2004) Computerized image analysis vs semiquantitative scoring in evaluation of kidney allograft fibrosis and prognosis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 19:2838–2845CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Servais A, Meas-Yedid V, Buchler M, Morelon E, Olivo-Marin JC, Lebranchu Y, Legendre C, Thervet E (2007) Quantification of interstitial fibrosis by image analysis on routine renal biopsy in patients receiving cyclosporine. Transplantation 84:1595–1601. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Servais A, Meas-Yedid V, Toupance O, Lebranchu Y, Thierry A, Moulin B, Etienne I, Presne C, Hurault de LB, Le Pogamp P, Le Meur Y, Glotz D, Hayem C, Olivo Marin JC, Thervet E (2009) Interstitial fibrosis quantification in renal transplant recipients randomized to continue cyclosporine or convert to sirolimus. Am J Transplant 9:2552–2560. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Meas-Yedid V, Servais A, Noel LH, Panterne C, Landais P, Herve N, Brousse N, Kreis H, Legendre C, Thervet E, Olivo-Marin JC, Morelon E (2011) New computerized color image analysis for the quantification of interstitial fibrosis in renal transplantation. Transplantation 92:890–899. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Servais A, Meas-Yedid V, Noel LH, Martinez F, Panterne C, Kreis H, Zuber J, Timsit MO, Legendre C, Olivo-Marin JC, Thervet E (2011) Interstitial fibrosis evolution on early sequential screening renal allograft biopsies using quantitative image analysis. Am J Transplant 11:1456–1463. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Aperio Technologies (2009) Aperio | Support | Documentation. Aperio Technologies, Inc., VistaGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Aperio Technologies (2009) Image analysis | Aperio. Aperio Technologies, Inc., VistaGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Farris AB, Ellis CL, Rogers TE, Lawson D, Cohen C, Rosen S (2016) Renal medullary and cortical correlates in fibrosis, epithelial mass, microvascularity, and microanatomy using whole slide image analysis morphometry. PLoS One 11:e0161019. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Farris AB III, Lauwers GY, Deshpande V (2010) Autoimmune pancreatitis-related diabetes: quantitative analysis of endocrine islet cells and inflammatory infiltrate. Virchows Arch 457:329–336. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zack GW, Rogers WE, Latt SA (1977) Automatic measurement of sister chromatid exchange frequency. J Histochem Cytochem 25:741–753CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Meyer F (1994) Topographic distance and watershed lines. Signal Process 38:113–125. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Demetris AJ, Bellamy C, Hubscher SG, O'Leary J, Randhawa PS, Feng S, Neil D, Colvin RB, McCaughan G, Fung JJ, Del Bello A, Reinholt FP, Haga H, Adeyi O, Czaja AJ, Schiano T, Fiel MI, Smith ML, Sebagh M, Tanigawa RY, Yilmaz F, Alexander G, Baiocchi L, Balasubramanian M, Batal I, Bhan AK, Bucuvalas J, Cerski CT, Charlotte F, de Vera ME, ElMonayeri M, Fontes P, Furth EE, Gouw AS, Hafezi-Bakhtiari S, Hart J, Honsova E, Ismail W, Itoh T, Jhala NC, Khettry U, Klintmalm GB, Knechtle S, Koshiba T, Kozlowski T, Lassman CR, Lerut J, Levitsky J, Licini L, Liotta R, Mazariegos G, Minervini MI, Misdraji J, Mohanakumar T, Molne J, Nasser I, Neuberger J, O'Neil M, Pappo O, Petrovic L, Ruiz P, Sagol O, Sanchez Fueyo A, Sasatomi E, Shaked A, Shiller M, Shimizu T, Sis B, Sonzogni A, Stevenson HL, Thung SN, Tisone G, Tsamandas AC, Wernerson A, Wu T, Zeevi A, Zen Y (2016) 2016 comprehensive update of the Banff working group on liver allograft pathology: introduction of antibody-mediated rejection. Am J Transplant.
  28. 28.
    Drachenberg CB, Torrealba JR, Nankivell BJ, Rangel EB, Bajema IM, Kim DU, Arend L, Bracamonte ER, Bromberg JS, Bruijn JA, Cantarovich D, Chapman JR, Farris AB, Gaber L, Goldberg JC, Haririan A, Honsova E, Iskandar SS, Klassen DK, Kraus E, Lower F, Odorico J, Olson JL, Mittalhenkle A, Munivenkatappa R, Paraskevas S, Papadimitriou JC, Randhawa P, Reinholt FP, Renaudin K, Revelo P, Ruiz P, Samaniego MD, Shapiro R, Stratta RJ, Sutherland DE, Troxell ML, Voska L, Seshan SV, Racusen LC, Bartlett ST (2011) Guidelines for the diagnosis of antibody-mediated rejection in pancreas allografts-updated Banff grading schema. Am J Transplant 11:1792–1802. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Stewart S, Winters GL, Fishbein MC, Tazelaar HD, Kobashigawa J, Abrams J, Andersen CB, Angelini A, Berry GJ, Burke MM, Demetris AJ, Hammond E, Itescu S, Marboe CC, McManus B, Reed EF, Reinsmoen NL, Rodriguez ER, Rose AG, Rose M, Suciu-Focia N, Zeevi A, Billingham ME (2005) Revision of the 1990 working formulation for the standardization of nomenclature in the diagnosis of heart rejection. J Heart Lung Transplant 24:1710–1720. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Berry GJ, Burke MM, Andersen C, Bruneval P, Fedrigo M, Fishbein MC, Goddard M, Hammond EH, Leone O, Marboe C, Miller D, Neil D, Rassl D, Revelo MP, Rice A, Rene Rodriguez E, Stewart S, Tan CD, Winters GL, West L, Mehra MR, Angelini A (2013) The 2013 International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Working Formulation for the standardization of nomenclature in the pathologic diagnosis of antibody-mediated rejection in heart transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant 32:1147–1162. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Stewart S, Fishbein MC, Snell GI, Berry GJ, Boehler A, Burke MM, Glanville A, Gould FK, Magro C, Marboe CC, McNeil KD, Reed EF, Reinsmoen NL, Scott JP, Studer SM, Tazelaar HD, Wallwork JL, Westall G, Zamora MR, Zeevi A, Yousem SA (2007) Revision of the 1996 working formulation for the standardization of nomenclature in the diagnosis of lung rejection. J Heart Lung Transplant 26:1229–1242. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cendales LC, Kanitakis J, Schneeberger S, Burns C, Ruiz P, Landin L, Remmelink M, Hewitt CW, Landgren T, Lyons B, Drachenberg CB, Solez K, Kirk AD, Kleiner DE, Racusen L (2008) The Banff 2007 working classification of skin-containing composite tissue allograft pathology. Am J Transplant 8:1396–1400. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mannon RB, Matas AJ, Grande J, Leduc R, Connett J, Kasiske B, Cecka JM, Gaston RS, Cosio F, Gourishankar S, Halloran PF, Hunsicker L, Rush D (2010) Inflammation in areas of tubular atrophy in kidney allograft biopsies: a potent predictor of allograft failure. Am J Transplant 10:2066–2073. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mengel M, Gwinner W, Schwarz A, Bajeski R, Franz I, Brocker V, Becker T, Neipp M, Klempnauer J, Haller H, Kreipe H (2007) Infiltrates in protocol biopsies from renal allografts. Am J Transplant 7:356–365CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Farris AB, Cohen C, Rogers TE, Smith GH (2017) Whole slide imaging for analytical anatomic pathology and telepathology: practical applications today, promises, and perils. Arch Pathol Lab Med 141:542–550. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Janowczyk A, Madabhushi A (2016) Deep learning for digital pathology image analysis: a comprehensive tutorial with selected use cases. J Pathol Inform 7:29. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Albarqouni S, Baur C, Achilles F, Belagiannis V, Demirci S, Navab N (2016) AggNet: deep learning from crowds for mitosis detection in breast cancer histology images. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 35:1313–1321. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Xu J, Luo X, Wang G, Gilmore H, Madabhushi A (2016) A deep convolutional neural network for segmenting and classifying epithelial and stromal regions in histopathological images. Neurocomputing 191:214–223. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andres Moon
    • 1
  • Geoffrey H. Smith
    • 1
  • Jun Kong
    • 2
  • Thomas E. Rogers
    • 1
  • Carla L. Ellis
    • 1
  • Alton B. “Brad” FarrisIII
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of PathologyEmory UniversityAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Department of BioinformaticsEmory UniversityAtlantaUSA
  3. 3.Emory University HospitalAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations