microvascular networks (Nikon)
Structured Review

Microvascular Networks, supplied by Nikon, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 99/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/microvascular networks/product/Nikon
Average 99 stars, based on 1 article reviews
Images
1) Product Images from "The Batch-Resourcing Angiogenesis Tool (BRAT) to enable high-content microscopy screening of microvascular networks"
Article Title: The Batch-Resourcing Angiogenesis Tool (BRAT) to enable high-content microscopy screening of microvascular networks
Journal: bioRxiv
doi: 10.1101/2025.01.24.634836
Figure Legend Snippet: GFP-hAECs co-cultured with hAD-MSCs for 7 days to form microvascular networks, with images captured every 10 minutes, as . BRAT and AngioTool were applied to measure microvascular network (A) end points, (B) branch points, and (C) vessel area as a percentage of the field of view area. (D) BRAT can also measure average or total vessel diameter and length (distances between end or branch points). Hashed vertical lines represent media change times. Individual timepoint analysis (dots) are overlaid with a regression and 95% confidence intervals. These results are compared with REAVER in .
Techniques Used: Cell Culture
Figure Legend Snippet: (A) 3D microvascular networks formed by GFP-hAECs and hAD-MSCs co-cultured in a hydrogel microchip. (B) A 3D microvascular network of CD31-stained umbilical cord blood-outgrowth ECs (BOECs) and hAD-MSCs co-cultured in a fibrin hydrogel. (C) BRAT shows hAECs form thicker, longer, but fewer microvessels in 3D hAD-MSC hydrogel co-culture as opposed to BOECs. (A, B) 100 µm scale bars. (C)’s dimensions are reported in µm using 0.81 µm/pixel (Etaluma 720S) or 0.73 µm/pixel (Nikon Ti2) conversion factors. (C) datapoints represent independent cultures. Barplots represent mean ± standard deviation. *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001. Additional BRAT-generated metrics can be found in Fig. S9.
Techniques Used: Cell Culture, MicroChIP Assay, Staining, Co-Culture Assay, Standard Deviation, Generated
Figure Legend Snippet: (A) A comparison of BRAT versus the leading four open-source software’s accuracy, sensitivity (true-positive), and specificity (true-negative) of microvascular network (MVN) pixel segmentation versus gold-standard manual segmentation. (B) Accuracy and precision across automatically detected vessel length, area, diameter, and branch points with reference to manual segmentations. (C) The most challenging MVN image to segment from the REAVER dataset; an image of CD31 + MVN in cardiac tissue (left), beside a manual annotation (ground truth), BRAT’s automated annotation, and BRAT’s false-positive (FP; green) and false-negative (FN; red) incorrectly-labelled MVN pixels. (A, B) Boxplots represent mean, quartile ranges, while whiskers extend to show the distribution, less outlier points. The annotations above or below each plot indicate significant pairwise comparisons between groups with Bonferroni adjusted p-values (letters).
Techniques Used: Comparison
Figure Legend Snippet: Co-cultured GFP-hAECs and hAD-MSCs form microvascular networks over 7 days, as imaged every 10 minutes. BRAT analysed all 886 timesteps, while AngioTool only analysed 89 timesteps. In the bioRxiv version, the video is a download in the ‘Supplemental Material’ tab on the right of the abstract.
Techniques Used: Cell Culture

