OBJECTIVE: to evaluate the applicability, precision, and accuracy of the new EchoMRI quantitative magnetic resonance (QMR) method for in-vitro bovine bone analysis and in-vivo whole-body-composition analysis of conscious live mice. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES: bovine tibia bone samples were measured by QMR and dual-energy X-ray adsorptiometry (DEXA). Repeated measures of whole-body composition were made using live and dead mice with different levels of fat by QMR and DEXA and by classic chemical analysis of the mouse carcass. RESULTS: bone-mineral density (BMD) and bone-mineral content (BMC) measured in bovine tibia by QMR and DEXA were highly correlated. Precision of fat and lean measurement in mice was found to be better for QMR than for DEXA. The coefficient of variation ( CV) for fat was 0.34-0.71% for QMR compared with 3.06-12.60% for DEXA. DISCUSSION: QMR offers more specific parameters of bone structure than does DEXA. QMR and DEXA did not differ in the total amount of fat detected in live mice but QMR had improved precision. QMR was superior to DEXA in measuring fat in very small mice. CONCLUSIONS: in bone tissue there is a strong correlation between hydrogen NMR signal and bone-mineral density as measured by X-ray. QMR provides a very precise, accurate, fast, and easy to use method for determining fat and lean mass of mice without the need for anesthesia. Its ability to detect differences and monitor changes in body composition in mice with great precision should be of great value in characterizing phenotypes and studying drugs affecting obesity.
OBJECTIVE: to evaluate the applicability, precision, and accuracy of the new EchoMRI quantitative magnetic resonance (QMR) method for in-vitro bovine bone analysis and in-vivo whole-body-composition analysis of conscious live mice. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES: bovine tibia bone samples were measured by QMR and dual-energy X-ray adsorptiometry (DEXA). Repeated measures of whole-body composition were made using live and dead mice with different levels of fat by QMR and DEXA and by classic chemical analysis of the mouse carcass. RESULTS: bone-mineral density (BMD) and bone-mineral content (BMC) measured in bovine tibia by QMR and DEXA were highly correlated. Precision of fat and lean measurement in mice was found to be better for QMR than for DEXA. The coefficient of variation ( CV) for fat was 0.34-0.71% for QMR compared with 3.06-12.60% for DEXA. DISCUSSION: QMR offers more specific parameters of bone structure than does DEXA. QMR and DEXA did not differ in the total amount of fat detected in live mice but QMR had improved precision. QMR was superior to DEXA in measuring fat in very small mice. CONCLUSIONS: in bone tissue there is a strong correlation between hydrogen NMR signal and bone-mineral density as measured by X-ray. QMR provides a very precise, accurate, fast, and easy to use method for determining fat and lean mass of mice without the need for anesthesia. Its ability to detect differences and monitor changes in body composition in mice with great precision should be of great value in characterizing phenotypes and studying drugs affecting obesity.
Authors: Ting Feng; Kenneth M Kozloff; Chao Tian; Joseph E Perosky; Yi-Sing Hsiao; Sidan Du; Jie Yuan; Cheri X Deng; Xueding Wang Journal: Opt Lett Date: 2015-04-15 Impact factor: 3.776
Authors: Harini Sampath; Ayesha K Batra; Vladimir Vartanian; J Russ Carmical; Deborah Prusak; Irena B King; Brian Lowell; Lauriel F Earley; Thomas G Wood; Daniel L Marks; Amanda K McCullough; Lloyd R Stephen Journal: Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab Date: 2011-02-01 Impact factor: 4.310
Authors: Jeffrey M Zigman; Yoshihide Nakano; Roberto Coppari; Nina Balthasar; Jacob N Marcus; Charlotte E Lee; Juli E Jones; Amy E Deysher; Amanda R Waxman; Ryan D White; Todd D Williams; Jennifer L Lachey; Randy J Seeley; Bradford B Lowell; Joel K Elmquist Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Richard C Davis; Atila van Nas; Lawrence W Castellani; Yi Zhao; Zhiqiang Zhou; Pingzi Wen; Suzanne Yu; Hongxiu Qi; Melenie Rosales; Eric E Schadt; Karl W Broman; Miklós Péterfy; Aldons J Lusis Journal: Physiol Genomics Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 3.107
Authors: Michael S Lustgarten; Youngmok C Jang; Yuhong Liu; Florian L Muller; Wenbo Qi; Mark Steinhelper; Susan V Brooks; Lisa Larkin; Takahiko Shimizu; Takuji Shirasawa; Linda M McManus; Arunabh Bhattacharya; Arlan Richardson; Holly Van Remmen Journal: Am J Physiol Cell Physiol Date: 2009-09-23 Impact factor: 4.249
Authors: Michael J Brennick; Allan I Pack; Kei Ko; Eugene Kim; Stephen Pickup; Greg Maislin; Richard J Schwab Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2008-11-07 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Joshua P Nixon; Minzhi Zhang; ChuanFeng Wang; Michael A Kuskowski; Colleen M Novak; James A Levine; Charles J Billington; Catherine M Kotz Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2010-01-07 Impact factor: 5.002