PURPOSE: We aimed to develop a computational simulation model for beta-amyloid (Abeta) positron emission tomography (PET) imaging. PROCEDURES: Model parameters were set to reproduce levels of Abeta within the PDAPP mouse. Pharmacokinetic curves of virtual tracers were computed and a PET detector simulator was configured for a commercially available preclinical PET-imaging system. RESULTS: We modeled the effects of Abeta therapy and tracer affinity on the ability to differentiate Abeta levels by PET. Varying affinity had a significant effect on the ability to quantitate Abeta. Further, PET tracers for Abeta monomers were more sensitive to the therapeutic reduction in Abeta levels than total brain amyloid. Following therapy, the decrease in total brain Abeta corresponded to the slow rate of change in total amyloid load as expected. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed a first proof-of-concept Abeta-PET simulation model that will be a useful tool in the interpretation of preclinical Abeta imaging data and tracer development.
PURPOSE: We aimed to develop a computational simulation model for beta-amyloid (Abeta) positron emission tomography (PET) imaging. PROCEDURES: Model parameters were set to reproduce levels of Abeta within the PDAPP mouse. Pharmacokinetic curves of virtual tracers were computed and a PET detector simulator was configured for a commercially available preclinical PET-imaging system. RESULTS: We modeled the effects of Abeta therapy and tracer affinity on the ability to differentiate Abeta levels by PET. Varying affinity had a significant effect on the ability to quantitate Abeta. Further, PET tracers for Abeta monomers were more sensitive to the therapeutic reduction in Abeta levels than total brain amyloid. Following therapy, the decrease in total brain Abeta corresponded to the slow rate of change in total amyloid load as expected. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed a first proof-of-concept Abeta-PET simulation model that will be a useful tool in the interpretation of preclinical Abeta imaging data and tracer development.
Authors: Kooresh Shoghi-Jadid; Gary W Small; Eric D Agdeppa; Vladimir Kepe; Linda M Ercoli; Prabha Siddarth; Stephen Read; Nagichettiar Satyamurthy; Andrej Petric; Sung-Cheng Huang; Jorge R Barrio Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2002 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: J Logan; J S Fowler; N D Volkow; A P Wolf; S L Dewey; D J Schlyer; R R MacGregor; R Hitzemann; B Bendriem; S J Gatley Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 1990-09 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Mei-Ping Kung; Daniel M Skovronsky; Catherine Hou; Zhi-Ping Zhuang; Tamar L Gur; Bin Zhang; John Q Trojanowski; Virginia M-Y Lee; Hank F Kung Journal: J Mol Neurosci Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 3.444
Authors: Jeffrey M Redwine; Barry Kosofsky; Russell E Jacobs; Dora Games; John F Reilly; John H Morrison; Warren G Young; Floyd E Bloom Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2003-01-24 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Chester A Mathis; Yanming Wang; Daniel P Holt; Guo-Feng Huang; Manik L Debnath; William E Klunk Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2003-06-19 Impact factor: 7.446