BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Observing changes to water diffusivity and fractional anisotropy (FA) for particular hippocampal regions may improve the sensitivity and specificity of diffusion tensor MR imaging for hippocampal pathologies like Alzheimer disease and mesial temporal sclerosis. As a first step toward this goal, this study characterized the cytoarchitectural features underlying diffusion anisotropy in human hippocampus autopsy specimens at 60-microm in-plane resolution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight-millimeter coronal segments of the hippocampal body were dissected from 5 autopsy specimens (mean = 55.6 +/- 6.2 years of age) with short postmortem intervals to fixation (21.2 +/- 5.7 hours) and no histologic evidence of neuropathology. Diffusion tensor microscopy data were collected from hippocampal specimens by using a 14.1T magnet with a protocol that included 21 unique diffusion gradient orientations (diffusion time = 17 ms, b = 1250 s/mm(2)). The resulting images were used to determine the mean diffusivity, FA, and principal fiber orientation for manually segmented hippocampal regions that included the stratum oriens, stratum radiatum, stratum pyramidale (CA1 and CA3), stratum lacunosum-molecular, hilus, molecular layer, granule cell layer, fimbria, and subiculum. RESULTS: Diffusion-weighted images had high signal-to-noise ratios (31.1 +/- 13.0) and delineated hippocampal anatomy well. Water diffusivity ranged from 1.21 +/- 0.22 x 10(-4) mm(2)/s in the fimbria to 3.48 +/- 0.72 x 10(-4) mm(2)/s in granule cells (analysis of variance, P<.001). Color fiber-orientation maps indicated the underlying microstructures responsible for diffusion anisotropy in the hippocampal lamina. CONCLUSION: Diffusion tensor microscopy provided novel microstructural information about the different lamina of the human hippocampus. These ex vivo data obtained at high-magnetic-field strengths can be used to study injury-specific diffusion changes to susceptible hippocampal regions and may lead to more specific MR imaging surrogate markers for Alzheimer disease or epilepsy.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Observing changes to water diffusivity and fractional anisotropy (FA) for particular hippocampal regions may improve the sensitivity and specificity of diffusion tensor MR imaging for hippocampal pathologies like Alzheimer disease and mesial temporal sclerosis. As a first step toward this goal, this study characterized the cytoarchitectural features underlying diffusion anisotropy in human hippocampus autopsy specimens at 60-microm in-plane resolution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight-millimeter coronal segments of the hippocampal body were dissected from 5 autopsy specimens (mean = 55.6 +/- 6.2 years of age) with short postmortem intervals to fixation (21.2 +/- 5.7 hours) and no histologic evidence of neuropathology. Diffusion tensor microscopy data were collected from hippocampal specimens by using a 14.1T magnet with a protocol that included 21 unique diffusion gradient orientations (diffusion time = 17 ms, b = 1250 s/mm(2)). The resulting images were used to determine the mean diffusivity, FA, and principal fiber orientation for manually segmented hippocampal regions that included the stratum oriens, stratum radiatum, stratum pyramidale (CA1 and CA3), stratum lacunosum-molecular, hilus, molecular layer, granule cell layer, fimbria, and subiculum. RESULTS: Diffusion-weighted images had high signal-to-noise ratios (31.1 +/- 13.0) and delineated hippocampal anatomy well. Water diffusivity ranged from 1.21 +/- 0.22 x 10(-4) mm(2)/s in the fimbria to 3.48 +/- 0.72 x 10(-4) mm(2)/s in granule cells (analysis of variance, P<.001). Color fiber-orientation maps indicated the underlying microstructures responsible for diffusion anisotropy in the hippocampal lamina. CONCLUSION: Diffusion tensor microscopy provided novel microstructural information about the different lamina of the human hippocampus. These ex vivo data obtained at high-magnetic-field strengths can be used to study injury-specific diffusion changes to susceptible hippocampal regions and may lead to more specific MR imaging surrogate markers for Alzheimer disease or epilepsy.
Authors: David S Tuch; Timothy G Reese; Mette R Wiegell; Nikos Makris; John W Belliveau; Van J Wedeen Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Babak A Ardekani; Arthika Bappal; Debra D'Angelo; Manzar Ashtari; Todd Lencz; Philip R Szeszko; Pamela D Butler; Daniel C Javitt; Kelvin O Lim; Jan Hrabe; Jay Nierenberg; Craig A Branch; Matthew J Hoptman Journal: Neuroreport Date: 2005-09-08 Impact factor: 1.837
Authors: Donald W Chakeres; Chastity D S Whitaker; Roger A Dashner; Douglas W Scharre; David Q Beversdorf; Abhik Raychaudhury; Petra Schmalbrock Journal: Clin Anat Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 2.414
Authors: Evren Ozarslan; Timothy M Shepherd; Baba C Vemuri; Stephen J Blackband; Thomas H Mareci Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2006-03-20 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: E D Bigler; D D Blatter; C V Anderson; S C Johnson; S D Gale; R O Hopkins; B Burnett Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 1997-01 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Tim B Dyrby; William F C Baaré; Daniel C Alexander; Jacob Jelsing; Ellen Garde; Lise V Søgaard Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Manisha Aggarwal; Jiangyang Zhang; Olga Pletnikova; Barbara Crain; Juan Troncoso; Susumu Mori Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2013-02-04 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Timothy M Shepherd; Jeremy J Flint; Peter E Thelwall; Greg J Stanisz; Thomas H Mareci; Anthony T Yachnis; Stephen J Blackband Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2008-10-19 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Jean C Augustinack; Karl Helmer; Kristen E Huber; Sita Kakunoori; Lilla Zöllei; Bruce Fischl Journal: Front Hum Neurosci Date: 2010-05-28 Impact factor: 3.169