UNLABELLED: The aim of this study was to evaluate various methods for estimating the metabolic rate of glucose utilization in the mouse brain (cMR(glc)) using small-animal PET and reliable blood curves derived by a microfluidic blood sampler. Typical values of (18)F-FDG rate constants of normal mouse cerebral cortex were estimated and used for cMR(glc) calculations. The feasibility of using the image-derived liver time-activity curve as a surrogate input function in various quantification methods was also evaluated. METHODS: Thirteen normoglycemic C57BL/6 mice were studied. Eighteen blood samples were taken from the femoral artery by the microfluidic blood sampler. Tissue time-activity curves were derived from PET images. cMR(glc) values were calculated using 2 different input functions (one derived from the blood samples [IF(blood)] and the other from the liver time-activity curve [IF(liver)]) in various quantification methods, which included the 3-compartment (18)F-FDG model (from which the (18)F-FDG rate constants were derived), the Patlak analysis, and operational equations. The estimated cMR(glc) value based on IF(blood) and the 3-compartment model served as a standard for comparisons with the cMR(glc) values calculated by the other methods. RESULTS: The values of K(1), k(2), k(3), k(4), and K(FDG) estimated by IF(blood) and the 3-compartment model were 0.22 +/- 0.05 mL/min/g, 0.48 +/- 0.09 min(-1), 0.06 +/- 0.02 min(-1), 0.025 +/- 0.010 min(-1), and 0.024 +/- 0.007 mL/min/g, respectively. The standard cMR(glc) value was, therefore, 40.6 +/- 13.3 micromol/100 g/min (lumped constant = 0.6). No significant difference between the standard cMR(glc) and the cMR(glc) estimated by the operational equation that includes k(4) was observed. The standard cMR(glc) was also found to have strong correlations (r > 0.8) with the cMR(glc) value estimated by the use of IF(liver) in the 3-compartment model and with those estimated by the Patlak analysis (using either IF(blood) or IF(liver)). CONCLUSION: The (18)F-FDG rate constants of normal mouse cerebral cortex were determined. These values can be used in the k(4)-included operational equation to calculate cMR(glc). IF(liver) can be used to estimate cMR(glc) in most methods included in this study, with proper linear corrections applied. The validity of using the Patlak analysis for estimating cMR(glc) in mouse PET studies was also confirmed.
UNLABELLED: The aim of this study was to evaluate various methods for estimating the metabolic rate of glucose utilization in the mouse brain (cMR(glc)) using small-animal PET and reliable blood curves derived by a microfluidic blood sampler. Typical values of (18)F-FDG rate constants of normal mouse cerebral cortex were estimated and used for cMR(glc) calculations. The feasibility of using the image-derived liver time-activity curve as a surrogate input function in various quantification methods was also evaluated. METHODS: Thirteen normoglycemic C57BL/6 mice were studied. Eighteen blood samples were taken from the femoral artery by the microfluidic blood sampler. Tissue time-activity curves were derived from PET images. cMR(glc) values were calculated using 2 different input functions (one derived from the blood samples [IF(blood)] and the other from the liver time-activity curve [IF(liver)]) in various quantification methods, which included the 3-compartment (18)F-FDG model (from which the (18)F-FDG rate constants were derived), the Patlak analysis, and operational equations. The estimated cMR(glc) value based on IF(blood) and the 3-compartment model served as a standard for comparisons with the cMR(glc) values calculated by the other methods. RESULTS: The values of K(1), k(2), k(3), k(4), and K(FDG) estimated by IF(blood) and the 3-compartment model were 0.22 +/- 0.05 mL/min/g, 0.48 +/- 0.09 min(-1), 0.06 +/- 0.02 min(-1), 0.025 +/- 0.010 min(-1), and 0.024 +/- 0.007 mL/min/g, respectively. The standard cMR(glc) value was, therefore, 40.6 +/- 13.3 micromol/100 g/min (lumped constant = 0.6). No significant difference between the standard cMR(glc) and the cMR(glc) estimated by the operational equation that includes k(4) was observed. The standard cMR(glc) was also found to have strong correlations (r > 0.8) with the cMR(glc) value estimated by the use of IF(liver) in the 3-compartment model and with those estimated by the Patlak analysis (using either IF(blood) or IF(liver)). CONCLUSION: The (18)F-FDG rate constants of normal mouse cerebral cortex were determined. These values can be used in the k(4)-included operational equation to calculate cMR(glc). IF(liver) can be used to estimate cMR(glc) in most methods included in this study, with proper linear corrections applied. The validity of using the Patlak analysis for estimating cMR(glc) in mousePET studies was also confirmed.
Authors: L Sokoloff; M Reivich; C Kennedy; M H Des Rosiers; C S Patlak; K D Pettigrew; O Sakurada; M Shinohara Journal: J Neurochem Date: 1977-05 Impact factor: 5.372
Authors: Kazuaki Shimoji; Laura Ravasi; Kathleen Schmidt; Maria Luisa Soto-Montenegro; Takanori Esaki; Jurgen Seidel; Elaine Jagoda; Louis Sokoloff; Michael V Green; William C Eckelman Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Géraldine Poisnel; Anne-Sophie Hérard; Nadine El Tannir El Tayara; Emmanuel Bourrin; Andreas Volk; Frank Kober; Benoit Delatour; Thierry Delzescaux; Thomas Debeir; Thomas Rooney; Jésus Benavides; Philippe Hantraye; Marc Dhenain Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2011-11-12 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Spencer L Bowen; Larry G Byars; Christian J Michel; Daniel B Chonde; Ciprian Catana Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2013-09-20 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Pablo Bascuñana; James T Thackeray; M Bankstahl; Frank M Bengel; Jens P Bankstahl Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Edward A Carter; Daniel Winter; Crystal Tolman; Kasie Paul; Victoria Hamrahi; Ronald G Tompkins; Alan J Fischman Journal: J Burn Care Res Date: 2012 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 1.845
Authors: Maggie Roy; Scott Nugent; Sébastien Tremblay; Maxime Descoteaux; Jean-François Beaudoin; Luc Tremblay; Roger Lecomte; Stephen C Cunnane Journal: J Vis Exp Date: 2013-12-28 Impact factor: 1.355
Authors: Edward A Carter; Kasie W Paul; Sandra A Barrow; Alan J Fischman; Ronald G Tompkins Journal: J Burn Care Res Date: 2012 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 1.845