PURPOSE: To quantify small amounts of iron-labeled cells in mouse brains with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). PROCEDURES: Iron-labeled cells (from 500 to 7,500) were stereotaxically transplanted into the brain of living mice that were subsequently imaged with MRI at 4.7 T. We compared four quantitative methods: (1) T2 relaxometry, (2) T2* relaxometry, (3) the volume of the cloverleaf hypointense artifact generated on T2*-weighted images, and (4) the volume of the cloverleaf hyperintense artifact generated on positive contrast images. RESULTS: The methods based on relaxometry, whether T2 or T2*, did not correlate with the number of injected cells. By contrast, those based on measurement of cloverleaf artifact volume, whether using negative or positive enhancement, showed a significant linear relationship for the given range of cells (R [0.92-0.95], p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: T2* artifact volume imaging (negative or positive) appears promising for the quantification of magnetically labeled cells following focal injection in the brain.
PURPOSE: To quantify small amounts of iron-labeled cells in mouse brains with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). PROCEDURES: Iron-labeled cells (from 500 to 7,500) were stereotaxically transplanted into the brain of living mice that were subsequently imaged with MRI at 4.7 T. We compared four quantitative methods: (1) T2 relaxometry, (2) T2* relaxometry, (3) the volume of the cloverleaf hypointense artifact generated on T2*-weighted images, and (4) the volume of the cloverleaf hyperintense artifact generated on positive contrast images. RESULTS: The methods based on relaxometry, whether T2 or T2*, did not correlate with the number of injected cells. By contrast, those based on measurement of cloverleaf artifact volume, whether using negative or positive enhancement, showed a significant linear relationship for the given range of cells (R [0.92-0.95], p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: T2* artifact volume imaging (negative or positive) appears promising for the quantification of magnetically labeled cells following focal injection in the brain.
Authors: Charles H Cunningham; Takayasu Arai; Phillip C Yang; Michael V McConnell; John M Pauly; Steven M Conolly Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Matthias Stuber; Wesley D Gilson; Michael Schär; Dorota A Kedziorek; Lawrence V Hofmann; Saurabh Shah; Evert-Jan Vonken; Jeff W M Bulte; Dara L Kraitchman Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Grigorios Korosoglou; Robert G Weiss; Dorota A Kedziorek; Piotr Walczak; Wesley D Gilson; Michael Schär; David E Sosnovik; Dara L Kraitchman; Raymond C Boston; Jeff W M Bulte; Ralph Weissleder; Matthias Stuber Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2008-08-05 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Venkatesh Mani; Eric Adler; Karen C Briley-Saebo; Anne Bystrup; Valentin Fuster; Gordon Keller; Zahi A Fayad Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: J-C Brisset; V Desestret; S Marcellino; E Devillard; F Chauveau; F Lagarde; S Nataf; N Nighoghossian; Y Berthezene; M Wiart Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-08-25 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Rebecca Kuhlpeter; Hannes Dahnke; Lars Matuszewski; Thorsten Persigehl; Angelika von Wallbrunn; Thomas Allkemper; Walter L Heindel; Tobias Schaeffter; Christoph Bremer Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-09-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Xeni Deligianni; Daniel Jirák; Zuzana Berková; Milan Hájek; Klaus Scheffler; Oliver Bieri Journal: MAGMA Date: 2013-11-30 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Naira P Martínez Vera; Reinhold Schmidt; Klaus Langer; Iavor Zlatev; Robert Wronski; Ewald Auer; Daniel Havas; Manfred Windisch; Hagen von Briesen; Sylvia Wagner; Julia Stab; Motti Deutsch; Claus Pietrzik; Franz Fazekas; Stefan Ropele Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-03-14 Impact factor: 3.240