PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to validate the feasibility of a voxel-based analysis of in vivo amyloid-β positron emission tomography (PET) imaging studies in transgenic mouse models of Alzheimer's disease. PROCEDURES: We performed [(11)C]PiB PET imaging in 20 APP/PS1 mice and 16 age-matched controls, and histologically determined the individual amyloid-β plaque load. Using SPM software, we performed a voxel-based group comparison plus a regression analysis between PiB retention and actual plaque load, both thresholded at p FWE < 0.05. In addition, we carried out an individual ROI analysis in every animal. RESULTS: The automated voxel-based group comparison allowed us to identify voxels with significantly increased PiB retention in the cortical and hippocampal regions in transgenic animals compared to controls. The voxel-based regression analysis revealed a significant association between this signal increase and the actual cerebral plaque load. The validity of these results was corroborated by the individual ROI-based analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Voxel-based analysis of in vivo amyloid-β PET imaging studies in mouse models of Alzheimer's disease is feasible and allows studying the PiB retention patterns in whole brain maps. Furthermore, the selected approach in our study also allowed us to establish a quantitative relation between tracer retention and actual plaque pathology in the brain in a voxel-wise manner.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to validate the feasibility of a voxel-based analysis of in vivo amyloid-β positron emission tomography (PET) imaging studies in transgenic mouse models of Alzheimer's disease. PROCEDURES: We performed [(11)C]PiB PET imaging in 20 APP/PS1mice and 16 age-matched controls, and histologically determined the individual amyloid-β plaque load. Using SPM software, we performed a voxel-based group comparison plus a regression analysis between PiB retention and actual plaque load, both thresholded at p FWE < 0.05. In addition, we carried out an individual ROI analysis in every animal. RESULTS: The automated voxel-based group comparison allowed us to identify voxels with significantly increased PiB retention in the cortical and hippocampal regions in transgenic animals compared to controls. The voxel-based regression analysis revealed a significant association between this signal increase and the actual cerebral plaque load. The validity of these results was corroborated by the individual ROI-based analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Voxel-based analysis of in vivo amyloid-β PET imaging studies in mouse models of Alzheimer's disease is feasible and allows studying the PiB retention patterns in whole brain maps. Furthermore, the selected approach in our study also allowed us to establish a quantitative relation between tracer retention and actual plaque pathology in the brain in a voxel-wise manner.
Authors: Paul Edison; Hilary A Archer; Alexander Gerhard; Rainer Hinz; Nicola Pavese; Federico E Turkheimer; Alexander Hammers; Yen Fong Tai; Nick Fox; Angus Kennedy; Martin Rossor; David J Brooks Journal: Neurobiol Dis Date: 2008-08-15 Impact factor: 5.996
Authors: Hiroshi Toyama; Daniel Ye; Masanori Ichise; Jeih-San Liow; Lisheng Cai; David Jacobowitz; John L Musachio; Jinsoo Hong; Mathew Crescenzo; Dnyanesh Tipre; Jian-Qiang Lu; Sami Zoghbi; Douglass C Vines; Jurgen Seidel; Kazuhiro Katada; Michael V Green; Victor W Pike; Robert M Cohen; Robert B Innis Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2005-03-25 Impact factor: 9.236
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: Arthur Mikhno; Davangere Devanand; Gregory Pelton; Katrina Cuasay; Roger Gunn; Neil Upton; Robert Y Lai; Vincenzo Libri; J John Mann; Ramin V Parsey Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2008-07-16 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: N M Scheinin; S Aalto; J Koikkalainen; J Lötjönen; M Karrasch; N Kemppainen; M Viitanen; K Någren; S Helin; M Scheinin; J O Rinne Journal: Neurology Date: 2009-09-02 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Nicolaas P L G Verhoeff; Alan A Wilson; Shinichiro Takeshita; Liat Trop; Doug Hussey; Kernjit Singh; Hank F Kung; Mei-Ping Kung; Sylvain Houle Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2004 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: Samuel Chiquita; Mário Ribeiro; João Castelhano; Francisco Oliveira; José Sereno; Marta Batista; Antero Abrunhosa; Ana C Rodrigues-Neves; Rafael Carecho; Filipa Baptista; Catarina Gomes; Paula I Moreira; António F Ambrósio; Miguel Castelo-Branco Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 6.150
Authors: Florian C Maier; Hans F Wehrl; Andreas M Schmid; Julia G Mannheim; Stefan Wiehr; Chommanad Lerdkrai; Carsten Calaminus; Anke Stahlschmidt; Lan Ye; Michael Burnet; Detlef Stiller; Osama Sabri; Gerald Reischl; Mathias Staufenbiel; Olga Garaschuk; Mathias Jucker; Bernd J Pichler Journal: Nat Med Date: 2014-11-10 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Matthias Brendel; Anna Jaworska; Eric Grießinger; Christina Rötzer; Steffen Burgold; Franz-Josef Gildehaus; Janette Carlsen; Paul Cumming; Karlheinz Baumann; Christian Haass; Harald Steiner; Peter Bartenstein; Jochen Herms; Axel Rominger Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-02-23 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Se Jong Oh; Hae-June Lee; Kyung Jun Kang; Sang Jin Han; Yong Jin Lee; Kyo Chul Lee; Sang Moo Lim; Dae Yoon Chi; Kyeong Min Kim; Ji-Ae Park; Jae Yong Choi Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging Date: 2018-02-28 Impact factor: 3.161
Authors: Behrooz H Yousefi; Boris von Reutern; Daniela Scherübl; André Manook; Markus Schwaiger; Timo Grimmer; Gjermund Henriksen; Stefan Förster; Alexander Drzezga; Hans-Jürgen Wester Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2015-03-28 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Jae-Hun Kim; Tae Lin Ha; Geun Ho Im; Jehoon Yang; Sang Won Seo; Julius Juhyun Chung; Sun Young Chae; In Su Lee; Jung Hee Lee Journal: Neuroreport Date: 2014-03-05 Impact factor: 1.837