INTRODUCTION: Sensitive, non-invasive techniques are needed that can provide biomarkers of disease status and the effects of therapy in muscular dystrophy. METHODS: We evaluated electrical impedance myography (EIM) to serve in this role by studying 2-month-old and 18-month-old mdx and wild-type (WT) animals (10 animals in each of 4 groups). RESULTS: Marked differences were observed in EIM values between mdx and WT animals; the differences were more pronounced between the older age groups (e.g., reactance of 92.6 ± 4.3 Ω for mdx animals vs. 130 ± 4.1 Ω for WT animals, P<0.001). In addition, in vivo EIM parameters correlated significantly with the extent of connective tissue deposition in the mdx animals. CONCLUSIONS: EIM has the potential to serve as a valuable non-invasive method for evaluating muscular dystrophy. It can be a useful biomarker to assist with therapeutic testing in both pre-clinical and clinical studies.
INTRODUCTION: Sensitive, non-invasive techniques are needed that can provide biomarkers of disease status and the effects of therapy in muscular dystrophy. METHODS: We evaluated electrical impedance myography (EIM) to serve in this role by studying 2-month-old and 18-month-old mdx and wild-type (WT) animals (10 animals in each of 4 groups). RESULTS: Marked differences were observed in EIM values between mdx and WT animals; the differences were more pronounced between the older age groups (e.g., reactance of 92.6 ± 4.3 Ω for mdx animals vs. 130 ± 4.1 Ω for WT animals, P<0.001). In addition, in vivo EIM parameters correlated significantly with the extent of connective tissue deposition in the mdx animals. CONCLUSIONS: EIM has the potential to serve as a valuable non-invasive method for evaluating muscular dystrophy. It can be a useful biomarker to assist with therapeutic testing in both pre-clinical and clinical studies.
Authors: E Mazzone; G Vasco; M P Sormani; Y Torrente; A Berardinelli; S Messina; A D'Amico; L Doglio; L Politano; F Cavallaro; S Frosini; L Bello; S Bonfiglio; E Zucchini; R De Sanctis; M Scutifero; F Bianco; F Rossi; M C Motta; A Sacco; M A Donati; T Mongini; A Pini; R Battini; E Pegoraro; M Pane; S Gasperini; S Previtali; S Napolitano; D Martinelli; C Bruno; G Vita; G Comi; E Bertini; E Mercuri Journal: Neurology Date: 2011-07-06 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Katharine Bushby; Richard Finkel; David J Birnkrant; Laura E Case; Paula R Clemens; Linda Cripe; Ajay Kaul; Kathi Kinnett; Craig McDonald; Shree Pandya; James Poysky; Frederic Shapiro; Jean Tomezsko; Carolyn Constantin Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2009-11-27 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Danielle A Griffin; Ryan W Johnson; Jarred M Whitlock; Eric R Pozsgai; Kristin N Heller; William E Grose; W David Arnold; Zarife Sahenk; H Criss Hartzell; Louise R Rodino-Klapac Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 6.150
Authors: Adam Pacheck; Alex Mijailovic; Sung Yim; Jia Li; Jordan R Green; Courtney E McIlduff; Seward B Rutkove Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2015-12-11 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Seward B Rutkove; Kush Kapur; Craig M Zaidman; Jim S Wu; Amy Pasternak; Lavanya Madabusi; Sung Yim; Adam Pacheck; Heather Szelag; Tim Harrington; Basil T Darras Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2017-05-04 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Adrian G Todd; Jessica A McElroy; Robert W Grange; David D Fuller; Glenn A Walter; Barry J Byrne; Darin J Falk Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2015-06-30 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Stefan Schwartz; Tom R Geisbush; Aleksandar Mijailovic; Amy Pasternak; Basil T Darras; Seward B Rutkove Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2014-05-17 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Seward B Rutkove; Tom R Geisbush; Aleksandar Mijailovic; Irina Shklyar; Amy Pasternak; Nicole Visyak; Jim S Wu; Craig Zaidman; Basil T Darras Journal: Pediatr Neurol Date: 2014-02-28 Impact factor: 3.372
Authors: W Arnold; Vicki L McGovern; Benjamin Sanchez; Jia Li; Kaitlyn M Corlett; Stephen J Kolb; Seward B Rutkove; Arthur H Burghes Journal: Neurobiol Dis Date: 2015-12-28 Impact factor: 5.996