| Literature DB >> 25299952 |
Matthew N Metzinger1, Bernadette Miramontes2, Peng Zhou3, Yueying Liu1, Sarah Chapman4, Lucy Sun5, Todd A Sasser6, Giles E Duffield7, M Sharon Stack1, W Matthew Leevy8.
Abstract
Numerous obesity studies have coupled murine models with non-invasive methods to quantify body composition in longitudinal experiments, including X-ray computed tomography (CT) or quantitative nuclear magnetic resonance (QMR). Both microCT and QMR have been separately validated with invasive techniques of adipose tissue quantification, like post-mortem fat extraction and measurement. Here we report a head-to-head study of both protocols using oil phantoms and mouse populations to determine the parameters that best align CT data with that from QMR. First, an in vitro analysis of oil/water mixtures was used to calibrate and assess the overall accuracy of microCT vs. QMR data. Next, experiments were conducted with two cohorts of living mice (either homogenous or heterogeneous by sex, age and genetic backgrounds) to assess the microCT imaging technique for adipose tissue segmentation and quantification relative to QMR. Adipose mass values were obtained from microCT data with three different resolutions, after which the data were analyzed with different filter and segmentation settings. Strong linearity was noted between the adipose mass values obtained with microCT and QMR, with optimal parameters and scan conditions reported herein. Lean tissue (muscle, internal organs) was also segmented and quantified using the microCT method relative to the analogous QMR values. Overall, the rigorous calibration and validation of the microCT method for murine body composition, relative to QMR, ensures its validity for segmentation, quantification and visualization of both adipose and lean tissues.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25299952 PMCID: PMC4239858 DOI: 10.3390/s141018526
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1.In vitro measurement of soybean oil masses as measured by QMR and microCT (0.4 and 0.2 mA currents) methods.
Figure 2.Effects of resolution (Panel A), segmentation range (Panel B) and median filter (Panel C) on microCT data alignment with QMR.
Figure 3.Linear regression of lean tissue values derived from QMR vs. microCT data at 500, 350 and 125 μm voxel size.
Figure 4.Linear regression of microCT and QMR adipose values for a mouse population with heterogenous genetic background.
Figure 5.Three-dimensional visualizations of: (a) all skeletal and soft tissue; (b) region-specific adiposity; (c) lean tissue; and (d) an overlay of the three in a mouse from Cohort A at the 6 week time point.