| Literature DB >> 35503134 |
Samantha Rossano1,2, Takuya Toyonaga3, Jason Bini3, Nabeel Nabulsi3, Jim Ropchan3, Zhengxin Cai3, Yiyun Huang3, Richard E Carson3,4.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Neuronal damage and synapse loss in the spinal cord (SC) have been implicated in spinal cord injury (SCI) and neurodegenerative disorders such as Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS). Current standards of diagnosis for SCI include CT or MRI imaging to evaluate injury severity. The current study explores the use of PET imaging with [11C]UCB-J, which targets the synaptic vesicle protein 2A (SV2A), in the human spinal cord, as a way to visualize synaptic density and integrity in vivo.Entities:
Keywords: PET; SV2A; Spinal cord; Synaptic density
Year: 2022 PMID: 35503134 PMCID: PMC9065222 DOI: 10.1186/s40658-022-00464-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: EJNMMI Phys ISSN: 2197-7364
Table of definitions and assumptions for simulation study
| Parameter definition | Cortex | Spinal cord (SC) gray matter (GM) | Spinal cord (SC) white matter (WM) | Full spinal cord (SC) ~ 3:1 WM:GM [ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Relative SV2A concentration, based on ex vivo SV2A concentrations [ | 1.00 | 0.20 | 0.00 | |
| 2.80 | 2.80 | 2.80 | 2.80 | |
| 17.2 | 3.44 | 0.00 | 0.81 | |
| Baseline | 20.0a | 6.24 | 2.80 | 3.83 |
| Blocking | 7.10 | 3.66 | 2.80 | 3.06 |
aApproximate mean GM VT[19]
Fig. 1Simulated Spinal Cord images for baseline and blocking conditions. Scale bar = 8.5 mm
Fig. 2Example baseline (left) and blocking (right) [11C]UCB-J VT coronal and sagittal images in the whole brain and cSC from the HRRT study. Images are scaled to brain uptake levels in the top row and scaled to cSC uptake in the bottom row
Comparison of outcome measures between simulation study and occupancy study
| Occupancy Study (Mean, | Simulation study | % Difference, (Occ − Sim)/Sim *100 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 3.07 | 3.09 | − 0.6 |
| Blocking | 2.36 | 2.36 | − 0.2 |
| 2.15 | 2.12 | 1.3 | |
| 0.92 | 0.97 | − 4.7 | |
| 0.43 | 0.46 | − 6.5 |
Fig. 3Sagittal view of a CT image, a PET image (SUV, 30–60 min), and overlaid CT/PET of the Full Central Nervous System (brain + SC)
Fig. 4Example full Spinal Cord (SC), cervical spinal cord (cSC), and thoracic spinal cord (tSC) time activity curves with SRTM2 fit (solid line)
Parameter estimates (%standard error) from SRTM2 fits of automated SC, cSC, and tSC ROI TACs for individual subjects along with mean and SD for 4 subjects
| Subject 1 | 0.115 (10.7) | 0.231 (8.80) | 0.036 (15.7) |
| Subject 2 | 0.094 (6.83) | 0.268 (6.70) | 0.051 (10.6) |
| Subject 3 | 0.142 (3.73) | 0.204 (2.45) | 0.026 (5.31) |
| Subject 4 | 0.107 (5.45) | 0.150 (3.71) | 0.025 (7.77) |
| Mean (S.D.) | 0.115 (0.020) | 0.213 (0.049) | 0.035 (0.012) |
| Subject 1 | 0.143 (7.35) | 0.205 (5.20) | 0.026 (10.7) |
| Subject 2 | 0.074 (7.47) | 0.221 (7.30) | 0.054 (11.6) |
| Subject 3 | 0.181 (10.7) | 0.201 (5.89) | 0.020 (14.8) |
| Subject 4 | 0.183 (4.26) | 0.237 (2.77) | 0.023 (6.04) |
| Mean (S.D.) | 0.145 (0.051) | 0.216 (0.016) | 0.031 (0.016) |
| Subject 1 | 0.103 (12.3) | 0.213 (10.2) | 0.037 (18.1) |
| Subject 2 | 0.104 (7.13) | 0.293 (7.00) | 0.051 (11.1) |
| Subject 3 | 0.135 (5.49) | 0.210 (3.78) | 0.028 (7.87) |
| Subject 4 | 0.104 (7.60) | 0.124 (4.68) | 0.021 (10.7) |
| Mean (S.D.) | 0.112 (0.016) | 0.210 (0.069) | 0.034 (0.013) |