4.4 Article

Voxel-based morphometry with templates and validation in a mouse model of Huntington's disease

Journal

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
Volume 31, Issue 9, Pages 1522-1531

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.mri.2013.06.001

Keywords

Automated analysis; Translational methods; Image processing; Huntington's disease; R6/2 mouse

Funding

  1. Wellcome Trust
  2. Medical Research Council
  3. CHDI, Inc.
  4. Medical Research Council [G0001354B, G1000183B, G0001354] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Despite widespread application to human imaging, voxel-based morphometry (VBM), where images are compared following grey matter (GM) segmentation, is seldom used in mice. Here VBM is performed for the R6/2 model of Huntington's disease, a progressive neurological disorder. This article discusses issues in translating the methods to mice and shows that its statistical basis is sound in mice as it is in human studies. Whole brain images from live transgenic and control mice are segmented into GM maps after processing and compared to produce statistical parametric maps of likely differences. To assess whether false positives were likely to occur, a large cohort of ex vivo magnetic resonance brain images were sampled with permutation testing. Differences were seen particularly in the striatum and cortex, in line with studies performed ex vivo and as seen in human patients. In validation, the rate of false positives is as expected and these have no discernible distribution through the brain. The study shows that VBM successfully detects differences in the Huntington's disease mouse brain. The method is rapid compared to manual delineation and reliable. The templates created here for the mouse brain are freely released for other users in addition to an open-source software toolbox for performing mouse VBM. (C) 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available