4.6 Article

Cross-Sectional Comparison of Small Animal [F-18]-Florbetaben Amyloid-PET between Transgenic AD Mouse Models

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 10, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0116678

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. SyNergy Cluster, Core 2 Project
  2. GE
  3. Piramal Imaging
  4. F. Hoffmann-La Roche

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We aimed to compare [F-18]-florbetaben PET imaging in four transgenic mouse strains modelling Alzheimer's disease (AD), with the main focus on APPswe/PS2 mice and C57Bl/6 mice serving as controls (WT). A consistent PET protocol (N = 82 PET scans) was used, with cortical standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) relative to cerebellum as the endpoint. We correlated methoxy-X04 staining of beta-amyloid with PET results, and undertook ex vivo autoradiography for further validation of a partial volume effect correction (PVEC) of PET data. The SUVR in APPswe/PS2 increased from 0.95 +/- 0.04 at five months (N = 5) and 1.04 +/- 0.03 (p < 0.05) at eight months (N = 7) to 1.07 +/- 0.04 (p < 0.005) at ten months (N = 6), 1.28 +/- 0.06 (p < 0.001) at 16 months (N = 6) and 1.39 +/- 0.09 (p < 0.001) at 19 months (N = 6). SUVR was 0.95 +/- 0.03 in WT mice of all ages (N = 22). In APPswe/PS1G384A mice, the SUVR was 0.93/0.98 at five months (N = 2) and 1.11 at 16 months (N = 1). In APPswe/PS1dE9 mice, the SUVR declined from 0.96/0.96 at 12 months (N = 2) to 0.91/0.92 at 24 months (N = 2), due to beta-amyloid plaques in cerebellum. PVEC reduced the discrepancy between SUVR-PET and autoradiography from -22% to +2% and increased the differences between young and aged transgenic animals. SUVR and plaque load correlated highly between strains for uncorrected (R = 0.94, p < 0.001) and PVE-corrected (R = 0.95, p < 0.001) data. We find that APPswe/PS2 mice may be optimal for longitudinal amyloid-PET monitoring in planned interventions studies.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available