4.7 Article

The quantification of blood-brain barrier disruption using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in aging rhesus monkeys with spontaneous type 2 diabetes mellitus

Journal

NEUROIMAGE
Volume 158, Issue -, Pages 480-487

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.07.017

Keywords

Blood-brain barrier (BBB); Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM); Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI); Extended Tofts model; K-trans

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81130027, 81520108014]
  2. National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) [2014CB541602]
  3. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2016YFA0201400]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Microvascular lesions of the body are one of the most serious complications that can affect patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The blood-brain barrier (BBB) is a highly selective permeable barrier around the microvessels of the brain. This study investigated BBB disruption in diabetic rhesus monkeys using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI). Multi-slice DCE-MRI was used to quantify BBB permeability. Five diabetic monkeys and six control monkeys underwent magnetic resonance brain imaging in 3 Tesla MRI system. Regions of the frontal cortex, the temporal cortex, the basal ganglia, the thalamus, and the hippocampus in the two groups were selected as regions of interest to calculate the value of the transport coefficient K-trans using the extended Tofts model. Permeability in the diabetic monkeys was significantly increased as compared with permeability in the normal control monkeys. Histopathologically, zonula occludens protein-1 decreased, immunoglobulin G leaked out of the blood, and nuclear factor E2-related factor translocated from the cytoplasm to the nuclei. It is likely that diabetes contributed to the increased BBB permeability.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available