4.5 Article

Characterizing white matter damage in rat spinal cord with quantitative MRI and histology

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROTRAUMA
卷 25, 期 6, 页码 653-676

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/neu.2007.0462

关键词

diffusion tensor imaging; dorsal column transection; histology; myelin water imaging; rat spinal cord

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and quantitative T-2 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were used to characterize ex vivo the white matter damage at 3 and 8 weeks following dorsal column transection (DC Tx) injury at the cervical level C5 of rat spinal cords. Luxol Fast Blue (LFB) and myelin basic protein (MBP) staining was used to assess myelin damage, and neurofilament-H in combination with neuron specific beta-III-tubulin (NF/Tub) staining was used to assess axonal damage. Average values of myelin water fraction (MWF), fractional anisotropy (FA), longitudinal diffusivity (D-long), transverse diffusivity (D-trans), and average diffusivity (D-ave) were calculated in the fasciculus gracilis, fasciculus cuneatus, and the dorsal corticospinal tract (CST) 5 mm cranial, as well as 5 and 10 mm caudal to injury and correlated with histology. These tracts were selected as these contain bundles of parallel ascending and descending axons in very circumscribed areas with little intermingling of other axonal populations. Axonal and myelin degeneration occur cranial to injury in the funiculus gracilis and caudal to injury in the CST. Both MWF and Dtrans showed significant correlation with LFB staining at 3 weeks (0.64 and -0.49, respectively) and 8 weeks post-injury (0.88 and -0.71, respectively). Both D-long and FA correlated significantly with NF/Tub staining at 3 weeks post-injury (0.78 and 0.64, respectively), while only Dlong displayed significant correlation 8 weeks post-injury (0.58 and 0.33, respectively). This study demonstrates that quantitative MRI can accurately characterize white matter damage in DC Tx model of injury in rat spinal cord.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据