4.7 Article

Differential sensitivity of in vivo and ex vivo diffusion tensor imaging to evolving optic nerve injury in mice with retinal ischemia

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 32, 期 3, 页码 1195-1204

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.04.212

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R24 CA 83060] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NINDS NIH HHS [R01 NS 047592] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Decreased axial (lambda(parallel to)) and increased radial (lambda(perpendicular to)) diffusivity have been shown to reflect axonal and myelin injury respectively. In the present study, evolving white matter injury within the optic nerves of mice with retinal ischemia was examined by in vivo and ex vivo measurements of A(parallel to) and lambda(perpendicular to). The results show that at 3 days after retinal ischemia, a 33% decrease in vivo and a 38% decrease ex vivo in lambda(parallel to) without change in lambda(perpendicular to) was observed in the injured optic nerve compared to the control, suggestive of axonal damage without myelin injury. At 14 days, both in vivo and ex vivo measured lambda(perpendicular to) increased significantly to 220-240% of the control level in the injured optic nerve suggestive of myelin damage. In contrast, the axonal injury that was clearly detected in vivo as a significantly decreased All (33% decrease) was not as clearly detected by ex vivo lambda(parallel to) (17% decrease). The current findings suggest that ex vivo lambda(perpendicular to) is comparable to in vivo lambda(perpendicular to) in detecting myelin injury. However, the structural changes resulting from axonal damage causing the decreased in vivo All may not be preserved ex vivo in the fixed tissues. Despite the accurate depiction of the pathology using lambda(parallel to) and lambda(perpendicular to) in vivo, the use of ex vivo lambda(parallel to) to extrapolate the status of axonal injury in vivo would require further investigation. (c) 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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