Cited by 44Cardiovascular Function and Risk FactorsCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications

A quantitative comparison of regional myocardial motion in mice, rabbits and humans using in-vivo phase contrast CMR

Open access
Jung, Bernd, Odening, Katja E, Dall'Armellina, Erica, Föll, Daniela, Menza, Marius, Markl, Michael, Schneider, Jürgen E·2012·Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Genetically manipulated animals like mice or rabbits play an important role in the exploration of human cardiovascular diseases. It is therefore important to identify animal models that closely mimic physiological and pathological human cardiac function. METHODS: In-vivo phase contrast cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) was used to measure regional three-directional left ventricular myocardial motion with high temporal resolution in mice (N=18), rabbits (N=8), and humans (N=20). Radial, long-axis, and rotational myocardial velocities were acquired in left ventricular basal, mid-ventricular, and apical short-axis locations. RESULTS: Regional analysis revealed different patterns of motion: 1) In humans and rabbits, the apex showed slower radial velocities compared to the base. 2) Significant differences within species were seen in the pattern of long-axis motion. Long-axis velocities during systole were fairly homogeneously distributed in mice, whereas humans showed a dominant component in the lateral wall and rabbits in the base. 3) Rotational velocities and twist showed the most distinct patterns in both temporal evolution and relative contribution of base, mid-ventricle and apex, respectively. Interestingly, a marked difference in rotational behavior during early-systole was found in mice, which exhibited clockwise rotation in all slice locations compared to counter-clockwise rotation in rabbits and humans. CONCLUSIONS: Phase contrast CMR revealed subtle, but significantly different regional myocardial motion patterns in mice, rabbits and humans. This finding has to be considered when investigating myocardial motion pattern in small animal models of heart disease.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1532-429x-14-87

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Myocardial function in intact rabbits can be assessed with established in vivo quantitative and imaging techniques such as echocardiography, hemodynamic catheterization, electrocardiography, and cardiac MRI.

    “various in vivo quantitative and imaging techniques such as echocardiography (Pogwizd, Qi, Yuan, Samarel, & Bers, 1999), hemodynamic cardiac catheterization (Mahaffey, Raya, Pennock, Morkin, & Goldman, 1995; A. S. Shah, et al., 2000), electrocardiography (Pogwizd, et al., 1999), and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (Jung, et al., 2012) are well established and are routinely performed in rabbits.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jung, B., Odening, K. E., Dall'Armellina, E., Föll, D., Menza, M., Markl, M., & Schneider, J. E.
Affiliations
  • University of Freiburg (DE)
  • University Medical Center Freiburg (DE)
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Jung, Bernd
Venue
Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-01
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
90
ISSN
1097-6647 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2136308957
Cited by
44
References
42
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3
FWCI
2.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (090532)
  • British Heart Foundation (BS/06/001, FS/11/50/29038, RG/l01002J28)
  • Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst
  • Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (01EV0706)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Cardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Keywords
regional myocardial motion, left ventricular function, myocardial rotation, radial velocity, animal models of heart disease, mice, rabbits, human comparison, species differences
MeSH terms
Adult, Animals, Biomechanical Phenomena, Humans, Mice, Inbred C57BL, Predictive Value of Tests, Rabbits, Reference Values, Rotation, Species Specificity, Time Factors, Ventricular Function, Left, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Cine, Mice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review