Cited by 55Alzheimer's disease research and treatmentsDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications

Comparison of in vivo and ex vivo MRI for the detection of structural abnormalities in a mouse model of tauopathy

Open access
Holmes, Holly E., Powell, Nick M., Ma, Da, Ismail, Ozama, Harrison, Ian F., Wells, Jack A., Colgan, Niall, O'Callaghan, James M. +12 more·2017·Frontiers in Neuroinformatics

Abstract

With increasingly large numbers of mouse models of human disease dedicated to MRI studies, compromises between in vivo and ex vivo MRI must be fully understood in order to inform the choice of imaging methodology. We investigate the application of high resolution in vivo and ex vivo MRI, in combination with tensor-based morphometry (TBM), to uncover morphological differences in the rTg4510 mouse model of tauopathy. The rTg4510 mouse also offers a novel paradigm by which the overexpression of mutant tau can be regulated by the administration of doxycycline, providing us with a platform on which to investigate more subtle alterations in morphology with morphometry. Both in vivo and ex vivo MRI allowed the detection of widespread bilateral patterns of atrophy in the rTg4510 mouse brain relative to wild-type controls. Regions of volume loss aligned with neuronal loss and pathological tau accumulation demonstrated by immunohistochemistry. When we sought to investigate more subtle structural alterations in the rTg4510 mice relative to a subset of doxycycline-treated rTg4510 mice, ex vivo imaging enabled the detection of more regions of morphological brain changes. The disadvantages of ex vivo MRI may however mitigate this increase in sensitivity: we observed a 10% global shrinkage in brain volume of the post-mortem tissues due to formalin fixation, which was most notable in the cerebellum and olfactory bulbs. However, many central brain regions were not adversely affected by the fixation protocol, perhaps due to our “in-skull” preparation. The disparity between our TBM findings from in vivo and ex vivo MRI underlines the importance of appropriate study design, given the trade-off between these two imaging approaches. We support the utility of in vivo MRI for morphological phenotyping of mouse models of disease; however, for subtler phenotypes, ex vivo offers enhanced sensitivity to discrete morphological changes.

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 · 10.3389/fninf.2017.00020

Cites

63 of 63 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?

  • Ex vivo MRI achieves higher anatomic resolution and better tissue contrast than in vivo study, improving detection of microstructural changes, and maintains consistency with ex vivo spatial transcriptomics data.

    “Ex vivo MRI was chosen over an in vivo study to achieve higher anatomic resolution and better tissue contrast, which improves the detection of microstructural changes, 45 , 46 and to maintain consistency with ex vivo spatial transcriptomics data.”

    From Diffusion MRI reveals amyloid plaque–associated cellular signatures through spatial transcriptomic integration (2026) · cites this paper as [46]

    The Results report higher ex vivo spatial resolution, and the Discussion reports greater gray–white matter contrast than in vivo MRI. The Conclusion says ex vivo MRI may be more sensitive to subtle morphological changes, but the paper does not establish improved detection of microstructural changes. The spatial-transcriptomics rationale follows the citations in the citing sentence and is not attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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
Holmes, H. E., Powell, N. M., Ma, D., Ismail, O., Harrison, I. F., Wells, J. A., Colgan, N., O'Callaghan, J. M., Johnson, R. A., Murray, T. K., Ahmed, Z., Heggenes, M., Fisher, A., Cardoso, M. J., Modat, M., O'Neill, M. J., Collins, E. C., Fisher, E. M. C., Ourselin, S., & Lythgoe, M. F.
Affiliations
  • University College London (GB)
  • Eli Lilly (United States) (US)
  • Eli Lilly (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology (GB)
Corresponding author
Holmes, Holly E.
Venue
Frontiers in Neuroinformatics
Published
2017-03-31
Volume
11
Pages
20-20
ISSN
1662-5196 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2599826853
Cited by
55
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1
FWCI
3.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Neuroinformatics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Wellcome Trust (098327)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Keywords
tauopathy, in vivo MRI, ex vivo MRI, brain atrophy, tensor-based morphometry, brain morphometry, mouse models of human disease, Alzheimer's disease

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