HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH RSS TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Related articles in JNM Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Yu, A. S. Articles by Wu, H.-M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Yu, A. S. Articles by Wu, H.-M.

Quantification of Cerebral Glucose Metabolic Rate in Mice Using ¹⁸F-FDG and Small-Animal PET

Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, California

View larger version (26K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIGURE 1.  (A) Representative example shows quantitative analysis of 18F-FDG kinetics in mouse experiment using 3-compartment-model fitting. Dashed line is regression line that depicts goodness of model fitting (r = 0.99); • = input function derived from blood samples taken by microfluidic blood sampler (IFblood); = cerebral time–activity curve derived from small-animal PET images. (B) Small-animal PET images showing VOI in mouse cerebral cortex. Coronal plane crosses over parietal cortex, which corresponds to white dotted line in sagittal plane. Ellipse on coronal plane indicates boundary of selected VOI. Arrow points to Harderian gland, and arrowhead indicates parietal cortex.

View larger version (8K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIGURE 2.  Comparison of 2 input functions. One was derived from blood samples (IFblood) and other was derived from liver time–activity curve (IFliver). (A) Plots show differences between IFblood (•) and IFliver () from 1 mouse experiment. (B) Logarithmic scale in time axis is used for better visual comparison of peaks in early phase of curves shown in A. IFliver shows delayed and broader peak, compared with IFblood.

View larger version (8K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIGURE 3.  Averaged 18F-FDG uptake constants () of liver, cerebral cortex, and myocardium. in liver, compared with that in cerebral cortex and myocardium (13% of cerebral cortex and 2.5% of myocardium), is relatively small. Error bars indicate +SD (n = 13).

View larger version (17K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIGURE 4.  Regression analysis of 18F-FDG uptake constant, (A), 18F-FDG rate constants, –k (B–E), and cerebral glucose utilization rate, cMRglc (F), estimated by each of 2 input functions. Each point on graph corresponds to value estimated using IFblood and IFliver, respectively (n = 13).

View larger version (8K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIGURE 5.  Correlation between standard cMRglc and cMRglc estimated by Patlak model with either IFblood (A) or IFliver (B) (n = 13).

View larger version (16K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIGURE 6.  Standard cMRglc (), compared with cMRglc values calculated by Op-Eq. A () or Op-Eq. B () with either IFblood or IFliver. There was no significant difference between standard cMRglc and cMRglc estimated from Op-Eq. B either with IFblood or IFliver (paired t test with regard to standard cMRglc; *P > 0.05, **P < 5 x 10–5). Error bar is +SD (n = 13).