Neuroanatomical differences between mouse strains as shown by high-resolution 3D MRI

The search for new mouse models of human disease requires a sensitive metric to make three-dimensional (3D) anatomical comparisons in a rapid and quantifiable manner. This is especially true in the brain, where changes in complex shapes such as the hippocampus and ventricles are difficult to assess with 2D histology. Here, we report that the 3D neuroanatomy of three strains of mice (129S1/SvImJ, C57/Bl6, and CD1) is significantly different from one another. Using image co-registration, we 'morphed' together nine brains of each strain scanned by magnetic resonance imaging at (60 microm)3 resolution to synthesize an average image. We applied three methods of comparison. First, we used visual inspection and graphically examined the standard deviation of the variability in each strain. Second, we annotated 42 neural structures and compared their volumes across the strains. Third, we assessed significant local deviations in volume and displacement between the two inbred strains, independent of prior anatomical knowledge.

[1]  F L Bookstein,et al.  Biometrics, biomathematics and the morphometric synthesis. , 1996, Bulletin of mathematical biology.

[2]  Alan C. Evans,et al.  A Unified Statistical Approach to Deformation-Based Morphometry , 2001, NeuroImage.

[3]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Detecting Activations in PET and fMRI: Levels of Inference and Power , 1996, NeuroImage.

[4]  Anthony Randal McIntosh,et al.  Partial least squares analysis of neuroimaging data: applications and advances , 2004, NeuroImage.

[5]  Dinggang Shen,et al.  Very High-Resolution Morphometry Using Mass-Preserving Deformations and HAMMER Elastic Registration , 2003, NeuroImage.

[6]  Alan C. Evans,et al.  A three-dimensional MRI atlas of the mouse brain with estimates of the average and variability. , 2005, Cerebral cortex.

[7]  Peter T Fox,et al.  Asymmetry of the brain surface from deformation field analysis , 2003, Human brain mapping.

[8]  Jack W. Tsao,et al.  What's wrong with my mouse: Behavioral phenotyping of transgenic and knockout mice, J. Crawley. Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken, NJ (2007), 523 pages, $99.95 , 2008 .

[9]  K. Worsley,et al.  Unified univariate and multivariate random field theory , 2004, NeuroImage.

[10]  Alejandro F Frangi,et al.  Automatic construction of 3-D statistical deformation models of the brain using nonrigid registration , 2003, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[11]  J. Michael Tyszka,et al.  Statistical diffusion tensor histology reveals regional dysmyelination effects in the shiverer mouse mutant , 2006, NeuroImage.

[12]  Natasa Kovacevic,et al.  Deformation Based Representation of Groupwise Average and Variability , 2004, MICCAI.

[13]  Douglas Wahlsten,et al.  Survey of 21 inbred mouse strains in two laboratories reveals that BTBR T/+ tf/tf has severely reduced hippocampal commissure and absent corpus callosum , 2003, Brain Research.

[14]  S. Resnick,et al.  Measuring Size and Shape of the Hippocampus in MR Images Using a Deformable Shape Model , 2002, NeuroImage.

[15]  Bradley M. Cooke,et al.  Sex difference and laterality in the volume of mouse dentate gyrus granule cell layer , 1999, Brain Research.

[16]  U. Haeberlen,et al.  Design and construction of a high homogeneity rf coil for solid-state multiple-pulse NMR , 1982 .

[17]  D. Louis Collins,et al.  Tuning and Comparing Spatial Normalization Methods , 2003, MICCAI.

[18]  Pierre Vandergheynst,et al.  Multiresolution segmentation of natural images: from linear to nonlinear scale-space representations , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing.

[19]  Jim J. Hagan,et al.  Use of SHIRPA and discriminant analysis to characterise marked differences in the behavioural phenotype of six inbred mouse strains , 1999, Behavioural Brain Research.