Mapping registration sensitivity in MR mouse brain images

Nonlinear registration algorithms provide a way to estimate structural (brain) differences based on magnetic resonance images. Their ability to align images of different individuals and across modalities has been well-researched, but the bounds of their sensitivity with respect to the recovery of salient morphological differences between groups are unclear. Here we develop a novel approach to simulate deformations on MR brain images to evaluate the ability of two registration algorithms to extract structural differences corresponding to biologically plausible atrophy and expansion. We show that at a neuroanatomical level registration accuracy is influenced by the size and compactness of structures, but do so differently depending on how much change is simulated. The size of structures has a small influence on the recovered accuracy. There is a trend for larger structures to be recovered more accurately, which becomes only significant as the amount of simulated change is large. More compact structures can be recovered more accurately regardless of the amount of simulated change. Both tested algorithms underestimate the full extent of the simulated atrophy and expansion. Finally we show that when multiple comparisons are corrected for at a voxelwise level, a very low rate of false positives is obtained. More interesting is that true positive rates average around 40%, indicating that the simulated changes are not fully recovered. Simulation experiments were run using two fundamentally different registration algorithms and we identified the same results, suggesting that our findings are generalizable across different classes of nonlinear registration algorithms.

[1]  D. Louis Collins,et al.  Automatic 3‐D model‐based neuroanatomical segmentation , 1995 .

[2]  John G. Sled,et al.  Wanted dead or alive? The tradeoff between in-vivo versus ex-vivo MR brain imaging in the mouse , 2011, Front. Neuroinform..

[3]  R. Henkelman,et al.  Regionally reduced brain volume, altered serotonin neurochemistry, and abnormal behavior in mice null for the circadian rhythm output gene Magel2 , 2009, American journal of medical genetics. Part B, Neuropsychiatric genetics : the official publication of the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics.

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

[5]  Daniel Rueckert,et al.  An evaluation of four automatic methods of segmenting the subcortical structures in the brain , 2009, NeuroImage.

[6]  D. Louis Collins,et al.  Retrospective evaluation of intersubject brain registration , 2003, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[7]  Hanna Damasio,et al.  Effects of spatial transformation on regional brain volume estimates , 2008, NeuroImage.

[8]  Michael A Yassa,et al.  A quantitative evaluation of cross-participant registration techniques for MRI studies of the medial temporal lobe , 2009, NeuroImage.

[9]  C. Ackerley,et al.  Cerebellar abnormalities in purine nucleoside phosphorylase deficient mice , 2012, Neurobiology of Disease.

[10]  Ching-Hsing Yu,et al.  SciNet: Lessons Learned from Building a Power-efficient Top-20 System and Data Centre , 2010 .

[11]  P. Fletcher,et al.  Adolescent Cocaine Exposure Causes Enduring Macroscale Changes in Mouse Brain Structure , 2013, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[12]  A. Dale,et al.  Whole Brain Segmentation Automated Labeling of Neuroanatomical Structures in the Human Brain , 2002, Neuron.

[13]  Alan C. Evans,et al.  Musical Training Shapes Structural Brain Development , 2009, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[14]  R Mark Henkelman,et al.  MRI phenotyping of genetically altered mice. , 2011, Methods in molecular biology.

[15]  Alan C. Evans,et al.  Longitudinal neuroanatomical changes determined by deformation-based morphometry in a mouse model of Alzheimer's disease , 2008, NeuroImage.

[16]  Jerry L Prince,et al.  A computerized approach for morphological analysis of the corpus callosum. , 1996, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[17]  Thomas E. Nichols,et al.  Thresholding of Statistical Maps in Functional Neuroimaging Using the False Discovery Rate , 2002, NeuroImage.

[18]  P. Fletcher,et al.  Abnormalities in brain structure and behavior in GSK-3alpha mutant mice , 2009, Molecular Brain.

[19]  N C Andreasen,et al.  Automatic atlas-based volume estimation of human brain regions from MR images. , 1996, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[20]  J. Ashburner,et al.  Atrophy progression in semantic dementia with asymmetric temporal involvement: A tensor-based morphometry study , 2009, Neurobiology of Aging.

[21]  Bruno Alfano,et al.  Stereotaxy-Based Regional Brain Volumetry Applied to Segmented MRI: Validation and Results in Deficit and Nondeficit Schizophrenia , 2002, NeuroImage.

[22]  P. Hof,et al.  A three-dimensional digital atlas database of the adult C57BL/6J mouse brain by magnetic resonance microscopy , 2005, Neuroscience.

[23]  Paul M. Thompson,et al.  Comparing registration methods for mapping brain change using tensor-based morphometry , 2009, Medical Image Anal..

[24]  Veronique D. Bohbot,et al.  Maze training in mice induces MRI-detectable brain shape changes specific to the type of learning , 2011, NeuroImage.

[25]  Natasa Kovacevic,et al.  Neuroanatomical differences between mouse strains as shown by high-resolution 3D MRI , 2006, NeuroImage.

[26]  R. Mark Henkelman,et al.  Automated deformation analysis in the YAC128 Huntington disease mouse model , 2008, NeuroImage.

[27]  G. Allan Johnson,et al.  Morphometric analysis of the C57BL/6J mouse brain , 2007, NeuroImage.

[28]  Alain Pitiot,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging as a tool for in vivo and ex vivo anatomical phenotyping in experimental genetic models , 2007, Human brain mapping.

[29]  R. Mark Henkelman,et al.  Sexual dimorphism revealed in the structure of the mouse brain using three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging , 2007, NeuroImage.

[30]  Christos Davatzikos,et al.  Simulation of tissue atrophy using a topology preserving transformation model , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[31]  Lindsay S. Cahill,et al.  Preparation of fixed mouse brains for MRI , 2012, NeuroImage.

[32]  Brian B. Avants,et al.  Symmetric diffeomorphic image registration with cross-correlation: Evaluating automated labeling of elderly and neurodegenerative brain , 2008, Medical Image Anal..

[33]  Guozhi Tao,et al.  Deep gray matter atrophy in multiple sclerosis: A tensor based morphometry , 2009, Journal of the Neurological Sciences.

[34]  D. Louis Collins,et al.  Animal: Validation and Applications of Nonlinear Registration-Based Segmentation , 1997, Int. J. Pattern Recognit. Artif. Intell..

[35]  Daniel Rueckert,et al.  Automatic anatomical brain MRI segmentation combining label propagation and decision fusion , 2006, NeuroImage.

[36]  Anqi Qiu,et al.  Atlas-based automatic mouse brain image segmentation revisited: model complexity vs. image registration. , 2012, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[37]  R Mark Henkelman,et al.  Optimization of the SNR‐resolution tradeoff for registration of magnetic resonance images , 2008, Human brain mapping.

[38]  Arno Klein,et al.  Evaluation of 14 nonlinear deformation algorithms applied to human brain MRI registration , 2009, NeuroImage.

[39]  Imran A. Pirwani,et al.  Introduction to the Non-rigid Image Registration Evaluation Project (NIREP) , 2006, WBIR.

[40]  Benoit M. Dawant,et al.  Effect of nonrigid registration algorithms on deformation-based morphometry: a comparative study with control and Williams syndrome subjects. , 2012, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[41]  R. Kikinis,et al.  An Automated Registration Algorithm for Measuring MRI Subcortical Brain Structures , 1997, NeuroImage.

[42]  Daniel Rueckert,et al.  A Framework for Detailed Objective Comparison of Non-rigid Registration Algorithms in Neuroimaging , 2004, MICCAI.

[43]  D. O. North,et al.  An Analysis of the factors which determine signal/noise discrimination in pulsed-carrier systems , 1963 .

[44]  R. Mark Henkelman,et al.  High resolution three-dimensional brain atlas using an average magnetic resonance image of 40 adult C57Bl/6J mice , 2008, NeuroImage.

[45]  Brian B. Avants,et al.  Structural consequences of diffuse traumatic brain injury: A large deformation tensor-based morphometry study , 2008, NeuroImage.

[46]  Alan C. Evans,et al.  Cerebral asymmetries in 12-week-old C57Bl/6J mice measured by magnetic resonance imaging , 2010, NeuroImage.

[47]  Katrin Amunts,et al.  Detection of structural changes of the human brain in longitudinally acquired MR images by deformation field morphometry: Methodological analysis, validation and application , 2008, NeuroImage.

[48]  Stephen M. Smith,et al.  Threshold-free cluster enhancement: Addressing problems of smoothing, threshold dependence and localisation in cluster inference , 2009, NeuroImage.

[49]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Identifying global anatomical differences: Deformation‐based morphometry , 1998 .

[50]  Jacob Ellegood,et al.  Brain abnormalities in a Neuroligin3 R451C knockin mouse model associated with autism , 2011, Autism research : official journal of the International Society for Autism Research.

[51]  R Mark Henkelman,et al.  Systems biology through mouse imaging centers: experience and new directions. , 2010, Annual review of biomedical engineering.

[52]  Nick C. Fox,et al.  Phenomenological Model of Diffuse Global and Regional Atrophy Using Finite-Element Methods , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[53]  R Mark Henkelman,et al.  Genes into geometry: imaging for mouse development in 3D. , 2011, Current opinion in genetics & development.