Abstract
Morphometry is defined as studying variations in and changes of shapes. Evaluation of shape changes in the brain is a key step in the development of new mouse models, the monitoring of different pathologies, and measuring environmental influences. Traditional morphometry was performed by manual shape delineation, so-called volumetry. Currently, automated methods have been developed that can be roughly divided into three groups: voxel-based morphometry, deformation-based morphometry, and shape-based morphometry. In this chapter, we describe the different approaches for quantitative morphometry and how they can be applied to the quantitative analysis of the rodent brain.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Joshi, S., Davis, B., Jomier, M., and Gerig, G. (2004) Unbiased diffeomorphic atlas construction for computational anatomy. NeuroImage 23, S151–60.
Ma, Y., Smith, D., Hof, P.R., Foerster, B., Hamilton, S., Blackband, S.J., Yu, M., and Benveniste, H. (2008) In vivo 3D digital atlas database of the adult C57BL/6 J mouse brain by magnetic resonance microscopy. Front. Neuroanat. 2, 1.
Kovacević, N., Henderson, J.T., Chan, E., Lifshitz, N., Bishop, J., Evans, A.C., Henkelman, R.M., and Chen, X.J. (2005) A three-dimensional MRI atlas of the mouse brain with estimates of the average and variability. Cereb. Cortex 15, 639–45.
MacKenzie-Graham, A., Lee, E.F., Dinov, I.D., Bota, M., Shattuck, D.W., Ruffins, S., Yuan, H., Konstantinidis, F., Pitiot, A., Ding, Y., Hu, G., Jacobs, R.E., and Toga, A.W. (2004) A multimodal, multidimensional atlas of the C57BL/6 J mouse brain. J. Anat. 204, 93–102.
http://nbirn.net/research/mouse/index.shtm, checked December 16th 2009.
Scheenstra, A.E., van de Ven, R.C., van der Weerd, L., van den Maagdenberg, A.M., Dijkstra, J., and Reiber, J.H. (2009) Automated segmentation of in vivo and ex vivo mouse brain magnetic resonance images. Mol. Imaging 8, 35–44.
Bankman, I.N. (2009) Segmentation. In Bankman, I.N. (eds.), Handbook of Medical Image Processing and Analysis, pp. 71–258, 2nd ed. San Diego, CA: Academic.
Shaffer, J.P. (1995) Multiple hypothesis testing. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 46, 561–84.
Friston, K.J., Holmes, A.P. Worsley, K.J., Poline, J.B., Frith, C.D., and Frackowiak, R.S.J. (1995) Statistical parametric maps in functional imaging: A general linear approach. Hum. Brain Mapping 2, 189–210.
Pantazis, D., Nichols, T.E., Baillet, S., and Leahy, R.M. (2005) A comparison of random field theory and permutation methods for the statistical analysis of MEG data. NeuroImage 25, 383–94.
Holmes, A.P., Blair, R.C., Watson, J.D., and Ford, I. (1996) Nonparametric analysis of statistic images from functional mapping experiments. J. Cereb. Blood Flow Metab. 16, 7–22.
Ashburner, J. and Friston, K.J. (2000) Voxel-based morphometry: The methods. NeuroImage 11, 805–21.
http://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm/, checked December 16th 2009.
Sawiak, S.J., Wood, N.I., Williams, G.B., Morton, A.J., and Carpenter, T.A. (2009) Voxel-based morphometry in the R6/2 transgenic mouse reveals differences between genotypes not seen with manual 2D morphometry. Neurobiol. Dis. 33, 20–7. (http://www.wbic.cam.ac.uk/~sjs80/spmmouse.html, checked December 16th 2009).
Scheenstra, A.E.H., Muskulus, M., Staring, M., van den Maagdenberg, A.M., Lunel, S.V., Reiber, J.H., van der Weerd, L., and Dijkstra, J (2009). The 3D Moore–Rayleigh test for the quantitative groupwise comparison of MR brain images. In Proc. Inf. Process Med. Imaging 21, 564–75. (http://folk.ntnu.no/muskulus/, checked December 16th 2009).
Thompson, P.M. and Toga, A.W. (2002) A framework for computational anatomy. Comput. Vis Sci. 5, 13–34.
Cootes, T.F., Taylor, C.J. Cooper, D.H., and Graham, J. (1995) Active shape models—their training and application. Comput. Vis. Image Understanding 61, 38–59.
Ferrarini, L., Palm, W.M., Olofsen, H., van der Landen, R., van Buchem, M.A., Reiber, J.H., and Admiraal-Behloul, F. (2008) Ventricular shape biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease in clinical MR images. Magn. Reson. Med. 59, 260–7.
Kale, S.C., Lerch, J.P., Henkelman, R.M., and Chen, X.J. (2008) Optimization of the SNR-resolution tradeoff for registration of magnetic resonance images. Hum. Brain Mapp. 29, 1147–58.
Bookstein, F.L. (2001) “Voxel-based morphometry” should not be used with imperfectly registered images. NeuroImage 14, 1454–62.
Ridgway, G.R., Henley, S.M., Rohrer, J.D., Scahill, R.I., Warren, J.D., and Fox, N.C. (2008) Ten simple rules for reporting voxel-based morphometry studies. NeuroImage 40, 1429–35.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this protocol
Cite this protocol
Scheenstra, A., Dijkstra, J., van der Weerd, L. (2011). Volumetry and Other Quantitative Measurements to Assess the Rodent Brain. In: Schröder, L., Faber, C. (eds) In vivo NMR Imaging. Methods in Molecular Biology, vol 771. Humana Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-61779-219-9_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-61779-219-9_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Humana Press
Print ISBN: 978-1-61779-218-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-61779-219-9
eBook Packages: Springer Protocols