Molecular Imaging and Biology

, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 114–120 | Cite as

MicroCT Liver Contrast Agent Enhancement Over Time, Dose, and Mouse Strain

Research Article



The aim of this study was to examine strain differences in the uptake of Fenestra liver contrast agent (LC) in Nude, C57, and severe-combined immunodeficient (SCID) mice. In addition, we aimed to determine optimum dosing and to determine if there are positron emission tomography (PET)-attenuation effects on 2-deoxy-2[F-18]fluoro-d-glucose (FDG) values due to Fenestra LC.


Nude, C57, and SCID mice were injected via tail vein at 5.0, 7.5, 10.0, and 15.0 ml/kg with contrast agent and imaged using micro computed tomography (microCT) 2 h after uptake and then daily up to 7 days. Mice were imaged by microPET/CT with FDG, with or without contrast agent.


Significant variations in contrast were observed between mouse strains. SCID mice had significantly more spleen uptake of contrast than the other strains, and C57 mice had significantly more liver uptake of contrast than other strains. Across all strains, the spleen showed significantly higher uptake and duration of contrast than liver. Only the heart showed a significant attenuation of FDG uptake following contrast administration.


Strain-specific variations in Fenestra LC uptake and signal duration were observed. At 7.5 ml/kg, this contrast agent is effective for imaging for 1 day, whereas at 15 ml/kg, it can be used up to 1 week. Fenestra LC does not appear to attenuate FDG uptake at 15 ml/kg for most tissues; therefore, it can be used in conjunction with microPET imaging studies.

Key words

Liver contrast agent MicroCT MicroPET SCID mice Nude mice C57BL/6 mice CT contrast agent 


  1. 1.
    Alerion Biomedical (2007) Fenestra LC User Guide # LC-101-IT; Hepatic Imaging in Balb/c Mice: Visualization of Hepatic Focal Lesions and Anatomy Using a MicroCAT II (Imtek) ScannerGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Holdsworth DW (2002) Micro-CT in small animal and speciment imaging. Trends Biotechnol 20:S34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Herman S (2004) Computed tomography contrast enhancement principles and the use of high-concentration contrast media. J Comput Assist Tomogr 28:7–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hultin M, Carneheim C, Rosenqvist K, Olivecrona T (1995) Intravenous lipid emulsions: removal mechanisms as compared to chylomicrons. J Lipid Res 36:2174–2184PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bakan DA et al. (2001) Imaging efficacy of a hepatocyte-selective polyiodinated triglyceride for contrast-enhanced computed tomography. Am J Ther 8:359–365PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bakan DA, Weichert JP, Longino MA, Counsell RE (2000) Polyiodinated triglyceride lipid emulsions for use as hepatoselective contrast agents in CT: effects of physicochemical properties on biodistribution and imaging profiles. Invest Radiol 35:158–169PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shimizu S (2004) Routes of Administration. In: Hendrich H (ed) The laboratory mouse. Elsevier Academic, New York, pp 527–542Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    ART Advanced Research Technologies (2007) Tips For Great Results With Fenestra Contrast Agents.
  9. 9.
    Stout DB et al. (2005) Small animal imaging center design: the facility at the UCLA Crump Institute for Molecular Imaging. Mol Imaging Biol 7:393–402PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chow PL, Rannou FR, Chatziioannou AF (2005) Attenuation correction for small animal PET tomographs. Phys Med Biol 50:1837–1850PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hussain MM et al. (1989) Chylomicron metabolism. Chylomicron uptake by bone marrow in different animal species. J Biol Chem 264:17931–17938PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nguyen TT et al. (2000) Familial splenomegaly: macrophage hypercatabolism of lipoproteins associated with apolipoprotein E mutation [apolipoprotein E (delta149 Leu)]. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 85:4354–4358PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bakan DA, Longino MA, Weichert JP, Counsell RE (1996) Physicochemical characterization of a synthetic lipid emulsion for hepatocyte-selective delivery of lipophilic compounds: application to polyiodinated triglycerides as contrast agents for computed tomography. J Pharm Sci 85:908–914PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Croy AC, DiSanto JP, Manz M, et al. (2007) Mouse models of immunodeficiency. In: Fox JG, Barthold SW, Davisson MT et al. (eds) The mouse in biomedical research. Elsevier, New York, p 275–289Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ford NL et al. (2006) Time-course characterization of the computed tomography contrast enhancement of an iodinated blood-pool contrast agent in mice using a volumetric flat-panel equipped computed tomography scanner. Invest Radiol 41:384–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jacoby RO, Fox JG, Davisson M (2002) Biology and diseases of mice. In: Fox JG, Anderson LC, Loew FM et al. (eds) Laboratory animal medicine, 2nd Edition. Elsevier Science, New York, pp 35–120Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Molecular Imaging 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Laboratory Animal MedicineDavid Geffen School of Medicine at UCLALos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Department of Molecular and Medical PharmacologyDavid Geffen School of Medicine at UCLALos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations