How to Choose the Right Imaging Modality
In the recent years the number of publications including small animal imaging increased. Nevertheless, most publications only report on proof of principle studies and there is still uncertainty how small animal imaging can support preclinical research most effectively. It is also discussed controversially, which imaging modality should be used for a certain demand. Thus, it is the aim of this book chapter to support the reader in choosing the optimal imaging modality for his research. First, the demands on imaging are defined, hereby distinguishing between imaging of morphology, vascular function, metabolism and molecular markers. In this regard it is also considered if imaging of single or multiple lesions respectively phenotyping of animals are intended and if the lesion lays superficially or in the abdomen or the chest. Next, the time effort required to scan an animal is discussed, which can be a significant obstacle in complex research projects that require a high number of study groups and animals. The last part focuses on the use of targeted molecular imaging. Here, different imaging modalities may be chosen if it is intended to evaluate binding affinity of a new ligand, to assess the biodistribution of a molecule or to indirectly monitor therapy response. A single imaging modality will not be able to fulfill all these requirements and as a consequence a small animal imaging center should host different imaging devices that can be used complementary. Even more, for many purposes image fusion or dual modality scanners may be required.
KeywordsPermeability Catheter Fluorine
- Judenhofer MS, Wehrl HF, Newport DF, Catana C, Siegel SB, Becker M, Thielscher A, Kneilling M, Lichy MP, Eichner M, Klingel K, Reischl G, Widmaier S, Rocken M, Nutt RE, Machulla HJ, Uludag K, Cherry SR, Claussen CD, Pichler PBJ (2008) Simultaneous a new approach for functional and morphological imaging. Nat Med 14:459–465PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Nixon JP, Zhang M, Wang C, Kuskowski MA, Novak CM, Levine JA, Billington CJ, Kotz CM (2010) Evaluation of a quantitative magnetic resonance imaging system for whole body composition analysis in rodents. Obesity 18:1652–1659Google Scholar
- Reinhardt M, Hauff P, Linker RA, Briel A, Gold R, Rieckmann P, Becker G, Toyka KV, Maurer M, Schirner M (2005) Ultrasound derived imaging and quantification of cell adhesion molecules in experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE) by Sensitive Particle Acoustic Quantification (SPAQ). Neuroimage 27:267–278PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Semmler W, Reiser MF, Hricak H (2007) Magnetic resonance tomography. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar