Filtern
Dokumenttyp
Sprache
- Englisch (3)
Referierte Publikation
- ja (3) (entfernen)
Schlagworte
- Imaging (3) (entfernen)
Organisationseinheit der BAM
A modern day light microscope has evolved from a tool devoted to making primarily empirical observations to what is now a sophisticated, quantitative device that is an integral part of both physical and life science research. Nowadays, microscopes are found in nearly every experimental laboratory. However, despite their prevalent use in capturing and quantifying scientific phenomena, neither a thorough understanding of the principles underlying quantitative imaging techniques nor appropriate knowledge of how to calibrate, operate and maintain microscopes can be taken for granted. This is clearly demonstrated by the well-documented and widespread difficulties that are routinely encountered in evaluating acquired data and reproducing scientific experiments. Indeed, studies have shown that more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to repeat another scientist’s experiments, while more than half have even failed to reproduce their own experiments1. One factor behind the reproducibility crisis of experiments published in scientific journals is the frequent underreporting of imaging methods caused by a lack of awareness and/or a lack of knowledge of the applied technique2,3. Whereas quality control procedures for some methods used in biomedical research, such as genomics (e.g., DNA sequencing, RNA-seq) or cytometry, have been introduced (e.g. ENCODE4), this issue has not been tackled for optical microscopy instrumentation and images. Although many calibration standards and protocols have been published, there is a lack of awareness and agreement on common Standards and guidelines for quality assessment and reproducibility5.
In April 2020, the QUality Assessment and REProducibility for instruments and images in Light Microscopy (QUAREP-LiMi) initiative6 was formed. This initiative comprises imaging scientists from academia and industry who share a common interest in achieving a better understanding of the performance and limitations of microscopes and improved quality control (QC) in light microscopy. The ultimate goal of the QUAREP-LiMi initiative is to establish a set of common QC standards, guidelines, metadata models7,8, and tools9,10, including detailed protocols, with the ultimate aim of improving reproducible advances in scientific research.
This White Paper 1) summarizes the major obstacles identified in the field that motivated the launch of the QUAREP-LiMi initiative; 2) identifies the urgent need to address these obstacles in a grassroots manner, through a community of Stakeholders including, researchers, imaging scientists11, bioimage analysts, bioimage informatics developers, corporate partners, Funding agencies, standards organizations, scientific publishers, and observers of such; 3) outlines the current actions of the QUAREPLiMi initiative, and 4) proposes future steps that can be taken to improve the dissemination and acceptance of the proposed guidelines to manage QC.
To summarize, the principal goal of the QUAREP-LiMi initiative is to improve the overall quality and reproducibility of light microscope image data by introducing broadly accepted standard practices and accurately captured image data metrics.
The community-driven initiative Quality Assessment and Reproducibility for Instruments & Images in Light Microscopy (QUAREP-LiMi) wants to improve reproducibility for light microscopy image data through Quality control (QC) management of instruments and images. It aims for a common set of QC guidelines for Hardware calibration and image acquisition, management and analysis.
Objectives: Using a murine model of multiple sclerosis, we previously showed that repeated administration of gadopentetate dimeglumine led to retention of gadolinium (Gd) within cerebellar structures and that this process was enhanced with inflammation. This study aimed to compare the kinetics and retention profiles of Gd in inflamed and healthy brains after application of the macrocyclic Gd-based contrast agent (GBCA) gadobutrol or the linear GBCA gadopentetate. Moreover, potential Gd-induced neurotoxicity was investigated in living hippocampal slices ex vivo.
Materials and Methods: Mice at peak of experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE; n = 29) and healthy control mice (HC; n = 24) were exposed to a cumulative dose of 20 mmol/kg bodyweight of either gadopentetate dimeglumine or gadobutrol (8 injections of 2.5 mmol/kg over 10 days). Magnetic resonance imaging (7 T) was performed at baseline as well as at day 1, 10, and 40 post final injection (pfi) of GBCAs. Mice were sacrificed after magnetic resonance imaging and brain and blood Gd content was assessed by laser ablation-inductively coupled plasma (ICP)-mass spectrometry (MS) and ICP-MS, respectively. In addition, using chronic organotypic hippocampal slice cultures, Gd-induced neurotoxicity was addressed in living brain tissue ex vivo, both under control or inflammatory (tumor necrosis factor α [TNF-α] at 50 ng/μL) conditions.
Results: Neuroinflammation promoted a significant decrease in T1 relaxation times after multiple injections of both GBCAs as shown by quantitative T1 mapping of EAE brains compared with HC. This corresponded to higher Gd retention within the EAE brains at 1, 10, and 40 days pfi as determined by laser ablation-ICP-MS. In inflamed cerebellum, in particular in the deep cerebellar nuclei (CN), elevated Gd retention was observed until day 40 after last gadopentetate application (CN: EAE vs HC, 55.06 ± 0.16 μM vs 30.44 ± 4.43 μM). In contrast, gadobutrol application led to a rather diffuse Gd content in the inflamed brains, which strongly diminished until day 40 (CN: EAE vs HC, 0.38 ± 0.08 μM vs 0.17 ± 0.03 μM). The analysis of cytotoxic effects of both GBCAs using living brain tissue revealed an elevated cell death rate after incubation with gadopentetate but not gadobutrol at 50 mM. The cytotoxic effect due to gadopentetate increased in the presence of the inflammatory mediator TNF-α (with vs without TNF-α, 3.15% ± 1.18% vs 2.17% ± 1.14%; P = 0.0345).
Conclusions: In the EAE model, neuroinflammation promoted increased Gd retention in the brain for both GBCAs. Whereas in the inflamed brains, efficient clearance of macrocyclic gadobutrol during the investigated time period was observed, the Gd retention after application of linear gadopentetate persisted over the entire observational period. Gadopentetate but not gadubutrol appeared to be neurotoxic in an ex vivo paradigm of neuronal inflammation.