Curved multiplanar reformatting allows the accurate histological delineation of hippocampal subfields.
CMPR
cornu ammonis
curved multiplanar reformating
dentate gyrus
hippocampal subfields
hippocampus
histology
Journal
Hippocampus
ISSN: 1098-1063
Titre abrégé: Hippocampus
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9108167
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 Sep 2024
11 Sep 2024
Historique:
revised:
21
08
2024
received:
20
11
2023
accepted:
22
08
2024
medline:
11
9
2024
pubmed:
11
9
2024
entrez:
11
9
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Hippocampal subfields perform specific roles in normal cognitive functioning and have distinct vulnerabilities in neurological disorders. However, measurement of subfields with MRI is technically difficult in the head and tail of the hippocampus. Recent studies have utilized curved multiplanar reconstruction (CMPR) to improve subfield visualization in the head and tail, but this method has not yet been applied to histological data. We utilized BigBrain data, an open-source database of serially sectioned histological data for our analyses. The left hippocampus was segmented according to histological criteria by two raters in order to evaluate intra- and inter-rater reliability of histology-based segmentation throughout the long axis. Segmentation according to our previous protocol for the hippocampal body was then compared to these histological measurements to evaluate for histological validity. Agreement between segmentations was evaluated using Dice similarity coefficients (DSCs). Intra-rater reliability (DSCs) of histological segmentation was excellent for all subfields: CA1 (0.8599), CA2 (0.7586), CA3/CA4/DG (0.8907), SLM (0.9123), subiculum (0.8149). Similarly, inter-rater reliability analysis demonstrated excellent agreement (DSCs) for all subfield locations: CA1 (0.8203), CA2 (0.7253), CA3/CA4/DG (0.8439), SLM (0.8700), subiculum (0.7794). Finally, histological accuracy (DSCs) for our previous protocol was excellent for all subfields: CA1 (0.8821), CA2 (0.8810), CA3/CA4/DG (0.9802), SLM (0.9879), subiculum (0.8774). When subfields in the hippocampus head, body, and tail were analyzed independently, DSCs also showed excellent agreement. CMPR allows reliable subfield segmentation based on histological criteria throughout the hippocampal head, body, and tail. Our previous protocol for the hippocampal body can be applied to provide histologically valid subfield measurements throughout the entire hippocampal long axis.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Hippocampal subfields perform specific roles in normal cognitive functioning and have distinct vulnerabilities in neurological disorders. However, measurement of subfields with MRI is technically difficult in the head and tail of the hippocampus. Recent studies have utilized curved multiplanar reconstruction (CMPR) to improve subfield visualization in the head and tail, but this method has not yet been applied to histological data.
METHODS
METHODS
We utilized BigBrain data, an open-source database of serially sectioned histological data for our analyses. The left hippocampus was segmented according to histological criteria by two raters in order to evaluate intra- and inter-rater reliability of histology-based segmentation throughout the long axis. Segmentation according to our previous protocol for the hippocampal body was then compared to these histological measurements to evaluate for histological validity. Agreement between segmentations was evaluated using Dice similarity coefficients (DSCs).
RESULTS
RESULTS
Intra-rater reliability (DSCs) of histological segmentation was excellent for all subfields: CA1 (0.8599), CA2 (0.7586), CA3/CA4/DG (0.8907), SLM (0.9123), subiculum (0.8149). Similarly, inter-rater reliability analysis demonstrated excellent agreement (DSCs) for all subfield locations: CA1 (0.8203), CA2 (0.7253), CA3/CA4/DG (0.8439), SLM (0.8700), subiculum (0.7794). Finally, histological accuracy (DSCs) for our previous protocol was excellent for all subfields: CA1 (0.8821), CA2 (0.8810), CA3/CA4/DG (0.9802), SLM (0.9879), subiculum (0.8774). When subfields in the hippocampus head, body, and tail were analyzed independently, DSCs also showed excellent agreement.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
CMPR allows reliable subfield segmentation based on histological criteria throughout the hippocampal head, body, and tail. Our previous protocol for the hippocampal body can be applied to provide histologically valid subfield measurements throughout the entire hippocampal long axis.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : Brain Canada Research Fund
Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Author(s). Hippocampus published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Adler, D. H., Pluta, J., Kadivar, S., Craige, C., Gee, J. C., Avants, B. B., & Yushevich, P. A. (2014). Histology‐derived volumetric annotation of the human hippocampal subfields in postmortem MRI. NeuroImage, 84, 505–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.08.067
Adler, D. H., Wisse, L. E. M., Ittyerah, R., Pluta, J. B., Ding, S., Xie, L., Wang, J., Robinson, J. L., Schuck, T., Trojanowski, J. Q., Grossman, M., Detre, J. A., Elliott, M. A., Toledo, J. B., Liu, W., Pickup, S., Michael, I. M., Das, S. R., … Yushkevich, P. A. (2018). Characterizing the human hippocampus in aging and Alzheimer's disease using a computational atlas derived from ex vivo MRI and histology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115, 4252–4257. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1801093115
Amunts, K., Lepage, C., Borgeat, L., Mohlberg, H., Dickscheid, T., Rousseau, M., Bludau, S., Bazin, P., Lewis, L. B., Oros‐Peusquens, A., Shah, N. J., Lippert, T., Zilles, K., & Evans, A. C. (2013). BigBrain: An ultrahigh‐resolution 3D human brain model. Science, 340, 1472–1475. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1235381
Braak, H. (1980). Architectonics of the human telencephalic cortex (1st ed.). Springer.
Chauhan, P., Jethwa, K., Rathawa, A., Chauhan, G., & Mehra, S. (2021). The anatomy of the hippocampus. In R. Pluta (Ed.), Cerebral ischemia. Exon Publications.
de Flores, R., Berron, D., Ding, S. L., Ding, S., Ittyerah, R., Pluta, J. B., Xie, L., Adler, D. H., Robinson, J. L., Schuck, T., Trojanowski, J. Q., Grossman, M., Liu, W., Pickup, S., Das, S. R., Wolk, D. A., Yushkevich, P. A., & Wisse, L. E. M. (2020). Characterization of hippocampal subfields using ex vivo MRI and histology data: Lessons for in vivo segmentation. Hippocampus, 30, 545–564. https://doi.org/10.1002/hipo.23172
Duvernoy, H. M., Cattin, F., & Risold, P. Y. (2013). The human hippocampus: Functional anatomy, vascularization and serial sections with MRI (4th ed.). Springer.
Gross, D. W., Misaghi, E., Steve, T. A., Wilman, A. H., & Beaulieu, C. (2019). Curved multiplanar reformatting provides improved visualization of hippocampal anatomy. Hippocampus, 30, 156–161. https://doi.org/10.1002/hipo.23177
Merker, B. (1983). Silver staining of cell bodies by means of physical development. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 9, 235–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0270(83)90086-9
Olsen, R. K., Carr, V. A., Daugherty, A. M., la Joie, R., Amaral, R. S. C., Amunts, K., Augustinack, J. C., Bakker, A., Bender, A. R., Berron, D., Boccardi, M., Bocchetta, M., Burggren, A. C., Chakravarty, M. M., Chételat, G., de Flores, R., DeKraker, J., Ding, S., Geerlings, M. I., … Wisse, L. E. M. (2019). Progress update from the hippocampal subfields group. Alzheimers & Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment & Disease Monitoring, 11, 439–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dadm.2019.04.001
Small, S. A., Schobel, S. A., Buxton, R. B., Witter, M. P., & Barnes, C. A. (2011). A pathophysiological framework of hippocampal dysfunction in ageing and disease. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 12, 585–601. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3085
Squire, L. R., Stark, C. E., & Clark, R. E. (2004). The medial temporal lobe. The Annual Review of Neuroscience, 27, 279–306. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.27.070203.144130
Steve, T. A., Gargula, J., Misaghi, E., Nowacki, T. A., Schmitt, L. M., Wheatley, B. M., & Gross, D. W. (2020). Hippocampal subfield measurement and ILAE hippocampal sclerosis subtype classification with in vivo 4.7 tesla MRI. Epilepsy Research, 161, 106279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2020.106279
Steve, T. A., Yasuda, C. L., Coras, R., Lail, M., Blumcke, I., Livy, D. J., Malykhin, N., & Gross, D. W. (2017). Development of a histologically validated segmentation protocol for the hippocampal body. NeuroImage, 157, 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.06.008
The MathWorks Inc. (2022). MATLAB version: 9.13.0 (R2022b). The MathWorks Inc. https://www.mathworks.com
Wisse, L. E., Daugherty, A. M., Olsen, R. K., Berron, D., Carr, V. A., Stark, C. E. L., Amaral, R. S. C., Amunts, K., Augustinack, J. C., Bender, A. R., Bernstein, J. D., Boccardi, M., Bocchetta, M., Burggren, A., Chakravarty, M. M., Chupin, M., Erkstrom, A., de Flores, R., Insausti, R., … la Joie, R. (2016). A harmonized segmentation protocol for hippocampal and parahippocampal subregions: Why do we need one and what are the key goals? Hippocampus, 27, 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/hipo.22671
Yushkevich, P. A., Amaral, R. S., Augustinack, J. C., Bender, A. R., Bernstein, J. D., Boccardi, M., Bocchetta, M., Burggren, A. C., Carr, V. A., Chakravarty, M. M., Chételat, G., Daugherty, A. M., Davachi, L., Ding, S., Ekstrom, A., Geerlings, M. I., Hassan, A., Huang, Y., Iglesias, J. E., … Zeineh, M. M. (2015). Quantitative comparison of 21 protocols for labeling hippocampal subfields and parahippocampal subregions in in vivo MRI: Towards a harmonized segmentation protocol. NeuroImage, 111, 526–541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.01.004