SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Measuring dopaminergic function in the 6-OHDA-lesioned rat: a comparison of PET and microdialysis.

EJNMMI Res · 2013-10-02

DOI: 10.1186/2191-219x-3-69PMID: 24088510

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Background[18 F]fluorodopa (FDOPA) positron emission tomography (PET) allows assessment of levodopa (LDOPA) metabolism and is widely used to study Parkinson's disease. We examined how [18 F]FDOPA PET-derived kinetic parameters relate the dopamine (DA) and DA metabolite content of extracellular fluid measured by microdialysis to aid in the interpretation of data from both techniques.Methods[18 F]FDOPA PET imaging and microdialysis measurements were performed in unilaterally 6-hydroxydopamine-lesioned rats (n = 8) and normal control rats (n = 3). Microdialysis testing included baseline measurements and measurements following acute administration of LDOPA. PET imaging was also performed using [11C]dihydrotetrabenazine (DTBZ), which is a ligand for the vesicular monoamine transporter marker and allowed assessment of denervation severity.ResultsThe different methods provided highly correlated data. Lesioned rats had reduced DA metabolite concentrations ipsilateral to the lesion (p 80%) lesioned rats was lower (p ConclusionsThe demonstrated strong correlations between the PET and microdialysis measures can aid in the interpretation of [18 F]FDOPA-derived kinetic parameters and help compare results from different studies. The contralateral striatum was affected by the lesioning and so cannot always serve as an unaffected control.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.