An interactive meta-analysis of MRI biomarkers of myelin

  1. Matteo Mancini  Is a corresponding author
  2. Agah Karakuzu
  3. Julien Cohen-Adad
  4. Mara Cercignani
  5. Thomas E Nichols
  6. Nikola Stikov
  1. University of Sussex, United Kingdom
  2. Polytechnique Montreal, Canada
  3. University of Oxford, United Kingdom

Abstract

Several MRI measures have been proposed as in vivo biomarkers of myelin, each with applications ranging from plasticity to pathology. Despite the availability of these myelin-sensitive modalities, specificity and sensitivity have been a matter of discussion. Debate about which MRI measure is the most suitable for quantifying myelin is still ongoing. In this study, we performed a systematic review of published quantitative validation studies to clarify how different these measures are when compared to the underlying histology. We analysed the results from 43 studies applying meta-analysis tools, controlling for study sample size and using interactive visualization (https://neurolibre.github.io/myelin-meta-analysis). We report the overall estimates and the prediction intervals for the coefficient of determination and find that MT and relaxometry-based measures exhibit the highest correlations with myelin content. We also show which measures are, and which measures are not statistically different regarding their relationship with histology.

Data availability

All the data collected from the selected studies for this meta-analysis are provided in the spreadsheet file Source data 1

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Matteo Mancini

    Department of Neuroscience, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    ingmatteomancini@gmail.com
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7194-4568
  2. Agah Karakuzu

    NeuroPoly Lab, Polytechnique Montreal, Montreal, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Julien Cohen-Adad

    NeuroPoly Lab, Polytechnique Montreal, Montreal, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Mara Cercignani

    Department of Neuroscience, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Thomas E Nichols

    University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Nikola Stikov

    NeuroPoly Lab, Polytechnique Montreal, Montreal, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8480-5230

Funding

Wellcome Trust (213722/Z/18/Z)

  • Matteo Mancini

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Saad Jbabdi, University of Oxford, United Kingdom

Publication history

  1. Received: July 28, 2020
  2. Accepted: October 20, 2020
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: October 21, 2020 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: November 6, 2020 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2020, Mancini et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 9,024
    Page views
  • 374
    Downloads
  • 39
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, Scopus, PubMed Central.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Matteo Mancini
  2. Agah Karakuzu
  3. Julien Cohen-Adad
  4. Mara Cercignani
  5. Thomas E Nichols
  6. Nikola Stikov
(2020)
An interactive meta-analysis of MRI biomarkers of myelin
eLife 9:e61523.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.61523

Further reading

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Matthew P Bostock, Anadika R Prasad ... Vilaiwan M Fernandes
    Research Article Updated

    Defining the origin of neuronal diversity is a major challenge in developmental neurobiology. The Drosophila visual system is an excellent paradigm to study how cellular diversity is generated. Photoreceptors from the eye disc grow their axons into the optic lobe and secrete Hedgehog (Hh) to induce the lamina, such that for every unit eye there is a corresponding lamina unit made up of post-mitotic precursors stacked into columns. Each differentiated column contains five lamina neuron types (L1-L5), making it the simplest neuropil in the optic lobe, yet how this diversity is generated was unknown. Here, we found that Hh pathway activity is graded along the distal-proximal axis of lamina columns, and further determined that this gradient in pathway activity arises from a gradient of Hh ligand. We manipulated Hh pathway activity cell autonomously in lamina precursors and non-cell autonomously by inactivating the Hh ligand and by knocking it down in photoreceptors. These manipulations showed that different thresholds of activity specify unique cell identities, with more proximal cell types specified in response to progressively lower Hh levels. Thus, our data establish that Hh acts as a morphogen to pattern the lamina. Although this is the first such report during Drosophila nervous system development, our work uncovers a remarkable similarity with the vertebrate neural tube, which is patterned by Sonic Hh. Altogether, we show that differentiating neurons can regulate the neuronal diversity of their distant target fields through morphogen gradients.

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Anadika R Prasad, Inês Lago-Baldaia ... Vilaiwan M Fernandes
    Research Article Updated

    Neural circuit formation and function require that diverse neurons are specified in appropriate numbers. Known strategies for controlling neuronal numbers involve regulating either cell proliferation or survival. We used the Drosophila visual system to probe how neuronal numbers are set. Photoreceptors from the eye-disc induce their target field, the lamina, such that for every unit eye there is a corresponding lamina unit (column). Although each column initially contains ~6 post-mitotic lamina precursors, only 5 differentiate into neurons, called L1-L5; the ‘extra’ precursor, which is invariantly positioned above the L5 neuron in each column, undergoes apoptosis. Here, we showed that a glial population called the outer chiasm giant glia (xgO), which resides below the lamina, secretes multiple ligands to induce L5 differentiation in response to epidermal growth factor (EGF) from photoreceptors. By forcing neuronal differentiation in the lamina, we uncovered that though fated to die, the ‘extra’ precursor is specified as an L5. Therefore, two precursors are specified as L5s but only one differentiates during normal development. We found that the row of precursors nearest to xgO differentiate into L5s and, in turn, antagonise differentiation signalling to prevent the ‘extra’ precursors from differentiating, resulting in their death. Thus, an intricate interplay of glial signals and feedback from differentiating neurons defines an invariant and stereotyped pattern of neuronal differentiation and programmed cell death to ensure that lamina columns each contain exactly one L5 neuron.