Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Molecular MR Imaging of Myeloperoxidase Distinguishes Steatosis from Steatohepatitis in Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease.

Radiology 2017 August
Purpose To test whether MPO-Gd, an activatable molecular magnetic resonance (MR) imaging agent specific for myeloperoxidase (MPO) activity, could detect MPO activity in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) mouse models and human liver biopsy samples. Materials and Methods In this study, 20 leptin receptor-deficient and three MPO knockout mice were injected with endotoxin (lipopolysaccharide) or fed a methionine and choline-deficient (MCD) diet to induce experimental NASH and underwent MR imaging with MPO-Gd. Saline-injected and control diet-fed leptin receptor-deficient mice were used as respective controls. MPO protein and activity measurements and histologic analyses were performed. Eleven human liver biopsy samples underwent MPO-Gd-enhanced MR imaging ex vivo and subsequent histologic evaluation. Results were compared with Student t test or Mann-Whitney U test. Results With endotoxin, a significantly increased contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) was found compared with sham (mean CNR, 1.81 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 1.53, 2.10] vs 1.02 [95% CI: 0.89, 1.14]; P = .03) at MPO-Gd MR imaging. In the diet-induced NASH model, an increased CNR was also found compared with sham mice (mean CNR, 1.33 [95% CI: 1.27, 1.40] vs 0.98 [95% CI: 0.83, 1.12]; P = .008). Conversely, CNR remained at baseline in NASH mice imaged with gadopentetate dimeglumine and in MPO knockout NASH mice with MPO-Gd, which proves specificity of MPO-Gd. Ex vivo molecular MR imaging of liver biopsy samples from NASH and control patients confirmed results from animal studies (mean CNR for NASH vs control patients, 2.61 [95% CI: 1.48, 3.74] vs 1.29 [95% CI: 1.06, 1.52]; P = .004). Conclusion MPO-Gd showed elevated MPO activity in NAFLD mouse models and human liver biopsy samples. © RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article. An earlier incorrect version of this article appeared online. This article was corrected on April 6, 2017.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app