双能x线吸收法和时域核磁共振法测定小鼠体成分的再现性和准确性。

Solveig Halldorsdottir, Jill Carmody, Carol N Boozer, Charles A Leduc, Rudolph L Leibel
{"title":"双能x线吸收法和时域核磁共振法测定小鼠体成分的再现性和准确性。","authors":"Solveig Halldorsdottir,&nbsp;Jill Carmody,&nbsp;Carol N Boozer,&nbsp;Charles A Leduc,&nbsp;Rudolph L Leibel","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy and reproducibility of dual-energy absorptiometry (DXA; PIXImus(™)) and time domain nuclear magnetic resonance (TD-NMR; Bruker Optics) for the measurement of body composition of lean and obese mice. SUBJECTS AND MEASUREMENTS: Thirty lean and obese mice (body weight range 19-67 g) were studied. Coefficients of variation for repeated (x 4) DXA and NMR scans of mice were calculated to assess reproducibility. Accuracy was assessed by comparing DXA and NMR results of ten mice to chemical carcass analyses. Accuracy of the respective techniques was also assessed by comparing DXA and NMR results obtained with ground meat samples to chemical analyses. Repeated scans of 10-25 gram samples were performed to test the sensitivity of the DXA and NMR methods to variation in sample mass. RESULTS: In mice, DXA and NMR reproducibility measures were similar for fat tissue mass (FTM) (DXA coefficient of variation [CV]=2.3%; and NMR CV=2.8%) (P=0.47), while reproducibility of lean tissue mass (LTM) estimates were better for DXA (1.0%) than NMR (2.2%) (<P 0.05). Regarding accuracy, in mice, DXA overestimated (vs chemical composition) LTM (+1.7 ± 1.3 g [SD], ~ 8%, P <0.001) as well as FTM (+2.0 ± 1.2 g, ~ 46%, P <0.001). NMR estimated LTM and FTM virtually identical to chemical composition analysis (LTM: -0.05 ± 0.5 g, ~0.2%, P =0.79) (FTM: +0.02 ± 0.7 g, ~15%, P =0.93). DXA and NMR-determined LTM and FTM measurements were highly correlated with the corresponding chemical analyses (r(2)=0.92 and r(2)=0.99 for DXA LTM and FTM, respectively; r(2)=0.99 and r(2)=0.99 for NMR LTM and FTM, respectively.) Sample mass did not affect accuracy in assessing chemical composition of small ground meat samples by either DXA or NMR. CONCLUSION: DXA and NMR provide comparable levels of reproducibility in measurements of body composition lean and obese mice. While DXA and NMR measures are highly correlated with chemical analysis measures, DXA consistently overestimates LTM and FTM (by ~8% and ~46%, respectively), while NMR only slightly underestimates LTM (by ~0.2%) and overestimates FTM (~15%.) The NMR method also has practical advantages compared to DXA, such as speed of measurement and the ability to scan unanesthetized animals.</p>","PeriodicalId":87474,"journal":{"name":"International journal of body composition research","volume":"7 4","pages":"147-154"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3169293/pdf/nihms315912.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reproducibility and accuracy of body composition assessments in mice by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry and time domain nuclear magnetic resonance.\",\"authors\":\"Solveig Halldorsdottir,&nbsp;Jill Carmody,&nbsp;Carol N Boozer,&nbsp;Charles A Leduc,&nbsp;Rudolph L Leibel\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy and reproducibility of dual-energy absorptiometry (DXA; PIXImus(™)) and time domain nuclear magnetic resonance (TD-NMR; Bruker Optics) for the measurement of body composition of lean and obese mice. SUBJECTS AND MEASUREMENTS: Thirty lean and obese mice (body weight range 19-67 g) were studied. Coefficients of variation for repeated (x 4) DXA and NMR scans of mice were calculated to assess reproducibility. Accuracy was assessed by comparing DXA and NMR results of ten mice to chemical carcass analyses. Accuracy of the respective techniques was also assessed by comparing DXA and NMR results obtained with ground meat samples to chemical analyses. Repeated scans of 10-25 gram samples were performed to test the sensitivity of the DXA and NMR methods to variation in sample mass. RESULTS: In mice, DXA and NMR reproducibility measures were similar for fat tissue mass (FTM) (DXA coefficient of variation [CV]=2.3%; and NMR CV=2.8%) (P=0.47), while reproducibility of lean tissue mass (LTM) estimates were better for DXA (1.0%) than NMR (2.2%) (<P 0.05). Regarding accuracy, in mice, DXA overestimated (vs chemical composition) LTM (+1.7 ± 1.3 g [SD], ~ 8%, P <0.001) as well as FTM (+2.0 ± 1.2 g, ~ 46%, P <0.001). NMR estimated LTM and FTM virtually identical to chemical composition analysis (LTM: -0.05 ± 0.5 g, ~0.2%, P =0.79) (FTM: +0.02 ± 0.7 g, ~15%, P =0.93). DXA and NMR-determined LTM and FTM measurements were highly correlated with the corresponding chemical analyses (r(2)=0.92 and r(2)=0.99 for DXA LTM and FTM, respectively; r(2)=0.99 and r(2)=0.99 for NMR LTM and FTM, respectively.) Sample mass did not affect accuracy in assessing chemical composition of small ground meat samples by either DXA or NMR. CONCLUSION: DXA and NMR provide comparable levels of reproducibility in measurements of body composition lean and obese mice. While DXA and NMR measures are highly correlated with chemical analysis measures, DXA consistently overestimates LTM and FTM (by ~8% and ~46%, respectively), while NMR only slightly underestimates LTM (by ~0.2%) and overestimates FTM (~15%.) The NMR method also has practical advantages compared to DXA, such as speed of measurement and the ability to scan unanesthetized animals.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":87474,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of body composition research\",\"volume\":\"7 4\",\"pages\":\"147-154\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3169293/pdf/nihms315912.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of body composition research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of body composition research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:评价双能吸收法(DXA;PIXImus(™))和时域核磁共振(TD-NMR);Bruker Optics)用于测量瘦和肥胖小鼠的身体成分。研究对象和测量方法:研究了30只瘦和肥胖小鼠(体重范围19-67 g)。计算小鼠重复(x 4) DXA和NMR扫描的变异系数以评估再现性。通过比较10只小鼠的DXA和NMR结果与化学胴体分析来评估准确性。通过将肉末样品获得的DXA和NMR结果与化学分析结果进行比较,还评估了各自技术的准确性。对10-25克样品进行重复扫描,以测试DXA和NMR方法对样品质量变化的敏感性。结果:在小鼠中,DXA和NMR对脂肪组织质量(FTM)的重现性测量相似(DXA变异系数[CV]=2.3%;和NMR CV=2.8%) (P=0.47),而DXA(1.0%)的瘦组织质量(LTM)估计的再现性优于NMR (2.2%) (
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reproducibility and accuracy of body composition assessments in mice by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry and time domain nuclear magnetic resonance.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy and reproducibility of dual-energy absorptiometry (DXA; PIXImus(™)) and time domain nuclear magnetic resonance (TD-NMR; Bruker Optics) for the measurement of body composition of lean and obese mice. SUBJECTS AND MEASUREMENTS: Thirty lean and obese mice (body weight range 19-67 g) were studied. Coefficients of variation for repeated (x 4) DXA and NMR scans of mice were calculated to assess reproducibility. Accuracy was assessed by comparing DXA and NMR results of ten mice to chemical carcass analyses. Accuracy of the respective techniques was also assessed by comparing DXA and NMR results obtained with ground meat samples to chemical analyses. Repeated scans of 10-25 gram samples were performed to test the sensitivity of the DXA and NMR methods to variation in sample mass. RESULTS: In mice, DXA and NMR reproducibility measures were similar for fat tissue mass (FTM) (DXA coefficient of variation [CV]=2.3%; and NMR CV=2.8%) (P=0.47), while reproducibility of lean tissue mass (LTM) estimates were better for DXA (1.0%) than NMR (2.2%) (

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信