Kurt Schilling1, Vaibhav Janve1, Yurui Gao1, Iwona Stepniewska1, Bennett Landman1, and Adam Anderson1
1Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, United States
Synopsis
It
has been reported that diffusion tractography has a tendency for streamlines to
terminate preferentially on gyral crowns rather than on sulcal walls or fundi.
Rather than anatomical reality, it has been suggested that this is a bias
associated with tractography. To better understand this issue, we compare
histology to diffusion MRI of the same specimen. We measure the trajectories
and density of axons crossing the gray matter/white matter boundary and compare
to diffusion tensor measures and deterministic tractography. The results of
this study lead to a better understanding of gyral anatomy and potential
limitations of fiber tractography.Purpose
The
ability of diffusion MRI (dMRI) fiber tractography to non-invasively map the
structural connectivity of the brain has proven a valuable neuroimaging tool.
However, diffusion tractography has several potential limitations, which may prevent
it from faithfully representing true axonal connections of the brain.
Specifically, it has been shown that streamlines terminate preferentially on
gyral crowns rather than on sulcal walls (1,2). These results, however,
are believed not to be a true difference in anatomical connectivity, but
rather, a confound of tractography (3,4). Thus, there is a need to
better understand the true trajectories of axons in the gyral blades. Here, we use light microscopy to determine the
ground truth fiber orientation distribution near the cortex and make
quantitative comparisons to the distributions obtained with deterministic
tractography of the same brain. This allows us to study: (A) the trajectories of
axons near the white matter/gray matter (WM/GM) border; (B) how this varies with
position along the gyrus; (C) how the density of axons entering the GM varies with
position; and (D) whether axons terminate primarily on the crowns of gyri, or
is this a bias of tractography.
Methods
dMRI: dMRI of an ex vivo squirrel monkey brain was
acquired on a 9.4T Agilent scanner using a PGSE multi-shot spin-echo sequence (gradient
directions=32, b≈1000s/mm2, voxel size=300μm isotropic).
Tractography: MRTrix (5) and Diffusion Toolkit (6) were utilized for
tractography, using default settings. MRTrix used the diffusion tensor to
perform deterministic tracking (7) (step-size: 0.1*voxel size,
minimum length:5*voxel size, FA-cutoff: .1, seed: whole brain). Diffusion Toolkit
used the diffusion tensor and FACT for fiber propagation (same parameters).
Histology: The brain was sectioned
coronally (50um) and every 6th slice stained using Gallyas-silver
stain. Photomicrographs of 27 slides were obtained on a Leica Brightfield microscope
at a resolution of 1um/pixel.
Image
Registration/Processing: Individual slices were registered to dMRI data using the methods
described in (8). 32 Gyral blades were
selected for further processing, which included determination of WM/GM border
and structure tensor (ST) analysis (9), resulting in an
orientation estimate for every pixel in the image. For each gyrus, the crown
was defined as the voxels on the WM/GM interface with greatest curvature, while
two walls were determined where curvature was minimum.
Fiber
densities:
The number of fibers entering/leaving the WM (at a distance of 300um into the
cortex, equivalent to an MRI voxel) was automatically detected and counted to
determine the histological fiber density. Corresponding tractography densities
were determined at the same locations using the tract-density images generated
by MRTrix and Trackvis. We then calculate the ratio of axons (or streamlines)
leaving the gyral crown to those leaving at the sulcal walls.
Results and Discussion
Figure
1 shows the results of ST analysis with fibers color-coded based on
orientation. Magnified views show fibers leaving the crown with little to no change
in orientation from WM to GM (blue), as well as the typical sharp bend in
fibers near the walls upon entering the cortex (red). Figure 2 displays the
same slice, where the crown and walls are shown extending from 400um in WM, to
1000um into the cortex. ST orientations are shown in magenta (left), and
registered diffusion tensor primary eigenvectors in green (middle). Also shown
is the Diffusion Toolkit tract-density map. For this gyrus, there is a clear penchant
of fibers to terminate on the crown. Figure 3 summarizes the results of all 32
gyral blades. The plot (left) shows the average fiber orientation relative to
the normal to the WM/GM boundary. At the
walls, fibers go from nearly orthogonal to the surface normal in WM (77°±11°), to within 28° from the normal only 600um into the cortex, while those of the crown
stay nearly parallel (<20°) throughout.
Finally, the ratio of fiber density at the crown to those at the walls is shown
for histology compared to Diffusion Toolkit (middle) and MRTrix (right). The
average histological ratio of crown:walls was 1.52±0.69, while those of
tractography were higher, 2.51±1.9 and 2.1±1.8, respectively. A paired t-test
resulted in p<0.05 for Diffusion toolkit, indicating a significant bias
towards gyral crowns.
Conclusion
We
find a preference for dMRI streamlines to terminate on gyral crowns, although
this bias is algorithm-dependent and lower than in previously reported studies (1). Comparisons with histology
are necessary to better understand axonal trajectories near the cortex and to
improve the anatomical accuracy of tractography. Future studies will analyze
how streamline orientations compare to histology at these locations, how
specific anatomical features may account for this tractography bias, and the
effects of other diffusion models or tracking parameters.
Acknowledgements
NIH 2R01NS058639-05/08References
1. Nie et al.
Cereb Cortex 2012;22(12):2831-9.
2. Chen
et al. Cereb Cortex 2013;23(5):1208-17. 3. Van
Essen et al. Ch 16. Diffusion MRI. 2014.
p 337-358. 4. Kleinnijenhuis
et al. Neuroimage 2015;109:378-87. 5. Tournier
et al. International Journal of Imaging Systems and Technology
2012;22(1):53-66. 6. Wang
et al. Proc. Intl. Soc. Mag. Reson. Med. (15) 2007. p 3720. 7. Basser
et al. Magn Reson Med 2000;44(4):625-32. 8. Choe
et al. Magn Reson Imaging 2011;29(5):683-92. 9. Budde
et al. Neuroimage 2012;63(1):1-10.