Custom fit 3D-printed brain holders for comparison of histology with MRI in marmosets

Abstract

Background MRI has the advantage of sampling large areas of tissue and locating areas of interest in 3D space in both living and ex vivo systems, whereas histology has the ability to examine thin slices of ex vivo tissue with high detail and specificity. Although both are valuable tools, it is currently difficult to make high-precision comparisons between MRI and histology due to large differences inherent to the techniques. A method combining the advantages would be an asset to understanding the pathological correlates of MRI. New Method 3D-printed brain holders were used to maintain marmoset brains in the same orientation during acquisition of ex vivo MRI and pathologic cutting of the tissue. Results The results of maintaining this same orientation show that sub-millimeter, discrete neuropathological features in marmoset brain consistently share size, shape, and location between histology and ex vivo MRI, which facilitates comparison with serial imaging acquired in vivo. Comparison with Existing Methods Existing methods use computational approaches sensitive to data input in order to warp histologic images to match large-scale features on MRI, but the new method requires no warping of images, due to a preregistration accomplished in the technique, and is insensitive to data formatting and artifacts in both MRI and histology. Conclusions The simple method of using 3D-printed brain holders to match brain orientation during pathologic sectioning and MRI acquisition enables rapid and precise comparison of small features seen on MRI to their underlying histology.

A Survey of Methods for 3D Histology Reconstruction

“…As a result, apparatus have been developed to help cutting the specimen at the same interval and orientation as the MR images, as proposed by Drew et al (2010); Trivedi et al (2012) in the context of prostatectomy, or by means of 3D-printed brain holders (Absinta et al, 2014;Guy et al, 2016) but their use is not so common. The error made when selecting the closest MR slice was considered in Steenbergen et al (2015), and the consequences of differences in sampling were noted in Martel et al (2016) in the specific case of vascular trees from the femoral trochlea.…”

Potential role of iron in repair of inflammatory demyelinating lesions

“…Following necropsy immediately after death, marmoset brains were collected and fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde. Customized 3Dprinted brain cradles were used for lesion identifica tion, as previously described (68,69). Human brains were collected at autopsy and fixed in 10% neutralbuffer formalin.…”

The “central vein sign” in inflammatory demyelination: The role of fibrillar collagen type I

“…6 For each human and marmoset brain, a three-dimensional-printed cutting box, designed based on the postmortem MRI, allowed pathological localization of radiological findings of interest. [6][7][8] Three-to 7-μm-thick paraffin sections were obtained from representative tissue blocks in both human (15 MS and 10 control blocks; Tables 1 and 2) and marmoset brains (three whole-brain blocks). Lesion staging evaluation included staining with hematoxylin and eosin, Luxol fast blue/periodic acid Schiff, antimyelin proteolipid protein (PLP; MCA839G; Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA), and anti-ionized calciumbinding adapter molecule-1 (IBA1; macrophages/microglia, #019-19741; Wako Chemicals, Richmond, VA).…”