Biology subjects

Chevallier, O.

Publications and source records attributed to Chevallier, O..

3 recordsLinked to original sources

bioRxiv2018

Comparison of tri-exponential decay vs. bi-exponential decay and full fitting vs. segmented fitting for modeling liver intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion MRI

PurposeTo determine whether bi- or tri-exponential models, and full or segmented fittings, better fit IVIM imaging signal of healthy livers.\n\nMaterials and methodsDiffusion-weighted images were acquired with a 3-T scanner using respiratory-triggered echo-planar sequence and 16 b-values (0[~]800 s/mm2). Eighteen healthy volunteers had liver scanned twice in the same session, and then once again in another session. Region of interest (ROI)-based measurements were processed with bi-exponential model full fitting and segmented fitting (threshold b-value = 80 s/mm2), as well as tri-exponential model full fitting and segmented fitting (threshold b-value = 200 s/mm2).\n\nResultsWith all scans signal averaged, bi-exponential model full fitting showed Dslow=1.14, Dfast=193.6x10-3 mm2/s, and PF=16.9%, and segmented fitting showed Dslow=1.03, Dfast=56.7x10-3 mm2/s, and PF=21.3%. IVIM parameters derived from tri-exponential model were similar for full fitting and segmented fitting, with a slow (Dslow=0.98x10-3 mm2/s; Fslow=76.4 or 76.6%), a fast (Dfast=15.1 or 15.4x10-3 mm2/s; Ffast=11.8 or 11.7%) and a very fast (DVfast=445.0 or 448.8x10-3 mm2/s; FVfast=11.8 or 11.7 %) diffusion compartments. Tri-exponential model provided an overall better fit than bi-exponential model. For bi-exponential model, full fitting provided better fit at very low and low b-values compared with segmented fitting with the later tended to underestimate Dfast, however, segmented method demonstrated lower error in signal prediction for high b-values. Compared with full fitting, tri-exponential segmented fitting offered better scan-rescan reproducibility.\n\nConclusionFor healthy liver, tri-exponential modelling is preferred than bi-exponential modelling. For bi-exponential model, segmented fitting underestimates Dfast, but offers more accurate estimation of Dslow.

biophysics↗

bioRxiv2018

The histone chaperones FACT and ANP32E reshape the chromatin landscape during DNA damage repair through H2A.Z/H2A.X histone variant exchange

Safeguarding cell function and identity following a genotoxic stress challenge entails a tight coordination of DNA damage signaling and repair with chromatin maintenance. How this coordination is achieved and with what impact on chromatin integrity remains elusive. Here, by investigating the mechanisms governing the distribution of H2A.X in mammalian chromatin, we demonstrate that this histone variant is deposited de novo at sites of DNA damage in a repair synthesis-coupled manner. Our mechanistic studies further identify the histone chaperone FACT (Facilitates Chromatin Transcription) as responsible for the deposition of newly synthesized H2A.X. Functionally, FACT potentiates H2A.X-dependent signaling of DNA damage and, together with ANP32E (Acidic Nuclear Phosphoprotein 32 Family Member E), orchestrates a H2A.Z/H2A.X exchange reaction that reshapes the chromatin landscape at repair sites. We propose that this mechanism promotes chromatin accessibility and helps tailoring DNA damage signaling to repair progression.\n\nHIGHLIGHTSO_LIH2A.X, but not H2A.Z, is deposited de novo at sites of DNA damage repair\nC_LIO_LIFACT promotes new H2A.X deposition coupled to repair synthesis\nC_LIO_LIFACT and ANP32E chaperones orchestrate H2A.Z/H2A.X exchange in damaged chromatin\nC_LIO_LIFACT stimulates H2A.X-dependent signaling of DNA damage\nC_LI

molecular biology↗

bioRxiv2017

IVIM parameters have good scan-rescan reproducibility when evidential motion contaminated and poorly fitted image data are removed

BackgroundIntravoxel Incoherent Motion (IVIM) diffusion MRI is a promising technique for liver pathology evaluation, but this techniques scan-rescan reproducibility has been reported to be unsatisfactory.\n\nObjectiveTo understand whether IVIM MRI parameters for liver parenchyma can be good after removal of motion contaminated and/or poorly fitted image data.\n\nMaterial and MethodsEighteen healthy volunteers had liver scanned twice at the same session to assess scan-rescan repeatability, and again in another session after an average interval of 13 days to assess reproducibility. Diffusion weighted image were acquired with a 3T scanner using respiratory-triggered echo-planar sequence and 16 b-values (0 to 800 s/mm2). Measurement was performed on the right liver with segmented-unconstrained least square fitting. Image series with evidential anatomical mismatch, apparent artifacts, and poorly fitted signal intensity vs. b-value curve were excluded. A minimum of three slices was deemed necessary for IVIM parameter estimation of a liver.\n\nResultsWith total 54 examinations, 6 scans did not satisfy inclusion criteria, leading to a success rate of 89%; and 14 volunteers were finally included. With each scan a mean of 5.3 slices (range: 3-10 slices) were utilized for analysis. Using threshold b-value=80s/mm2, the coefficient of variation and within-subject coefficient of variation for repeatability and reproducibility were: 2.86% and 4.24% for Dslow, 3.81% and 4.24%, for PF, 18.16% and 24.88% for Dfast; and those for reproducibility were 2.48% and 3.24% for Dslow; 4.91% and 5.38% for PF; 21.18% and 30.89% for Dfast.\n\nConclusionIVIM parameter scan-rescan reproducibility can be potentially good.

biophysics↗