Imaging neuroinflammation

	(positively or negatively) with either clinical parameters or 18 putaminal [F]-dopa signal Longitudinal cohort: PD (N=8), no longitudinal change over 2 y, despite change in UPDRS (19→ 25) & putaminal [18F]-dopa Ki values (6.7% ANNUAL DECLINE) Cristian's paper: Varnas 2019 (PBR28, PD), Nettis 2020 (PBR28, sc IFN-a CHALLENGE hv),	{Van Weehaeghe, 2019 #1793} 2^ND, a small (twofold) increase in the P2X7R gene in RNA extracted from the substantia nigra in PD patients [44].
	- If old paper, 당시엔 NLRP3 assay 없었음. → 피검사결과 없을 테니, 어차피 PET 다시 해야함 ( 그 사이에 변경 가능성 유) - NEW PAPER 있는지 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsb.2020.08.006 → 있다면, r-ecall previously TSPO-scanned patients for blood NLRP3 measurement.
	(Ghadery, 2017 #1642) "Koshimori 2015 의 extension" stratified by rs6971 polymorphism, MABs) (14 PD patients and 11 age-matched HC (HC)) and 27 (HABs) (16 PD patients and 11 age-matched HC) [18F]-FEPPA → Results: no difference in PD vs HC (Ghadery 2020): [18F]-FEPPA: HAB vs MAB 구분 결과 없는 듯 (Koshimori, 2015 #1773) this is just a part of (Ghadery, 2017 #1642) (Ouchi, 2005 #656)[11C](R)-PK11195 (300MBq) Cross-sectional: 10 early (drug-naïve) PD patients vs 10 age-matched HC, ↑ (midbrain) TSPO signal in midbrain (didn't look at cortex), TSPO signal correlated with DAT imaging	{Van Weehaeghe, 2019 #1793} 2^ND recent study in a rat model of neuroinflammation using the 18F analogue[18F]JNJ64413739 showed that P2X7R is involved in early microglial activation. The highest signal was observed 2-3 days after LPS injection, after which this effect disappeared. Moreover, increased uptake of [18F]JNJ64413739 was shown to correspond with increased Iba1 staining, a microglial marker, indicating that P2X7R radioligands are probably able to visualize microglial activation [23].
	((350MBq of (11C)CFT) (r=0.894, dorsal contralateral putamen) , and with UPDRS (r=0.74).
rat	(Crabbé, 2019 #1791) in 6OHDA rat, ↑ 18F-DPA-714 & P2X7R both (but in AAV-A53T rat, =)
	(Doorduin, 2009 #2662) Although [18F]-DPA-714 showed low NSB, SB of [18F]-DPA-714 was much lower than that of [11C]-DPA-713 (Chauveau, 2009 #2663). 11C-DPA-713 and 18F-DPA-714 could specifically localize the neuroinflammatory site with a similar signal-to-noise ratio in vitro (ARG). In vivo (AMPA-rat model), 18F-DPA-714 performed better than 11C-DPA-713 and 11C-PK11195, with the highest ratio of ipsilateral to contralateral uptake and the highest binding potential. DPA-713 은 18F labeling 어려움!
LPS rat	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpet.2020.12.003
Link to NLRP3		Upstream of NLRP3
Assessment feasibility		Postmortem homogenate, mRNA:{Walker, 2017 #1765}{Sassi, 2018 #1766} Postmortem homogenate, protein: ? 아직 paper 못 찾음. Soluble CSF1R/CD115 (Human) ELISA Kit https://www.aviscerabioscience.net/Human-Soluble-CD115-p/sk00144-01.htm?gclid=CjwKCAjwndCKBhAkEiwAgSDKQQGUXbLUs-XkNOf3y3opbqB021Q94d8u086rK33njunJs1LUZa4oexoCPTYQAvD_BwE

Metaanalysis of 15 studies: {Zhang, 2022 #2287}: (Yacoubian et al. 2022,) was not included in the analysis

Ghadery 2017: [18F]-FEPPA
Koshimori 2015: [18F]-FEPPA
{Terada, 2016 #2355} [(11)C]DPA713
{Varnäs, 2019 #2356} [11C]PBR28
Lavisse 2021 : (18)F]-DPA714

{Terada, 2016 #2355} [(11)C]DPA713

DPA714

mouse	rat	NHP	human
{López-Picón, 2022 #2177}	(Kong, 2016 #2181)	(James, 2008 #2178)	(Hagens, 2018 #2144) Frontal cortex
{Arlicot, 2012 #2180} — [¹⁸F]DPA-714 cerebral distribution

3^rd Generation TSPO

decide which one is best for PD
ER176
- Less sensitive, better signal
vitro
- Dartmouth meeting to Understand capability → internal (paul, marithain AK, SALINAS) → rank → Compare GE180, FEBMP, PBR28, 18F-DPA-714 by in vitro in PD tissue vs HC (to know specific window), ii) for compounds in clinic, to do wash in/wash out study →

Uncertain Spans

location	transcription	uncertainty
Fig 2 caption row (top of left content column)	“Fig 2. Mean binding potential values…” italic caption beneath the bar chart	Caption is too small/blurred in the photo to read every word; only the chart legend “normal / PD” is clearly legible.
(Ouchi, 2005 #656) row	inline “Levels of Binding Potential” table image with numeric cells	Numeric cells in the inset table are not readable at this resolution.
”NEW PAPER 있는지” handwritten/red line	spacing between “NEW PAPER” and “있는지”	The two phrases are separated by a long gap with a red caret/marker; the marker symbol is not transcribable as text.
(Crabbé, 2019 #1791) row, AAV-A53T parenthetical	”(but in AAV-A53T rat, =)“	The trailing token is read as ”=” but may be a different small symbol; the photo shows only an equals-like glyph.