Chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST) is a novel contrast mechanism for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). CEST MRI selectively saturates exchangeable protons that are transferred to MRI-detectable bulk water signal. MRI-CEST (pH)-responsive agents are probes able to map pH in the microenvironment in which they distribute. To minimize the confounding effects of contrast agent concentration, researchers have developed ratiometric CEST imaging, which investigates contrast agents containing multiple magnetically non-equivalent proton groups, whose prototropic exchange have different pH responses. However, conventional ratiometric CEST MRI imposes stringent requirements on the selection of CEST contrasts agents. In this study, a novel ratiometric pH MRI method based on the analysis of CEST effects under different radio frequency irradiation power levels was developed. The proposed method has been demonstrated using iobitridol, an X-ray contrast agent analog of iopamidol but containing a single set of amide protons, both in vitro and in vivo.
Chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST) is a novel contrast mechanism for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). CEST MRI selectively saturates exchangeable protons that are transferred to MRI-detectable bulk water signal. MRI-CEST (pH)-responsive agents are probes able to map pH in the microenvironment in which they distribute. To minimize the confounding effects of contrast agent concentration, researchers have developed ratiometric CEST imaging, which investigates contrast agents containing multiple magnetically non-equivalent proton groups, whose prototropic exchange have different pH responses. However, conventional ratiometric CEST MRI imposes stringent requirements on the selection of CEST contrasts agents. In this study, a novel ratiometric pH MRI method based on the analysis of CEST effects under different radio frequency irradiation power levels was developed. The proposed method has been demonstrated using iobitridol, an X-ray contrast agent analog of iopamidol but containing a single set of amide protons, both in vitro and in vivo.
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
is widely used for in vivo applications, due to its
safety, spatial resolution, soft tissue contrast, and hence, clinical
relevance. Notably, MRI-responsive contrast agents (CAs) add important
physiological information, complementing routine anatomical images.
In the past decade a new class of CAs has emerged that exploits the
chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST) mechanism, enabling detection
of dilute solutes.[1−3] Briefly, following selective radio frequency (RF)
irradiation, mobile solute protons are saturated and exchange with
surrounding water molecules. This saturation transfer results in a
decrease of bulk water signal, hence CEST-MRI contrast.[4−6]Responsive agents capable of reporting physicochemical properties
of diagnostic interest of the microenvironment in which the contrast
agent distributes (such as pH, temperature, metabolites, ions, proteins,
or enzymes) have gained tremendous attention.[7−18] Notably, concentration-independent CEST agents are needed to minimize
the confounding effect of unknown and often heterogeneous distribution
of contrast agent, facilitating in vivo imaging.
This has been achieved by ratiometric CEST MRI of agents with multiple
magnetically non-equivalent protons, whose CEST effects, upon ratioing,
constitute the response to the physicochemical parameters of interest
independent of contrast agent concentration.[19] However, because ratiometric CEST MRI requires selective saturation
of multiple labile groups, the chemical shift separation needs to
be relatively large.[6] In addition, because
the chemical shift separation between labile proton resonances in
Hz scales with magnetic field, ratiometric CEST imaging is particularly
challenging at low field due to the small chemical shift difference.
Thus, development of novel means of imaging of responsive CEST agents in vivo is urgently needed.[20]Iobitridol is a widely used X-ray non-ionic contrast agent,
marketed
under the trade name Xenetix (Guerbert).[21] Iobitridol is a low-osmolar non-ionic molecule, which is not charged.
Hence, it should have negligible direct effects on pH measurement.
Iobitridol possesses a single amide group, 5.6 ppm downfield from
the bulk water resonance (set at 0 ppm by convention, Figure 1a).
Figure 1
(a) Iobitridol chemical structure with a single amide
proton group.
(b) CEST spectra of 30 mM iobitridol solution at pH of 5.5 (solid
line), 6.0 (dashed line), and 7.0 (dotted line). The reduction in
MRI signal from bulk water signal upon selective irradiation at 5.6
ppm is pH sensitive (RF saturation power = 3 μT × 5 s, T = 310 K, Bo = 7 T). (c) Numerically
solved pH-dependent chemical exchange rate for labile protons at 5.6
ppm.
(a) Iobitridol chemical structure with a single amide
proton group.
(b) CEST spectra of 30 mM iobitridol solution at pH of 5.5 (solid
line), 6.0 (dashed line), and 7.0 (dotted line). The reduction in
MRI signal from bulk water signal upon selective irradiation at 5.6
ppm is pH sensitive (RF saturation power = 3 μT × 5 s, T = 310 K, Bo = 7 T). (c) Numerically
solved pH-dependent chemical exchange rate for labile protons at 5.6
ppm.The CEST properties of iobitridol
were examined at different pH
(30 mM iobitridol in PBS solution, 37 °C and B0 =
7T). Z-spectra (Figure 1b) represent the water
proton signal plotted as a function of saturation frequency, where S0 is the control water signal without RF saturation
and Ssat is the signal after saturation
at a given offset. Figure 1b shows that the
iobitridol amide CEST effect (5.6 ppm) is indeed pH sensitive. The
CEST contrast (saturation transfer, ST) is calculated by asymmetry
analysis, ST = (S–Δω – SΔω)/S0 where S–Δω and SΔω are reference and label signals
with RF saturation applied at −Δω and Δω,
respectively, and Δω is the labile proton frequency shift
from the water resonance (i.e., 5.6 ppm for iobitridol). The iobitridolamide proton exchange rate (kex) was determined
by simultaneously fitting Z-spectra from 3 to 8 ppm, obtained under B1 power levels of 1.5 and 3 μT, within
the pH range 5.5–7.0 (Figure S1a,b).[22]kex was
found to be 265, 550, 1481, 2640, and 4820 Hz for pH of 5.5, 6.0,
6.3, 6.7, and 7.0, respectively. The exchange rate can be reasonably
described using a dominantly base-catalyzed exchange regime equation
(i.e., kex = k0 + kb × 10pH-pkw), and we found kex = 0.96 × 10pH–3.3 for amide protons at 5.6 ppm (Figure 1c), similar to the 2-hydrooxypropanamido proton
of iopamidol.It has been shown that the saturation efficiency
for mobile solutes
can be approximately described by α ≈ ω12/(ω12 + kex2), where ω1 is the RF irradiation
power in radian (ω1 = γB1).[23] The experimentally obtainable
CEST effect depends on both RF power and kex, hence, pH.[24] We measured iobitridol
CEST MRI for a range of pH levels under three saturation power levels
(1.5, 3, and 6 μT). The iobitridol CEST effect is strongly pH-dependent,
as expected (Figure 2). For example, the CEST
effect increased from pH of 5.5 to 6.7 and then decreased at higher
pH for a saturation power of 3 μT. We showed that the peak ST
increases and shifts to higher pH with RF power. The observation of B1-dependent CEST measurement enables a novel
ratiometric calculation by comparing ST effects obtained under different
(two or more) RF irradiation powers from a single labile proton group.
Consequently, we propose a new ratiometric index (dubbed ratio of
RF power mismatch or RPM) according to eq 1:where STRF1,2 represents ST obtained
under different RF power levels (i.e., B1). The proposed RPM was calculated as a function of pH (Figure 2b). For instance, by ratioing the ST effects between
RF power levels of 3 and 6 μT, RPM showed a good pH response
for pH from 6.0 to 7.4. Moreover, RPM calculated from RF power levels
of 1.5 μT over 6 μT provided substantially higher pH sensitivity
and range, from 5.5 to 7.4.
Figure 2
(a) Iobitridol MRI-CEST contrast (ST%) depends
on pH at three representative
RF saturation powers 1.5 (circles), 3 (squares), and 6 μT (triangles)
measured at 7 T, 310 K and an irradiation time of 5 s. (b) RPM curves
provide pH-sensitive measurements: 3/6 μT (triangles) and 1.5/6
μT (squares).
(a) Iobitridol MRI-CEST contrast (ST%) depends
on pH at three representative
RF saturation powers 1.5 (circles), 3 (squares), and 6 μT (triangles)
measured at 7 T, 310 K and an irradiation time of 5 s. (b) RPM curves
provide pH-sensitive measurements: 3/6 μT (triangles) and 1.5/6
μT (squares).The proposed RF power-based
ratiometric analysis was validated in vitro. Accurate
iobitridol solution pH (Figure 3d) was determined
according to the pH–RPM
calibration curve (1.5/6 μT). pH determined from iobitridol
CEST MRI strongly correlates with pH-meter measurement (R2 = 0.98, P < 0.001, Figure 3e). Similar pH determination was achieved with CEST
measurements of 3 and 6 μT (R2 =
0.97, P < 0.001, Figure S2).
Figure 3
CEST-MR images of 30 mM iobitridol solution titrated at different
pH values (5.5, 6.0, 6.3, 6.7, 7.0, 7.4, 7.9). ST images obtained
upon irradiation with RF saturation levels of 1.5 μT (a) and
of 6 μT (b). (c) Ratiometric RPM map calculated by using eq 1 from the ratio of the corresponding ST images (a
and b). (d) The pH map calculated from the ratiometric map and the
calibration curve of Figure 2b; and (e) pH
calculated vs pH titrated for 30 mM iobitridol phantoms, R2 = 0.98 (Bo = 7 T, 310 K).
CEST-MR images of 30 mM iobitridol solution titrated at different
pH values (5.5, 6.0, 6.3, 6.7, 7.0, 7.4, 7.9). ST images obtained
upon irradiation with RF saturation levels of 1.5 μT (a) and
of 6 μT (b). (c) Ratiometric RPM map calculated by using eq 1 from the ratio of the corresponding ST images (a
and b). (d) The pH map calculated from the ratiometric map and the
calibration curve of Figure 2b; and (e) pH
calculated vs pH titrated for 30 mM iobitridol phantoms, R2 = 0.98 (Bo = 7 T, 310 K).It should be noted that, although
RPM depends on pH and choice
of B1 power levels, it does not depend
on CEST agent concentration. This is important in order to exploit
a MRI-CEST responsive agent for in vivo applications.
We prepared an iobitridol phantom at different concentrations in the
range 10–50 mM, with pH titrated to 6.6 and 7.2 (Figure 4). Accurate pH values were obtained within the error
limit of 0.1 pH unit for all concentrations and pH values investigated
in our study (Figure 4b,c). Concentration-independent
pH was determined for RPM analysis of both the RF power ratios of
1.5/6 μT and 3/6 μT (Figure 4d,e).
Figure 4
RPM pH mapping is independent of iobitridol
concentration. (a)
Iobitridol-containing phantoms at different concentrations (10–50
mM) and pH values (6.6 and 7.2). MRI-CEST pH maps calculated by exploiting
the RPM approach with RF irradiation powers of 1.5/6 μT (b)
and of 3/6 μT (c). Mean pH values calculated for several concentrations
upon ratioing 1.5/6 μT (d) and of 3/6 μT (e).
We evaluated the proposed RPM pH imaging in vivo. Kidney ST images (Figure 5b,c) of a wild-type
BALB/c mouse were obtained (B1 = 1.5 and
6 μT) before and 15 min after intravenous injection of iobitridol,
at a typical clinical dose (1.5 g I/kg b.w.). ST maps were calculated
by taking the difference between post- and pre-injection ST maps at
5.6 ppm, which removes confounding endogenous CEST effects (Figure S5).
Figure 5
Renal CEST-MRI following iobitridol i.v.
injection (1.5 g I/kg
b.w.). (a) T2w renal MRI. CEST ST difference map between
pre-/post-injection at 1.5 μT (b) and 6 μT (c). (d) The
pH map determined from RF power-based ratiometric pH imaging. Only
kidney signal displayed in color on grayscale image to highlight effects.
RPM pH mapping is independent of iobitridol
concentration. (a)
Iobitridol-containing phantoms at different concentrations (10–50
mM) and pH values (6.6 and 7.2). MRI-CEST pH maps calculated by exploiting
the RPM approach with RF irradiation powers of 1.5/6 μT (b)
and of 3/6 μT (c). Mean pH values calculated for several concentrations
upon ratioing 1.5/6 μT (d) and of 3/6 μT (e).Mean renal pH values between 6.4 and 6.6 were obtained,
with reasonable
differentiation of the calyx-inner medulla and outer medulla-cortical
regions (Figure 5d). In our prior study the
average pH, in the same regions, varied between 6.5 and 6.7 in healthy
mice.[28] Because both ratiometric pH MRI
methods (iopamidol and iobitridol) have an accuracy level of about
∼0.1–0.15 units, the two sets of pH measurements appears
within the experimental error.Renal CEST-MRI following iobitridol i.v.
injection (1.5 g I/kg
b.w.). (a) T2w renal MRI. CEST ST difference map between
pre-/post-injection at 1.5 μT (b) and 6 μT (c). (d) The
pH map determined from RF power-based ratiometric pH imaging. Only
kidney signal displayed in color on grayscale image to highlight effects.To further confirm this issue, in vivo validation
of pH MRI was performed by comparing pH obtained with the proposed
method with that obtained with previously published iopamidol pH mapping.
A significant correlation was found between the two methods (Pearsons’ r = 0.90, p < 0.01), and no statistical
difference in the measured pH values was obtained between the two
methods (Figure S4).We further investigated
the proposed pH MRI method in imaging extracellular
pH in tumors. A xenograft breast tumormouse model was prepared by
subcutaneous injection of 250,000 adenocarcinoma TSA tumor cells into
both the left and right flank of a 8 weeks old BALB/c mouse.[25] The mouse underwent MRI 14 days after tumor
implantation, when tumor size reached a diameter of ∼4–6
mm. We acquired CEST images at two RF power levels (1.5 and 6.0 μT)
before and 15 min after iobitridol injection (4 g I/kg, i.v.). ST
difference maps increased by about 2–3% (B1 = 1.5 μT, Figures 6b and S6c) and 6–8% (B1 = 6 μT, Figures 6c and S6d). The ST difference map highlights the extravasation
of iobitridol, indicating the highly heterogeneous extracellular–extravascular
space of the tumor.[26] Inside tumor regions
we observed heterogeneous detectability of the molecule, likely due
to vascularization/extravasation variation within the tumor. A similar
limited extravasation was observed when using ProHance, a Gd-based
agent with equivalent small molecular weight (Figure S7). An extracellular tumor pH of 6.4–6.8 was
measured (Figure 6d).
Figure 6
CEST-MR images of xenografted-tumor
bearing mouse following iobitridol
i.v. injection (dose 4 g I/kg b.w.). (a) T2w anatomical
image with ROIs including the two tumors; CEST contrast difference
map between pre- and post-injection following RF irradiation at 1.5
μT (b) and at 6 μT (c). (d) Corresponding pH map obtained
upon ratioing the difference ST maps of (b and c). Only tumor signal
displayed in color on grayscale image to highlight effects.
CEST-MR images of xenografted-tumor
bearing mouse following iobitridol
i.v. injection (dose 4 g I/kg b.w.). (a) T2w anatomical
image with ROIs including the two tumors; CEST contrast difference
map between pre- and post-injection following RF irradiation at 1.5
μT (b) and at 6 μT (c). (d) Corresponding pH map obtained
upon ratioing the difference ST maps of (b and c). Only tumor signal
displayed in color on grayscale image to highlight effects.This study demonstrates a concentration-independent
pH imaging
method that advances conventional ratiometric pH MRI. Previously,
such measurement required CEST agents with multiple magnetically non-equivalent
proton pools, such as iopamidol and iopromide, with two labile proton
pools resonating at 4.2/4.3 ppm and 5.5/5.6 ppm, respectively, or
paramagnetic CEST agents, irradiated with the same RF power.[27−29] The method proposed herein exploits a novel approach to RF power
level-based ratiometric analysis that extends ratiometric imaging
to CEST agents with at least one exchangeable site. The proposed pH
MRI was further tested by measuring pH with iobitridol concentration
ranging from 10 to 50 mM. Indeed, pH determination was within pH of
0.1 (Figure 4d,e), confirming that the proposed
method provides concentration-independent pH measurement.The
proposed iobitridol pH MRI method covers a broad pH range,
slightly higher than that achieved with conventional ratiometric pH
MRI.[9,30,31] We calculated
the difference of the ratiometric values between the pH values of
6.0 and 7.4 (ΔRpH) to assess pH
sensitivity and found ΔRpH to be
3.1, 2.8, and 1.1 for iopamidol, iopromide, and YbHPDO3A, respectively,
while the proposed iobitridol pH MRI method yielded ΔRpH of 2.7 (3/6 μT) and 11.6 (1.5/6 μT, Figure S3).Further study is needed to
optimize this new pH MRI method. Our
study investigated typical RF power levels of 1.5, 3, and 6 μT,
which could be further investigated for enhanced pH sensitivity.[32,33] Whereas only one Z-spectrum is needed to derive pH from conventional
ratiometric pH MRI, our approach requires two Z-spectra. Whereas contrast
agent concentration change between two Z-spectra may affect pH determination in vivo, we observed that small concentration difference
due to washout does not significantly affect pH measurement (Figure S8). Because the chemical shift difference
between water and labile protons (e.g., 5.6 ppm for iobitridol) is
much larger than chemical shift difference between labile groups (e.g.,
1.2 ppm for iopamidol), the proposed approach should be more applicable
at lower field strength.Thus, the proposed RF power-based ratiometric
pH MRI method extends
conventional ratiometric pH MRI, enhances pH sensitivity, and is promising
to facilitate in vivo pH imaging.[34] Importantly, iobitridol has been approved for human use,
and the possibility of imaging iodinated X-ray contrast media as MRI-CEST
agents in patient has been recently reported.[35] In conclusion, our study generalizes conventional ratiometric CEST-MRI
and is promising for a host of molecular imaging applications.
Authors: Guanshu Liu; Yajie Liang; Amnon Bar-Shir; Kannie W Y Chan; Chulani S Galpoththawela; Segun M Bernard; Terence Tse; Nirbhay N Yadav; Piotr Walczak; Michael T McMahon; Jeff W M Bulte; Peter C M van Zijl; Assaf A Gilad Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2011-09-23 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Kannie W Y Chan; Michael T McMahon; Yoshinori Kato; Guanshu Liu; Jeff W M Bulte; Zaver M Bhujwalla; Dmitri Artemov; Peter C M van Zijl Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2012-10-16 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Amnon Bar-Shir; Guanshu Liu; Yajie Liang; Nirbhay N Yadav; Michael T McMahon; Piotr Walczak; Sridhar Nimmagadda; Martin G Pomper; Keri A Tallman; Marc M Greenberg; Peter C M van Zijl; Jeff W M Bulte; Assaf A Gilad Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2013-01-16 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Yunkou Wu; Shanrong Zhang; Todd C Soesbe; Jing Yu; Elena Vinogradov; Robert E Lenkinski; A Dean Sherry Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2015-07-14 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Or Perlman; Kai Herz; Moritz Zaiss; Ouri Cohen; Matthew S Rosen; Christian T Farrar Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2019-08-09 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: S James Ratnakar; Sara Chirayil; Alexander M Funk; Shanrong Zhang; João F Queiró; Carlos F G C Geraldes; Zoltan Kovacs; A Dean Sherry Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2020-10-06 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Ouri Cohen; Shuning Huang; Michael T McMahon; Matthew S Rosen; Christian T Farrar Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-05-13 Impact factor: 4.668