OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate the overlap of the hepatic and bile phosphorus ((31)P) magnetic resonance (MR) spectra and provide evidence of phosphatidylcholine (PtdC) contribution to the in vivo hepatic (31)P MRS phosphodiester (PDE) signal, suggested in previous reports to be phosphoenolpyruvate (PEP). METHODS: Phantom measurements to assess the chemical shifts of PEP and PtdC signals were performed at 7 T. A retrospective analysis of hepatic 3D (31)P MR spectroscopic imaging (MRSI) data from 18 and five volunteers at 3 T and 7 T, respectively, was performed. Axial images were inspected for the presence of gallbladder, and PDE signals in representative spectra were quantified. RESULTS: Phantom experiments demonstrated the strong pH-dependence of the PEP chemical shift and proved the overlap of PtdC and PEP (~2 ppm relative to phosphocreatine) at hepatic pH. Gallbladder was covered in seven of 23 in vivo 3D-MRSI datasets. The PDE(gall)/γ-ATP(liver) ratio was 4.8-fold higher (p = 0.001) in the gallbladder (PDE(gall)/γ-ATP(liver) = 3.61 ± 0.79) than in the liver (PDE(liver)/γ-ATP(liver) = 0.75 ± 0.15). In vivo 7 T (31)P MRSI allowed good separation of PDE components. The gallbladder is a strong source of contamination in adjacent (31)P MR hepatic spectra due to biliary phosphatidylcholine. CONCLUSIONS: In vivo (31)P MR hepatic signal at 2.06 ppm may represent both phosphatidylcholine and phosphoenolpyruvate, with a higher phosphatidylcholine contribution due to its higher concentration. KEY POINTS: • In vivo (31)P MRS from the gallbladder shows a dominant biliary phosphatidylcholine signal at 2.06 ppm. • Intrahepatic (31)P MRS signal at 2.06 ppm may represent both intrahepatic phosphatidylcholine and phosphoenolpyruvate. • In vivo (31)P MRS has the potential to monitor hepatic phosphatidylcholine.
OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate the overlap of the hepatic and bile phosphorus ((31)P) magnetic resonance (MR) spectra and provide evidence of phosphatidylcholine (PtdC) contribution to the in vivo hepatic (31)P MRS phosphodiester (PDE) signal, suggested in previous reports to be phosphoenolpyruvate (PEP). METHODS: Phantom measurements to assess the chemical shifts of PEP and PtdC signals were performed at 7 T. A retrospective analysis of hepatic 3D (31)P MR spectroscopic imaging (MRSI) data from 18 and five volunteers at 3 T and 7 T, respectively, was performed. Axial images were inspected for the presence of gallbladder, and PDE signals in representative spectra were quantified. RESULTS: Phantom experiments demonstrated the strong pH-dependence of the PEP chemical shift and proved the overlap of PtdC and PEP (~2 ppm relative to phosphocreatine) at hepatic pH. Gallbladder was covered in seven of 23 in vivo 3D-MRSI datasets. The PDE(gall)/γ-ATP(liver) ratio was 4.8-fold higher (p = 0.001) in the gallbladder (PDE(gall)/γ-ATP(liver) = 3.61 ± 0.79) than in the liver (PDE(liver)/γ-ATP(liver) = 0.75 ± 0.15). In vivo 7 T (31)P MRSI allowed good separation of PDE components. The gallbladder is a strong source of contamination in adjacent (31)P MR hepatic spectra due to biliary phosphatidylcholine. CONCLUSIONS: In vivo (31)P MR hepatic signal at 2.06 ppm may represent both phosphatidylcholine and phosphoenolpyruvate, with a higher phosphatidylcholine contribution due to its higher concentration. KEY POINTS: • In vivo (31)P MRS from the gallbladder shows a dominant biliary phosphatidylcholine signal at 2.06 ppm. • Intrahepatic (31)P MRS signal at 2.06 ppm may represent both intrahepatic phosphatidylcholine and phosphoenolpyruvate. • In vivo (31)P MRS has the potential to monitor hepatic phosphatidylcholine.
Authors: P C Dagnelie; D K Menon; I J Cox; J D Bell; J Sargentoni; G A Coutts; J Urenjak; R A Iles Journal: Clin Sci (Lond) Date: 1992-08 Impact factor: 6.124
Authors: Marek Chmelik; Michal Považan; Martin Krššák; Stephan Gruber; Martin Tkačov; Siegfried Trattnig; Wolfgang Bogner Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2014-02-24 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Shahid A Khan; I Jane Cox; Andrew V Thillainayagam; Devinder S Bansi; Howard C Thomas; Simon D Taylor-Robinson Journal: Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 2.566
Authors: Marzena Wylezinska; Jeremy F L Cobbold; Julie Fitzpatrick; Mark J W McPhail; Mary M E Crossey; Howard C Thomas; Joseph V Hajnal; William Vennart; I Jane Cox; Simon D Taylor-Robinson Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2010-10-15 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: D K Menon; J Sargentoni; S D Taylor-Robinson; J D Bell; I J Cox; D J Bryant; G A Coutts; K Rolles; A K Burroughs; M Y Morgan Journal: Hepatology Date: 1995-02 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: S D Taylor-Robinson; J Sargentoni; J D Bell; N Saeed; K K Changani; B R Davidson; K Rolles; A K Burroughs; H J Hodgson; C S Foster; I J Cox Journal: Liver Date: 1997-08
Authors: Benoit Schaller; William T Clarke; Stefan Neubauer; Matthew D Robson; Christopher T Rodgers Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2015-04-28 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Lucian A B Purvis; William T Clarke; Ladislav Valkovič; Christina Levick; Michael Pavlides; Eleanor Barnes; Jeremy F Cobbold; Matthew D Robson; Christopher T Rodgers Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-02-28 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Diêgo Dos Santos Ferreira; Samilla Dornelas Faria; Sávia Caldeira de Araújo Lopes; Cláudia Salviano Teixeira; Angelo Malachias; Rogério Magalhães-Paniago; José Dias de Souza Filho; Bruno Luis de Jesus Pinto Oliveira; Alexander Ramos Guimarães; Peter Caravan; Lucas Antônio Miranda Ferreira; Ricardo José Alves; Mônica Cristina Oliveira Journal: Int J Nanomedicine Date: 2016-08-09
Authors: Lorenz Pfleger; Martin Gajdošík; Peter Wolf; Sabina Smajis; Paul Fellinger; Andre Kuehne; Patrik Krumpolec; Siegfried Trattnig; Yvonne Winhofer; Michael Krebs; Martin Krššák; Marek Chmelík Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-10-06 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Petr Sedivy; Tereza Dusilova; Milan Hajek; Martin Burian; Martin Krššák; Monika Dezortova Journal: Molecules Date: 2021-12-14 Impact factor: 4.411