Dong-Hoon Lee1, Hye-Young Heo1, Kai Zhang1, Yi Zhang1, Shanshan Jiang1, Xuna Zhao1, Jinyuan Zhou1,2. 1. Division of MR Research, Dept. of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 2. F.M. Kirby Research Center for Functional Brain Imaging, Kennedy Krieger Institute, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To quantify pure chemical exchange-dependent saturation transfer (CEST) related amide proton transfer (APT) and nuclear Overhauser enhancement (NOE) signals in a rat glioma model and to investigate the mixed effects of water content and water T1 on APT and NOE imaging signals. METHODS: Eleven U87 tumor-bearing rats were scanned at 4.7 T. A relatively accurate mathematical approach, based on extrapolated semisolid magnetization-transfer reference signals, was used to remove the concurrent effects of direct water saturation and semisolid magnetization-transfer. Pure APT and NOE signals, in addition to the commonly used magnetization-transfer-ratio asymmetry at 3.5 ppm, MTRasym (3.5ppm), were assessed. RESULTS: The measured APT signal intensity of the tumor (11.06%, much larger than the value reported in the literature) was the major contributor (approximately 80.6%) to the MTRasym (3.5ppm) contrast between the tumor and the contralateral brain region. Both the water content ([water proton]) and water T1 (T1w ) were increased in the tumor, but there were no significant correlations among APT, NOE, or MTRasym (3.5ppm) signals and T1w /[water proton]. CONCLUSION: The effect of increasing T1w on the CEST signal in the tumor was mostly eliminated by the effect of increasing water content, and the observed APT-weighted hyperintensity in the tumor should be dominated by the increased amide proton concentration. Magn Reson Med 77:855-863, 2017.
PURPOSE: To quantify pure chemical exchange-dependent saturation transfer (CEST) related amide proton transfer (APT) and nuclear Overhauser enhancement (NOE) signals in a ratglioma model and to investigate the mixed effects of water content and waterT1 on APT and NOE imaging signals. METHODS: Eleven U87tumor-bearing rats were scanned at 4.7 T. A relatively accurate mathematical approach, based on extrapolated semisolid magnetization-transfer reference signals, was used to remove the concurrent effects of direct water saturation and semisolid magnetization-transfer. Pure APT and NOE signals, in addition to the commonly used magnetization-transfer-ratio asymmetry at 3.5 ppm, MTRasym (3.5ppm), were assessed. RESULTS: The measured APT signal intensity of the tumor (11.06%, much larger than the value reported in the literature) was the major contributor (approximately 80.6%) to the MTRasym (3.5ppm) contrast between the tumor and the contralateral brain region. Both the water content ([water proton]) and waterT1 (T1w ) were increased in the tumor, but there were no significant correlations among APT, NOE, or MTRasym (3.5ppm) signals and T1w /[water proton]. CONCLUSION: The effect of increasing T1w on the CEST signal in the tumor was mostly eliminated by the effect of increasing water content, and the observed APT-weighted hyperintensity in the tumor should be dominated by the increased amide proton concentration. Magn Reson Med 77:855-863, 2017.
Authors: Craig K Jones; Michael J Schlosser; Peter C M van Zijl; Martin G Pomper; Xavier Golay; Jinyuan Zhou Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Adrienne N Dula; Lori R Arlinghaus; Richard D Dortch; Blake E Dewey; Jennifer G Whisenant; Gregory D Ayers; Thomas E Yankeelov; Seth A Smith Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2012-08-20 Impact factor: 4.668
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: Craig K Jones; Alan Huang; Jiadi Xu; Richard A E Edden; Michael Schär; Jun Hua; Nikita Oskolkov; Domenico Zacà; Jinyuan Zhou; Michael T McMahon; Jay J Pillai; Peter C M van Zijl Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2013-04-06 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Hye-Young Heo; Yi Zhang; Tina M Burton; Shanshan Jiang; Yansong Zhao; Peter C M van Zijl; Richard Leigh; Jinyuan Zhou Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-06-21 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Shanshan Jiang; Tianyu Zou; Charles G Eberhart; Maria A V Villalobos; Hye-Young Heo; Yi Zhang; Yu Wang; Xianlong Wang; Hao Yu; Yongxing Du; Peter C M van Zijl; Zhibo Wen; Jinyuan Zhou Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-07-16 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Robert J Harris; Jingwen Yao; Ararat Chakhoyan; Catalina Raymond; Kevin Leu; Linda M Liau; Phioanh L Nghiemphu; Albert Lai; Noriko Salamon; Whitney B Pope; Timothy F Cloughesy; Benjamin M Ellingson Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-04-06 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Eugene C Lin; Hua Li; Zhongliang Zu; Elizabeth A Louie; Christopher L Lankford; Richard D Dortch; Mark D Does; John C Gore; Daniel F Gochberg Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-05-25 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Xiao-Yong Zhang; Feng Wang; Hua Li; Junzhong Xu; Daniel F Gochberg; John C Gore; Zhongliang Zu Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2017-03-08 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Samantha By; Robert L Barry; Alex K Smith; Bailey D Lyttle; Bailey A Box; Francesca R Bagnato; Siddharama Pawate; Seth A Smith Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-05-05 Impact factor: 4.668