Hua Li1,2, Xiaoyu Jiang1,2, Jingping Xie1,2, John C Gore1,2,3,4,5,6, Junzhong Xu1,2,3,4,6. 1. Institute of Imaging Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. 2. Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. 3. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. 4. Department of Physics and Astronomy, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. 5. Department of Molecular Physiology and Biophysics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. 6. Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the influence of transcytolemmal water exchange on estimates of tissue microstructural parameters derived from diffusion MRI using conventional PGSE and IMPULSED methods. METHODS: Computer simulations were performed to incorporate a broad range of intracellular water life times τin (50-∞ ms), cell diameters d (5-15 μm), and intrinsic diffusion coefficient Din (0.6-2 μm2 /ms) for different values of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) (10 to 50). For experiments, murine erythroleukemia (MEL) cancer cells were cultured and treated with saponin to selectively change cell membrane permeability. All fitted microstructural parameters from simulations and experiments in vitro were compared with ground-truth values. RESULTS: Simulations showed that, for both PGSE and IMPULSED methods, cell diameter d can be reliably fit with sufficient SNR (≥ 50), whereas intracellular volume fraction fin is intrinsically underestimated due to transcytolemmal water exchange. Din can be reliably fit only with sufficient SNR and using the IMPULSED method with short diffusion times. These results were confirmed with those obtained in the cell culture experiments in vitro. CONCLUSION: For the sequences and models considered in this study, transcytolemmal water exchange has minor effects on the fittings of d and Din with physiologically relevant membrane permeabilities if the SNR is sufficient (> 50), but fin is intrinsically underestimated. Magn Reson Med 77:2239-2249, 2017.
PURPOSE: To investigate the influence of transcytolemmal water exchange on estimates of tissue microstructural parameters derived from diffusion MRI using conventional PGSE and IMPULSED methods. METHODS: Computer simulations were performed to incorporate a broad range of intracellular water life times τin (50-∞ ms), cell diameters d (5-15 μm), and intrinsic diffusion coefficient Din (0.6-2 μm2 /ms) for different values of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) (10 to 50). For experiments, murineerythroleukemia (MEL) cancer cells were cultured and treated with saponin to selectively change cell membrane permeability. All fitted microstructural parameters from simulations and experiments in vitro were compared with ground-truth values. RESULTS: Simulations showed that, for both PGSE and IMPULSED methods, cell diameter d can be reliably fit with sufficient SNR (≥ 50), whereas intracellular volume fraction fin is intrinsically underestimated due to transcytolemmal water exchange. Din can be reliably fit only with sufficient SNR and using the IMPULSED method with short diffusion times. These results were confirmed with those obtained in the cell culture experiments in vitro. CONCLUSION: For the sequences and models considered in this study, transcytolemmal water exchange has minor effects on the fittings of d and Din with physiologically relevant membrane permeabilities if the SNR is sufficient (> 50), but fin is intrinsically underestimated. Magn Reson Med 77:2239-2249, 2017.
Authors: K Setsompop; R Kimmlingen; E Eberlein; T Witzel; J Cohen-Adad; J A McNab; B Keil; M D Tisdall; P Hoecht; P Dietz; S F Cauley; V Tountcheva; V Matschl; V H Lenz; K Heberlein; A Potthast; H Thein; J Van Horn; A Toga; F Schmitt; D Lehne; B R Rosen; V Wedeen; L L Wald Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2013-05-24 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Daniel C Colvin; Jerome Jourquin; Junzhong Xu; Mark D Does; Lourdes Estrada; John C Gore Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2010-11-03 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Markus Nilsson; Jimmy Lätt; Danielle van Westen; Sara Brockstedt; Samo Lasič; Freddy Ståhlberg; Daniel Topgaard Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2012-07-26 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Eletheria Panagiotaki; Simon Walker-Samuel; Bernard Siow; S Peter Johnson; Vineeth Rajkumar; R Barbara Pedley; Mark F Lythgoe; Daniel C Alexander Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2014-02-03 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Junzhong Xu; Xiaoyu Jiang; Hua Li; Lori R Arlinghaus; Eliot T McKinley; Sean P Devan; Benjamin M Hardy; Jingping Xie; Hakmook Kang; A Bapsi Chakravarthy; John C Gore Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2019-11-25 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Donghan M Yang; James E Huettner; G Larry Bretthorst; Jeffrey J Neil; Joel R Garbow; Joseph J H Ackerman Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-07-04 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Jin Zhang; Gregory Lemberskiy; Linda Moy; Els Fieremans; Dmitry S Novikov; Sungheon Gene Kim Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2021-02-25 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Junzhong Xu; Xiaoyu Jiang; Sean P Devan; Lori R Arlinghaus; Eliot T McKinley; Jingping Xie; Zhongliang Zu; Qing Wang; A Bapsi Chakravarthy; Yong Wang; John C Gore Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2020-09-16 Impact factor: 4.668