An open-source hyperpolarizer producing (13)C hyperpolarized contrast agents using parahydrogen induced polarization (PHIP) for biomedical and other applications is presented. This PHIP hyperpolarizer utilizes an Arduino microcontroller in conjunction with a readily modified graphical user interface written in the open-source processing software environment to completely control the PHIP hyperpolarization process including remotely triggering an NMR spectrometer for efficient production of payloads of hyperpolarized contrast agent and in situ quality assurance of the produced hyperpolarization. Key advantages of this hyperpolarizer include: (i) use of open-source software and hardware seamlessly allowing for replication and further improvement as well as readily customizable integration with other NMR spectrometers or MRI scanners (i.e., this is a multiplatform design), (ii) relatively low cost and robustness, and (iii) in situ detection capability and complete automation. The device performance is demonstrated by production of a dose (∼2-3 mL) of hyperpolarized (13)C-succinate with %P13C ∼ 28% and 30 mM concentration and (13)C-phospholactate at %P13C ∼ 15% and 25 mM concentration in aqueous medium. These contrast agents are used for ultrafast molecular imaging and spectroscopy at 4.7 and 0.0475 T. In particular, the conversion of hyperpolarized (13)C-phospholactate to (13)C-lactate in vivo is used here to demonstrate the feasibility of ultrafast multislice (13)C MRI after tail vein injection of hyperpolarized (13)C-phospholactate in mice.
An open-source hyperpolarizer producing (13)C hyperpolarized contrast agents using parahydrogen induced polarization (PHIP) for biomedical and other applications is presented. This PHIP hyperpolarizer utilizes an Arduino microcontroller in conjunction with a readily modified graphical user interface written in the open-source processing software environment to completely control the PHIP hyperpolarization process including remotely triggering an NMR spectrometer for efficient production of payloads of hyperpolarized contrast agent and in situ quality assurance of the produced hyperpolarization. Key advantages of this hyperpolarizer include: (i) use of open-source software and hardware seamlessly allowing for replication and further improvement as well as readily customizable integration with other NMR spectrometers or MRI scanners (i.e., this is a multiplatform design), (ii) relatively low cost and robustness, and (iii) in situ detection capability and complete automation. The device performance is demonstrated by production of a dose (∼2-3 mL) of hyperpolarized (13)C-succinate with %P13C ∼ 28% and 30 mM concentration and (13)C-phospholactate at %P13C ∼ 15% and 25 mM concentration in aqueous medium. These contrast agents are used for ultrafast molecular imaging and spectroscopy at 4.7 and 0.0475 T. In particular, the conversion of hyperpolarized (13)C-phospholactate to (13)C-lactate in vivo is used here to demonstrate the feasibility of ultrafast multislice (13)C MRI after tail vein injection of hyperpolarized (13)C-phospholactate in mice.
Nuclear spin
polarization (P) can be increased by orders of magnitude
compared to the
equilibrium thermal polarization level induced by a magnetic field
through a process denoted as hyperpolarization.[1,2] While
the hyperpolarized (HP) state is temporary in nature with exponential
decay time constants on the order of seconds to tens of minutes,[3,4] HP biomolecules have been successfully used as metabolic contrast
agents.[5,6] Once injected in living organisms at sufficient
quantity and high polarization, these HP contrast agents (HCA) can
serve as quantitative imaging biomarkers reporting on abnormal metabolism
in cancer, heart diseases, and other diseases.[7−10]Several hyperpolarization
techniques exist, but only dissolution
dynamic nuclear polarization (d-DNP)[11] and
parahydrogen induced polarization (PHIP)[12−14] methods have
been shown to be useful to date for producing liquid-state HCAs which
have shown promise in vivo.[7,15] D-DNP
is the most widely used hyperpolarization technique, where a source
of unpaired electrons is introduced to a biomolecule such as pyruvic
acid (commonly by mixing with a free radical), and the HP state of
nuclei is created by high-power microwave irradiation of electrons
at low temperature and high magnetic field; i.e., high Boltzmann polarization
of unpaired electrons is transferred to 13C1 carbon of pyruvic acid under microwave irradiation.[11] This process is highly efficient, and up to 70% 13C polarization levels can be achieved in as little as 20 min.[16] The d-DNP technique has been applied to a broad
range of molecules.[7,8,17] The
widespread accessibility of d-DNP beyond custom-built research platforms
was significantly enhanced by the introduction of commercial hyperpolarization
equipment suitable for preclinical trials of this technology in small
rodents[6,18−21] and, later, the introduction
of a sterile-path d-DNP hyperpolarizer intended for clinical use.[22] These technical developments for d-DNP ultimately
enabled the first clinical trial in 2013,[23] a remarkable achievement only 10 years after the first proof-of-principle
study.[11,24]Despite these advances, however, d-DNP
technology has yet to address
two major challenges: (i) the high cost of the device producing hyperpolarized
nuclear spin states (also denoted the “hyperpolarizer”) and, more importantly, (ii) the relatively slow speed of
the hyperpolarization process, varying from 0.3 to 2 h dependent on
the HCA choice.[16,25]PHIP provides an alternative
to d-DNP hyperpolarization, and it
is free from the above limitations. This technique relies on the high-speed,
pairwise addition of parahydrogen (para-H2) by a catalyst across an unsaturated carbon–carbon bond (C=C
or C≡C)[12−14] followed by polarization transfer from nascent protons
to longer-lived (i.e., with greater T1 time constant) 13C nucleus via the J-couplings.[5,26−29] As a result of this rapid catalysis,
HCA can be produced in seconds.[26−29] The requirement of a 13C labeled site
being adjacent to an unsaturated carbon–carbon bond with a
sufficiently strong J-coupling is the main drawback
of the PHIP hyperpolarization method, which has significantly slowed
down the progress of implementing this hyperpolarization technique
for metabolic imaging after its initial demonstration for 13C hyperpolarization of 2-hydroxyethyl propionate (HEP), useful for
angiographic applications,[27,28,30] although at least three other HP13C biomolecules have
been recently developed for PHIP hyperpolarization with sufficient
payloads of net magnetization suitable for biomedical applications:
succinate[31] for cancer imaging,[32] tetrafluoropropyl propionate[33,34] for atheroma imaging,[35] and phospholactate[36−38] for lactate imaging probing elevated glycolysis in cancer similarly
to HP pyruvate by DNP. As a result, commercial PHIP hyperpolarizers
(beyond prototype devices[30] produced by
Amersham Biosciences, Healthcare company) have never emerged, which
in turn further inhibited the adoption of PHIP for biomedical purposes.However, a recent (ca. 2015) introduction of PHIP using side arm
hydrogenation (PHIP-SAH)[29,39] significantly expanded
the reach of amenable biologically relevant molecules for PHIP. Importantly,
hyperpolarization of acetate and pyruvate is now feasible with PHIP-SAH,
and therefore, PHIP can potentially complement d-DNP. Moreover, we
have recently demonstrated an efficient and robust synthesis of biomolecular
precursors for PHIP-SAH hyperpolarization of 13C-acetate
and beyond.[40] Although the demonstrated P13C of ∼2% was relatively low by PHIP-SAH,
Reineri and co-workers noted that further %P13C improvement to ∼25% would require an efficient PHIP
hyperpolarizer device capable of fast para-H2 pairwise addition and efficient polarization transfer from
protons to 13C nuclei.[39]A few examples of PHIP hyperpolarizers and platforms have been
demonstrated over the years with mixed success. Early reports described
the first partially automated PHIP hyperpolarizer, based on a LabView
platform, but its performance was susceptible to external magnetic
field fluctuations, and it lacked in situ detection
capability.[41,42] The in situ detection
capability was later demonstrated in an automated 0.0475 T PHIP hyperpolarizer,
where control codes and timing delays embedded into the NMR spectrometer
pulse sequence provided a convenient means of controlling and sequencing
the radio frequency (RF) polarization transfer pulse sequence with
gas manifold events related to handling of liquids and gases: producing
an aliquot of precursor molecule, injecting it with para-H2 into a chemical reactor during 1H RF decoupling,
applying the RF pulse sequence, liquid ejection, etc.[43,44] Other recently reported designs of automated PHIP hyperpolarizers
were also based on custom LabView platforms and lacked the in situ detection capability.[45,46] This capability
is essential for quality assurance (QA) of the HCA prior to injection in vivo as well as for optimization of the hyperpolarizer
performance. For example, %P13C of only
1% was achieved by a design (lacking in situ detection
capability) presented by Wagner and co-workers.[45] It should also be noted that LabView-based PHIP hyperpolarizers
utilize custom (and typically proprietary) software, which is very
difficult for sharing among those wanting to replicate or build more
advanced variants of PHIP hyperpolarizers.While in
situ detection capability certainly advanced
the field of PHIP hyperpolarizers, the original demonstration was
based on a relatively expensive Halbach array permanent magnet,[43] and more importantly, the software controlling
auxiliary components (e.g., solenoid valves) were tied into the software
of the NMR spectrometer (i.e., preventing seamless multiplatform sharing
and adaptation). Furthermore, the spectrometer-based design has a
limited potential for integration of more complex sensors for process
control including pressure, temperature, etc. Such capability has
proven essential for feedback controls improving hyperpolarizer performance
and safety interlocks as demonstrated in automated 129Xe
hyperpolarizers.[47,48]Building on experience
constructing clinical-scale 129Xe spin-exchange optical
pumping (SEOP) hyperpolarizers,[47−51] here we present an open-source automated PHIP hyperpolarizer design
with significant advantages compared to previous PHIP hyperpolarizers.
The “brain” of the hyperpolarizer is an open-source
Arduino microcontroller (∼$30 USD), which provides complete
control of the device and permits integration with any NMR spectrometer
capable of applying a PHIP RF polarization transfer sequence. All
details of the design are provided in the main text and the Supporting Information, including all drawings
and part sources sufficient to replicate and customize this design.
The provided open-source PHIP hyperpolarizer software (Arduino microcontroller
code and a graphical user interface based on free and open-source
Processing software) readily enables future extension of the capabilities
of the presented polarizer design: e.g., integration of sensors, safety
interlocks, etc.[47,48] The device has a relatively low
cost and produces payloads of HCA sufficient for preclinical studies
in rodents. Having utilized this PHIP hyperpolarizer in conjunction
with a HyperBridge (a magnetized HP tracer transfer pathway) previously
used to show the potential for high-resolution molecular imaging studies,[52] here we demonstrate the efficacy of the presented
hyperpolarizer with an example of in vivo13C spectroscopy of HP 1-13C-succinate and pioneering in vivo imaging and spectroscopy of a previously reported
HCA/1-13C-phospholactate.[36,38]
Experimental
Methods
Overall Design of PHIP Hyperpolarizer
The design of
the PHIP hyperpolarizer is shown, and a listing of all the major components
is provided in Figure ; the graphical user interface (GUI) software windows are shown in Figure . Figure S1 and Tables S1 and S2 provide a detailed system diagram
and list the part numbers and source information for all commercially
available components and technical drawings of the custom-made components
of the PHIP hyperpolarizer, and further, the Supporting Information zip file also includes the GUI and PHIP microcontroller
programming code.
Figure 1
Schematic of the PHIP hyperpolarizer. The system consists
of the
following key elements: (a) a device frame, (b) NMR spectrometer and
RF amplifier(s), (c) thermoelectric cooled (TEC) manifold, (d) catalyst/precursor
containing bottle, (e) PHIP probe, (f) B0 magnet, (g) B0 magnet/RF probe cooling
fans, (h) interface to HyperBridge, (i) B0 magnet power supply unit (PSU), (j) controller unit, (k) solenoid
valves, (l) para-H2 tank, (m) propellant
inert gas tank, (n) power distribution unit, and (o) step-down pressure
regulator. The overall hyperpolarizer dimensions are ∼68 in.
(height) by ∼21 in. (depth) by 33 in. (width). See additional
details in the text and Supporting Information.
Figure 2
Screenshots of the Graphical User Interface
(GUI) software showing
two different modes of PHIP hyperpolarizer operation: (top) a preclinical
mode where device operation is simplified to “single-button”
operation; (bottom) research mode gaining access to a series of automated
protocols and manual control of manifold components.
Schematic of the PHIP hyperpolarizer. The system consists
of the
following key elements: (a) a device frame, (b) NMR spectrometer and
RF amplifier(s), (c) thermoelectric cooled (TEC) manifold, (d) catalyst/precursor
containing bottle, (e) PHIP probe, (f) B0 magnet, (g) B0 magnet/RF probe cooling
fans, (h) interface to HyperBridge, (i) B0 magnet power supply unit (PSU), (j) controller unit, (k) solenoid
valves, (l) para-H2 tank, (m) propellant
inert gas tank, (n) power distribution unit, and (o) step-down pressure
regulator. The overall hyperpolarizer dimensions are ∼68 in.
(height) by ∼21 in. (depth) by 33 in. (width). See additional
details in the text and Supporting Information.Screenshots of the Graphical User Interface
(GUI) software showing
two different modes of PHIP hyperpolarizer operation: (top) a preclinical
mode where device operation is simplified to “single-button”
operation; (bottom) research mode gaining access to a series of automated
protocols and manual control of manifold components.
Device Frame
The
device frame was designed using CAD
software (see Supporting Information for
further details in addition to Figure ), and the frame is made available as a part number
from MiniTec, Victor, NY (P/N MT101315-1). The PHIP controller unit
(i.e., for the electronics) enclosure should be ordered separately
as P/N MT101315-2. The frame (∼50 × 82 × 163 cm)
incorporates all components excluding the RF amplifiers situated on
top of or adjacent to the main frame.
Magnet and RF Coils
The magnet coil (Figure ) utilizes a solenoid design
(Figure S2) and generates a B0 field of ∼5.75 mT using ∼120 W of power,
which allows for convenient heating of the reactor and the sample
injection loop. The temperature (40–75 °C range) is controlled
by the main fans of the chassis. Two tuned (and matched to 50 Ohm)
RF Helmholtz saddle coils (Supporting Information) with their alternating B1 fields geometrically
orthogonal to each other and also orthogonal to the static B0 field of the solenoid magnet surround the
reactor. These RF coils provide very short RF pulses (≤0.5
ms) at low power (≤2.5 W) and good B1 homogeneity (Figure S3).
High-Pressure
Reactor
The high-pressure reactor of
the PHIP hyperpolarizer (shown in detail in Figure c) is housed inside the RF coils, which cover
its ∼56 mL volume completely. The reactor (Supporting Information) is made of thick-wall polysulfone
material and allows operation at up to 90 °C and up to ∼21
atm pressure.
Figure 3
In operando 2D 13C MRI postproduction
in the PHIP reactor. Hyperpolarized 13C 2D MRI (projection
imaging of HP HEP) of the PHIP reactor was conducted at 0.0475 T[43,44] in (a) an axial projection (top-to-bottom view) and in (b) a transverse
projection (side view) and (c) a cross-sectional overlay of the PHIP
reactor onto the 13C hyperpolarized image shown in (b).
Further reactor design details are given in the main text and the Supporting Information. The presented MRI images
were acquired with 2 × 2 mm2 spatial resolution and
a 64 × 64 mm2 field of view and were bilinearly interpolated
to higher resolution in order to enhance the appearance.
In operando 2D 13C MRI postproduction
in the PHIP reactor. Hyperpolarized 13C 2D MRI (projection
imaging of HPHEP) of the PHIP reactor was conducted at 0.0475 T[43,44] in (a) an axial projection (top-to-bottom view) and in (b) a transverse
projection (side view) and (c) a cross-sectional overlay of the PHIP
reactor onto the 13C hyperpolarized image shown in (b).
Further reactor design details are given in the main text and the Supporting Information. The presented MRI images
were acquired with 2 × 2 mm2 spatial resolution and
a 64 × 64 mm2 field of view and were bilinearly interpolated
to higher resolution in order to enhance the appearance.
NMR Spectrometer and RF Amplifier and RF
Probe
A dual
channel Kea-2 NMR spectrometer (Magritek, Wellington, New Zealand)
and custom-built Tomco RF amplifier (P/N BT00250-AlphaS-Dual, Tomco
Technologies, Stepney, Australia) were utilized.
Preparation
of Solutions Containing Catalyst and PHIP Precursors
HP 1-13C-Succinate-d2 (SUX)
Stock solution (30 mM, pH = 10.3 measured by a pH
meter) of 1-13C-fumaric acid-d2 acid (Cambridge Isotopes, CDLM-6062-PK, 1-13C 99%, 2,3-D2 98%, 3.00 mmol, 0.357 g) and trisodium phosphate 12-hydrate,
Na3PO4 × 12 H2O (3.00 mmol,
1.14 g) were dissolved in deuterium oxide, D2O (Sigma,
99.8% D, 756822, 100 mL), and pH was adjusted by a diluted sodium
deuteroxide (NaOD) solution made of commercially available NaOD (Sigma,
164488, 30 wt % in D2O, 99 atom % D). The resulting solution
was placed in a Buchi evaporation flask (1 L) and was degassed using
a rotational evaporator (model R-215 equipped with V-710 pump, Buchi,
New Castle, DE) fitted with an argon gas (high purity Argon) input
by repeating twice the following sequence: (a) the pressure was slowly
(to avoid boiling over) decreased from 70 to 15 mbar over approximately
5 min; (b) the pressure was adjusted back to ambient level by filling
the content of the 1 L flask with Argon gas (1 bar). The phosphorus
ligand, disodium salt of 1,4-bis[(phenyl-3-propanesulfonate)phosphine]butane
(717347, Sigma-Aldrich-Isotec, 0.360 g, 0.64 mmol) was added, and
the procedure followed with an additional degassing described above.
Finally, rhodium(I) catalyst, bis(norbornadiene) rhodium(I) tetrafluoroborate
(0.200 g, 0.54 mmol, 45-0230, CAS 36620-11-8, Strem Chemicals, MA)
was dissolved in ∼5 mL of acetone and was added dropwise to
the phosphine ligand solution to limit undesirable rhodium precipitation.
The described above degassing procedure was repeated one more time
to eliminate acetone.
HP 1-13C-Phospholactate-d2 (PLAC)
The unsaturated precursor,
monopotassium salt of
1-13C-phosphoenol-pyruvate-d2 (1-13C-PEP-d2 or PEP), was
produced by the protocol described in ref (38). The batch used in this study contained ∼15
mol % of its reduced form 1-13C-phospholactate-d2 (PLAC). While the presence of PLAC in the
starting material does not influence the ultimate chemical outcome
of hyperpolarization, its presence was accounted for in polarization
level calculations. Therefore, potassium salt of 1-13C-phosphoenol-pyruvate-d2, 1-13C-PEP-d2 (85% with 15% of PLAC, 2.50 mmol, 0.628 g), and trisodium
phosphate 12-hydrate, Na3PO4 × 12 H2O (3.00 mmol, 1.14 g), were dissolved in deuterium oxide,
D2O (Sigma, 99.8% D, 756822, 100 mL), and pH was adjusted
to ∼10.3 (monitored by a pH meter) by diluted sodium deuteroxide
(NaOD) solution made from commercially available NaOD (Sigma, 164488,
30 wt % in D2O, 99 atom % D). The resulting solution was
filtered and placed in a Buchi evaporation flask (1 L), and it was
degassed using the rotational evaporator fitted with an argon gas
(high purity Argon) input by repeating twice the following sequence:
(a) the pressure was slowly (to avoid boiling over) decreased from
70 to 15 mbar over approximately 5 min; (b) pressure was adjusted
back to the ambient level by opening the Argon valve. The phosphorus
ligand, disodium salt of 1,4-bis[(phenyl-3-propanesulfonate)phosphine]butane
(717347, Sigma-Aldrich-Isotec, 0.720 g, 1.28 mmol) was added, and
it was followed with an additional degassing step as described above.
Finally, rhodium(I) catalyst, bis(norbornadiene) rhodium(I) tetrafluoroborate
(0.400 g, 1.04 mmol, 45-0230, CAS 36620-11-8, Strem Chemicals, MA)
dissolved in ∼5 mL of acetone, was added dropwise to the phosphine
ligand solution to limit undesirable rhodium precipitation. The above
described degassing procedure was repeated one more time to eliminate
acetone.The hydrogenation reactions inside the PHIP hyperpolarizer
were deemed to reach ∼100% yield as tested by high-resolution
NMR assays of reaction mixtures.[38] Please
note that for the case of preparations of aqueous solutions, deuterium
oxide was replaced by HPLC grade water (Fisher Scientific) and sodium
deuteroxide was replaced by regular sodium hydroxide.
PHIP Hyperpolarizer
Operation
The PHIP hyperpolarizer
is operated via Graphical User Interface (GUI), Figure . The primary automated HCA production routine
performs the following steps: (i) charging the heated reactor chamber
with ∼6 atm para-H2 gas (∼12
s), (ii) loading the solution containing catalyst and PHIP precursor
into the heated injection loop (∼2 s), (iii) triggering the
NMR spectrometer (<0.1 s), (iv) injecting the warmed solution from
the injection loop and spraying it into atmosphere of hot para-H2 gas using the back-pressure (∼17
atm) of propellant gas (e.g., ultrahigh purity N2 or Argon)
under conditions of 1H decoupling provided by the RF pulse
sequence of the triggered NMR spectrometer (3–12 s), (v) polarization
transfer using a RF pulse sequence developed by Goldman and Johannesson[26] (∼0.3 s), and (vi) in situ13C polarimetry of the produced HCA to determine its
%P13C using a small-angle RF pulse (∼0.5
s). The entire fully automated polarization procedure requires less
than 1 min.The produced HCA is located at the bottom of the
chemical reactor by the end of the injection step (as seen in the in situ 2D 13C MRI images (Figure ) recorded using the same reactor in combination
with a previously demonstrated PHIP setup at 47.5 mT[44]) and then is conveniently ejected by opening the eject
valve, and aqueous HCA can be transferred to a container (e.g., syringe)
for its further use. While HPHEP is relatively immune to exposure
to ambient low magnetic fields, HP SUX and PLAC (Figure ) can depolarize rapidly, and
therefore, the transfer path for these molecules was protected by
a polarization-preserving magnetized path[53] denoted a HyperBridge.[52] Additional routines
(HCA ejection and hyperpolarizer cleaning) require less than 2 min
resulting in a PHIP cycle of less than 3 min.
Figure 4
Hyperpolarization of
1-13C-succinate-d2 (SUX) (a)
and 1-13C-phospholactate-d2 (PLAC) (b) using parahydrogen induced polarization
(PHIP).[12,13] 1-13C-fumarate-d2 (FUM) and 1-13C-phosphoenolpyruvate-d2 (PEP) molecular precursors undergo catalytic
pairwise addition of para-H2 in aqueous
medium during continuous-wave (CW) 1H decoupling to yield,
respectively, 1H HP products corresponding to the PASADENA
regime.[14] The 1H polarization
of these PASADENA-enhanced protons is then transferred to 13C nucleus using the 3-spin Goldman polarization transfer sequence[26] using previously described schemes[31,38,55] and known spin–spin couplings.[36,55]
Hyperpolarization of
1-13C-succinate-d2 (SUX) (a)
and 1-13C-phospholactate-d2 (PLAC) (b) using parahydrogen induced polarization
(PHIP).[12,13] 1-13C-fumarate-d2 (FUM) and 1-13C-phosphoenolpyruvate-d2 (PEP) molecular precursors undergo catalytic
pairwise addition of para-H2 in aqueous
medium during continuous-wave (CW) 1H decoupling to yield,
respectively, 1HHP products corresponding to the PASADENA
regime.[14] The 1H polarization
of these PASADENA-enhanced protons is then transferred to 13C nucleus using the 3-spin Goldman polarization transfer sequence[26] using previously described schemes[31,38,55] and known spin–spin couplings.[36,55]These additional automated routines
were developed for hyperpolarizer
cleaning using purging with propellant gas or for performing other
basic operations in an automated fashion (Figure ). Typically, more than 90% para-H2 was used for the experiments described with initially
produced ∼98% para-state purity using a previously
described para-H2 generator (we note that para-H2 fraction decayed from 98% during storage
in a pressurized aluminum cylinder after the initial production step).[54]
Results and Discussion
13C PHIP of
SUX and PLAC
Relatively high
levels of 13C polarization were achieved for both HP SUX
and HP PLAC: 28% ± 5% and 15% ± 3%,[38] respectively (Figure ). The HP SUX level is approximately a factor of 1.6 greater than
the highest polarization level previously reported using a PHIP hyperpolarizer,[55] despite an approximately 8 times greater concentration
(30 mM vs 3.5 mM).[55] This apparent gain
in %P13C can be largely attributed to
the in situ polarimetry (i.e., detection inside the
hyperpolarizer immediately after production) compared to the previous
hyperpolarizer design, where 13C polarimetry was carried
out after transfer of the material (a process taking ∼10–20
s) from the hyperpolarizer to a high-field NMR detector.[41,55] We note that additional optimization of operating parameters (catalyst/PHIP
precursor solution preheating delay and reaction time) was required
to achieve the best hyperpolarization yields, Figure S7.
Figure 5
13C and 1H NMR spectroscopy in situ of PHIP hyperpolarizer at 62 kHz resonant frequency.
(a) 1H signal reference spectrum recorded using a sample
of thermally
polarized CuSO4 (∼5 mM) doped water, (b) 13C spectrum of HP SUX, (c) 13C spectrum of HP PLAC, (d) 13C T1 decay of HP SUX in H2O measured using 30° excitation radio frequency (RF)
pulses, (e) 13C T1 decay of
HP SUX in D2O measured using 30° excitation radio
frequency (RF) pulses, and (f) 13C T1 decay of HP PLAC in D2O measured using 30°
excitation radio frequency (RF) pulses.
13C and 1H NMR spectroscopy in situ of PHIP hyperpolarizer at 62 kHz resonant frequency.
(a) 1H signal reference spectrum recorded using a sample
of thermally
polarized CuSO4 (∼5 mM) doped water, (b) 13C spectrum of HP SUX, (c) 13C spectrum of HP PLAC, (d) 13C T1 decay of HP SUX in H2O measured using 30° excitation radio frequency (RF)
pulses, (e) 13C T1 decay of
HP SUX in D2O measured using 30° excitation radio
frequency (RF) pulses, and (f) 13C T1 decay of HP PLAC in D2O measured using 30°
excitation radio frequency (RF) pulses.HP PLAC polarization was ∼1.9 times lower than that
of HPSUX, which can likely be explained by the effective presence of a
four-spin system: two nascent para-H2 protons
with 13C and 31P coupled to them in PLAC vs
the three-spin system in SUX (two nascent para-H2 protons with coupled 13C). This is supported by
two other observations. First, while performance of the hyper-SHIELDED
RF pulse sequence (data not shown) was nearly identical to the performance
of the Goldman pulse sequence for HP SUX,[26] the hyper-SHIELDED sequence[56] results
yielded an order of magnitude lower %P13C than the Goldman sequence[26] (data not
shown) for HP PLAC. This is not surprising because the hyper-SHIELDED
sequence is specifically geared for robust performance in three-spin
systems.[56] Second, a theoretical study
by Hövener and co-workers[57] provided
2D plots of %P13C dependence on the timings
of the Goldman polarization transfer sequence (using a three spin
formalism),[57] which we successfully experimentally
reproduced here (Figure S3) for HP SUX.
It should be noted that these 2D plots exhibit well-defined local
and global maxima and minima of %P13C.
The corresponding 2D HP PLAC plots (Figure S3) yielded a pattern without such characteristics indicating that
a three-spin formalism is indeed too simplistic. Therefore, %P13C in PLAC can be potentially remedied by more
advanced RF pulse sequences potentially including 31P irradiation.
PHIP Hyperpolarizer Compatibility and Potential Improvements
The presented hyperpolarizer is compatible with other HCAs[58] produced using RF-based polarization approaches
including those already utilized in vivo: diethyl-succinate-13C,[32] tetrafluoropropyl propionate,[33,34] and HEP.[30,43] Other single- or dual-channel
RF pulse sequences could be utilized readily including those described
earlier.[26,27,56,59−61] Moreover, this hyperpolarizer
can be tailored to accommodate PHIP using field-cycling-based polarization
transfer,[5,29] thereby enabling PHIP of other compounds[62−64] most notably including acetate-13C[29,40] and pyruvate-13C[29,39] as well as the production
of compounds with long-lived spin states (LLSS[65]) prepared by pairwise addition of para-H2.[66−68]While the hyperpolarizer demonstrated excellent
performance from the perspective of automation and robust performance,
certain improvements of the current design can be envisioned. In particular, B0 homogeneity can be improved by further magnetic
field shimming using additional compensating turns at the ends of
the solenoid magnet.[69] Moreover, significantly
less powerful, smaller, and less expensive RF amplifiers (e.g., ∼5
W[70]) and NMR spectrometers (e.g., ref (71)) can be employed, because
the presented hyperpolarizer design requires ≤2.5 W of RF power
per channel. Additional gains in efficiency of RF coils’ performance
can be potentially made by increasing the bore size of the magnet
(to reduce RF coil coupling to the magnet) and maximize the use of
the wire conductor.[72]We also note
that, while the relatively low magnetic field of the
PHIP polarizer (∼5.75 mT) does not offer sufficient chemical
shift resolution to differentiate HP metabolites and contrast agents
(due to diminished 13C chemical shift dispersion), this
is not necessarily a drawback, because high-field NMR detection can
be employed by the PHIP hyperpolarizer contrast agents to delineate
between metabolite signatures and injected HP contrast agent in vivo, e.g., HP ethyl succinate and its metabolites reported
earlier by Bhattacharya and co-workers.[32]
13C Spectroscopy and Imaging in Small Rodents
The efficient production of HP SUX and HP PLAC using the presented
hyperpolarizer enables one to probe in vivo mechanisms
and pathways using molecular imaging and spectroscopy. The feasibility
of in vivo13C detection was tested for
HP SUX at a low magnetic field of 0.0475 T. Figure a shows 13C T1 decay of an approximately ∼2 mL bolus of HP SUX
(∼30 mM concentration in D2O in a plastic syringe)
monitored by 15° excitation pulses using a volume RF probe designed
for small animal imaging.[72]
Figure 6
NMR and MRI detection
of HP PLAC and SUX in vivo and in vitro. (a) 13C T1 decay of HP SUX
(30 mM, D2O, T1 ∼ 125
s) monitored by small-angle RF pulses (α
= 15°) at 0.0475 T, (b) selected 2D slice of 13C gradient
echo (GRE) image acquired at 4.7 T (raw 2D data shown, image of a
5 mL syringe partially filled with ∼1.5 mL of HP PLAC in D2O was acquired using field of view (FOV) of 64 × 64 mm2, 1 × 1 mm2 pixel size (spatial resolution)
and 3 mm slice thickness (note the air bubbles creating dark spots
in otherwise uniform approximately expected cylindrical shape)), (c)
nonlocalized in vivo13C spectroscopy
of a rat conducted after tail-vein injection of HP SUX at 0.0475 T
(α = 15°), and (d) nonlocalized in vivo13C spectroscopy of a mouse conducted after tail-vein
injection of HP PLAC at 4.7 T (α = 15°).
NMR and MRI detection
of HP PLAC and SUX in vivo and in vitro. (a) 13C T1 decay of HP SUX
(30 mM, D2O, T1 ∼ 125
s) monitored by small-angle RF pulses (α
= 15°) at 0.0475 T, (b) selected 2D slice of 13C gradient
echo (GRE) image acquired at 4.7 T (raw 2D data shown, image of a
5 mL syringe partially filled with ∼1.5 mL of HP PLAC in D2O was acquired using field of view (FOV) of 64 × 64 mm2, 1 × 1 mm2 pixel size (spatial resolution)
and 3 mm slice thickness (note the air bubbles creating dark spots
in otherwise uniform approximately expected cylindrical shape)), (c)
nonlocalized in vivo13C spectroscopy
of a rat conducted after tail-vein injection of HP SUX at 0.0475 T
(α = 15°), and (d) nonlocalized in vivo13C spectroscopy of a mouse conducted after tail-vein
injection of HP PLAC at 4.7 T (α = 15°).In a separate experiment, an anesthetized young
rat (∼200
g) placed inside a volume RF coil[44] was
injected with ∼1 mL of HP SUX solution (∼30 mM in H2O) into the tail vein. The effective imaging region of the
magnet (∼8 cm long) covered the torso of the rat. 13C spectra were recorded every 2 s using a ∼ 15° excitation
RF pulse. The nonlocalized 13C in vivo spectroscopy detected an initial rise of the 13CHP signal
followed by its decay due to T1 decay,
signal depletion by RF pulses, and metabolic processes. These results
demonstrated the feasibility of in vivo13C HP detection using ultra low-field magnetic resonance.Additional in vivo experiments employed HP PLAC
in a nude mouse animal model using a 4.7 T MRI scanner. In the first
set of experiments, nonlocalized 13C NMR spectroscopy was
performed after injection of ∼0.2 mL of HP PLAC (∼25
mM) via the tail vein (see the Supporting Information for details). The volume RF coil covered the entire mouse body. 13C NMR spectra were acquired every 3 s using ∼15°
excitation RF pulses. 13C signal initially increased, because
more HP PLAC reached the body of the animal during injection, and
it was followed by the decay of HP signal due to T1 decay, signal depletion by RF pulses, and metabolic
processes (Figure d).Only one NMR resonance was detected in Figure d. Note the in vivo line
width at half height (LWHH) of ∼120 Hz or ∼2.5 ppm (Figure d, inset), which
makes PLAC and lactate (LAC) spectroscopically indistinguishable,
because of their small chemical shift difference of ∼0.3 ppm.[73] It should be additionally noted that 13C in vivo LWHH is ∼2.5 times smaller (∼40
Hz) than at 4.7 T, clearly demonstrating that low-field MR is far
less vulnerable to susceptibility-induced magnetic field gradients
(this effect is even more pronounced in the 13C in vitro MRI image of a syringe filled with foamy solution
of HP PLAC, where air bubbles create large field gradients resulting
in the appearance of low-SNR black spots in the image).Because
direct spectroscopic in vivo differentiation
between HPLAC and PLAC was challenging due to LWHH being significantly
greater than the chemical shift difference between PLAC and LAC and
because only one resonance was seen in Figure d, the final in vivo experiments
proceeded with performing 13C slice-selective gradient
echo (GRE) imaging after PLAC injection in the tail vein of a nude
mouse, Figure (see
the Supporting Information for details).
A series of 6 mm-thick 2D slices was recorded every 4 s with 3 ×
3 mm2 in-plane resolution and FOV of 96 × 96 mm2 to probe spatial biodistribution of HP PLAC. 13CHP images were later coregistered with anatomical proton images, Figure . Two representative
sets of images are shown in Figure a,b, respectively. The presence of HCA is seen in the
vasculature of the animal, and additional uptake is detected in the
heart and in the bladder. This result is consistent with the previous
high-resolution NMR biodistribution study of non-HP PLAC,[73] which identified that PLAC undergoes dephosphorylation
in blood followed by LAC uptake by the heart and other organs with
no PLAC signatures found in the heart and other organs. However, the
previous study[73] lacked the temporal resolution
available by HP molecular imaging (Figure ). On the basis of the in vivo13C images (Figure ), we conclude that HP PLAC follows the same metabolic
fate: (i) it undergoes dephosphorylation in the blood, followed by
(ii) exchange with endogenous lactate[74] present in tissues and organs. Therefore, injection of HP PLAC results
in HPLAC imaging, because HPLAC is produced immediately after HP
PLAC injection. As a result, we note the produced HPLAC via PHIP
offers a good alternative (to d-DNPHP 13C pyruvate (PYR))
for metabolic imaging, which has already been proven for cardiac applications
by comparing the performance of HPLAC and HP PYR metabolism in vivo.[75]
Figure 7
In vivo molecular imaging using HP PLAC contrast
agent at 4.7 T. 13C gradient echo (GRE) images (in color)
are overlaid over representative anatomical 1H proton images.
Six coronal 13C images (3 × 3 mm2 in-plane
resolution, 6 mm slice thickness, FOV = 96 × 96 mm2) were acquired approximately 5–10 s after injection of HP
PLAC via tail vein (∼0.2 mL, ∼30 mM dose) in a nude
mouse (prior tumor implantation). Two representative sets of 13C images (a) and (b) separated by ∼4 s are shown and
overlaid over the same set of anatomical 1H images.
In vivo molecular imaging using HP PLAC contrast
agent at 4.7 T. 13C gradient echo (GRE) images (in color)
are overlaid over representative anatomical 1H proton images.
Six coronal 13C images (3 × 3 mm2 in-plane
resolution, 6 mm slice thickness, FOV = 96 × 96 mm2) were acquired approximately 5–10 s after injection of HP
PLAC via tail vein (∼0.2 mL, ∼30 mM dose) in a nude
mouse (prior tumor implantation). Two representative sets of 13C images (a) and (b) separated by ∼4 s are shown and
overlaid over the same set of anatomical 1H images.Serial acquisition of slice-selective 13CHP PLAC images
can also be used for HCA washout kinetics analysis. An example of
such analysis is shown in Figure S6 based
on the pixel-by-pixel analysis of the raw 13C images (Figure S5) in the heart region. It demonstrates
that the useful MRI data acquisition time window was ∼12 s
using our HCA administration protocol. On the basis of the preliminary
feasibility results, future in vivo studies of cancer
imaging using HP PLAC injections are certainly warranted given the
upregulation of endogenous lactate in many cancers.[19,20,23,76]
Conclusion
A fully automated open-source low-cost PHIP hyperpolarizer is reported.
Sufficient hardware details and operating software are provided for
convenient device replication and potential further improvements in
the context of PHIP hyperpolarization, as well as potential extensions
for other hyperpolarization techniques utilizing para-H2, e.g., conventional NMR signal amplification by reversible
exchange (SABRE),[77,78] because the main B0 field (∼5.75 mT) of this hyperpolarizer matches
the optimal static magnetic field required for coherent polarization
transfer by conventional 1H SABRE.[79] It should also be noted that this hyperpolarizer design can be potentially
tailored for 15N hyperpolarization via recently developed
SABRE-SHEATH (SABRE in in SHield Enables Alignment Transfer to Heteronuclei)[80−82] in the micro-Tesla magnetic field regime, although the required
equipment modifications would likely include the integration of a
mu-metal zero field chamber around the main magnet, operation in micro-Tesla
versus milli-Tesla regime, and hyperpolarization detection using zero-field
NMR.[83]15N SABRE-SHEATH provides
robust hyperpolarization levels of up to 30%[84,85] and can be used to hyperpolarize pH sensors,[86] hypoxia sensors,[84] and Schiff
bases[87] potentially useful for molecular
imaging applications in vivo. The presented PHIP
hyperpolarizer enables record levels of polarization for SUX (%P13C = 28% ± 5%) metabolic HCA and enabled
efficient (%P13C = 15 ± 3%) hyperpolarization
of HP PLAC. The hyperpolarizer can produce a dose of HCA (∼2–3
mL in aqueous medium) as fast as every 3 min. The use of HP SUX was
demonstrated for low-field in vivo MR paving the
way for future low-field MRI of 13C HCAs. Moreover, the
production of HP PLAC enabled the preliminary feasibility study of in vivo spectroscopy and metabolic imaging, demonstrating
that HP PLAC likely results in HPLAC after the in vivo dephosphorylation step. The produced HPLAC undergoes in
vivo uptake by the heart and bladder clearance consistent
with previous studies. We hope the reported PHIP design can be embraced
by other laboratories working at the frontiers of molecular in vivo imaging.
Authors: Panayiotis Nikolaou; Aaron M Coffey; Laura L Walkup; Brogan M Gust; Cristen D LaPierre; Edward Koehnemann; Michael J Barlow; Matthew S Rosen; Boyd M Goodson; Eduard Y Chekmenev Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2014-01-21 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Panayiotis Nikolaou; Aaron M Coffey; Laura L Walkup; Brogan M Gust; Nicholas Whiting; Hayley Newton; Iga Muradyan; Mikayel Dabaghyan; Kaili Ranta; Gregory D Moroz; Matthew S Rosen; Samuel Patz; Michael J Barlow; Eduard Y Chekmenev; Boyd M Goodson Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2014-02-10 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Andrey N Pravdivtsev; Alexandra V Yurkovskaya; Nikita N Lukzen; Hans-Martin Vieth; Konstantin L Ivanov Journal: Phys Chem Chem Phys Date: 2014-09-21 Impact factor: 3.676
Authors: Pratip Bhattacharya; Eduard Y Chekmenev; Wanda F Reynolds; Shawn Wagner; Niki Zacharias; Henry R Chan; Rolf Bünger; Brian D Ross Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2011-04-28 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Roman V Shchepin; Danila A Barskiy; Aaron M Coffey; Isaac V Manzanera Esteve; Eduard Y Chekmenev Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2016-04-08 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Sam E Day; Mikko I Kettunen; Ferdia A Gallagher; De-En Hu; Mathilde Lerche; Jan Wolber; Klaes Golman; Jan Henrik Ardenkjaer-Larsen; Kevin M Brindle Journal: Nat Med Date: 2007-10-28 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Milton L Truong; Thomas Theis; Aaron M Coffey; Roman V Shchepin; Kevin W Waddell; Fan Shi; Boyd M Goodson; Warren S Warren; Eduard Y Chekmenev Journal: J Phys Chem C Nanomater Interfaces Date: 2015-03-30 Impact factor: 4.126
Authors: Thomas Theis; Gerardo X Ortiz; Angus W J Logan; Kevin E Claytor; Yesu Feng; William P Huhn; Volker Blum; Steven J Malcolmson; Eduard Y Chekmenev; Qiu Wang; Warren S Warren Journal: Sci Adv Date: 2016-03-25 Impact factor: 14.136
Authors: Panayiotis Nikolaou; Aaron M Coffey; Kaili Ranta; Laura L Walkup; Brogan M Gust; Michael J Barlow; Matthew S Rosen; Boyd M Goodson; Eduard Y Chekmenev Journal: J Phys Chem B Date: 2014-04-25 Impact factor: 2.991
Authors: Oleg G Salnikov; Nikita V Chukanov; Roman V Shchepin; Isaac V Manzanera Esteve; Kirill V Kovtunov; Igor V Koptyug; Eduard Y Chekmenev Journal: J Phys Chem C Nanomater Interfaces Date: 2019-04-19 Impact factor: 4.126
Authors: Danila A Barskiy; Oleg G Salnikov; Alexey S Romanov; Matthew A Feldman; Aaron M Coffey; Kirill V Kovtunov; Igor V Koptyug; Eduard Y Chekmenev Journal: J Magn Reson Date: 2017-01-21 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Nikita V Chukanov; Bryce E Kidd; Larisa M Kovtunova; Valerii I Bukhtiyarov; Roman V Shchepin; Eduard Y Chekmenev; Boyd M Goodson; Kirill V Kovtunov; Igor V Koptyug Journal: J Labelled Comp Radiopharm Date: 2019-01-07 Impact factor: 1.921
Authors: Kirill V Kovtunov; Ekaterina V Pokochueva; Oleg G Salnikov; Samuel F Cousin; Dennis Kurzbach; Basile Vuichoud; Sami Jannin; Eduard Y Chekmenev; Boyd M Goodson; Danila A Barskiy; Igor V Koptyug Journal: Chem Asian J Date: 2018-05-23
Authors: Jason Graham Skinner; Luca Menichetti; Alessandra Flori; Anna Dost; Andreas Benjamin Schmidt; Markus Plaumann; Ferdia Aiden Gallagher; Jan-Bernd Hövener Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Oleg G Salnikov; Roman V Shchepin; Nikita V Chukanov; Lamya Jaigirdar; Wellington Pham; Kirill V Kovtunov; Igor V Koptyug; Eduard Y Chekmenev Journal: J Phys Chem C Nanomater Interfaces Date: 2018-10-02 Impact factor: 4.126
Authors: Sarmad Siddiqui; Stephen Kadlecek; Mehrdad Pourfathi; Yi Xin; William Mannherz; Hooman Hamedani; Nicholas Drachman; Kai Ruppert; Justin Clapp; Rahim Rizi Journal: Adv Drug Deliv Rev Date: 2016-09-04 Impact factor: 15.470
Authors: Céline Taglang; David E Korenchan; Cornelius von Morze; Justin Yu; Chloé Najac; Sinan Wang; Joseph E Blecha; Sukumar Subramaniam; Robert Bok; Henry F VanBrocklin; Daniel B Vigneron; Sabrina M Ronen; Renuka Sriram; John Kurhanewicz; David M Wilson; Robert R Flavell Journal: Chem Commun (Camb) Date: 2018-05-17 Impact factor: 6.222
Authors: Thomas Theis; Nuwandi M Ariyasingha; Roman V Shchepin; Jacob R Lindale; Warren S Warren; Eduard Y Chekmenev Journal: J Phys Chem Lett Date: 2018-10-10 Impact factor: 6.475