Olaf Dietrich1, Johannes Levin2,3, Seyed-Ahmad Ahmadi2, Annika Plate2, Maximilian F Reiser4, Kai Bötzel2, Armin Giese5, Birgit Ertl-Wagner4. 1. Josef Lissner Laboratory for Biomedical Imaging, Institute for Clinical Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Hospital Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany. od@dtrx.net. 2. Department of Neurology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Hospital Munich, Munich, Germany. 3. German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Munich, Germany. 4. Institute for Clinical Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Hospital Munich, Munich, Germany. 5. Center for Neuropathology and Prion Research, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the MR imaging behavior of ferrous (Fe2+) and ferric (Fe3+) iron ions in order to develop a noninvasive technique to quantitatively differentiate between both forms of iron. METHODS: MRI was performed at 3 T in a phantom consisting of 21 samples with different concentrations of ferrous and ferric chloride solutions (between 0 and 10 mmol/L). A multi-echo spoiled gradient-echo pulse sequence with eight echoes was used for both T 2* and quantitative susceptibility measurements. The transverse relaxation rate, R 2* = 1/T 2*, was determined by nonlinear exponential fitting based on the mean signals in each sample. The susceptibilities, χ, of the samples were calculated after phase unwrapping and background field removal by fitting the spatial convolution of a unit dipole response to the measured internal field map. Relaxation rate changes, ΔR 2*(c Fe), and susceptibility changes, Δχ(c Fe), their linear slopes, as well as the ratios ΔR 2*(c Fe) / Δχ(c Fe) were determined for all concentrations. RESULTS: The linear slopes of the relaxation rate were (12.5 ± 0.4) s-1/(mmol/L) for Fe3+ and (0.77 ± 0.09) s-1/(mmol/L) for Fe2+ (significantly different, z test P < 0.0001). The linear slopes of the susceptibility were (0.088 ± 0.003) ppm/(mmol/L) for Fe3+ and (0.079 ± 0.006) ppm/(mmol/L) for Fe2+. The individual ratios ΔR 2*/Δχ were greater than 40 s-1/ppm for all samples with ferric solution and lower than 20 s-1/ppm for all but one of the samples with ferrous solution. CONCLUSION: Ferrous and ferric iron ions show significantly different relaxation behaviors in MRI but similar susceptibility patterns. These properties can be used to differentiate ferrous and ferric samples.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the MR imaging behavior of ferrous (Fe2+) and ferric (Fe3+) iron ions in order to develop a noninvasive technique to quantitatively differentiate between both forms of iron. METHODS: MRI was performed at 3 T in a phantom consisting of 21 samples with different concentrations of ferrous and ferric chloride solutions (between 0 and 10 mmol/L). A multi-echo spoiled gradient-echo pulse sequence with eight echoes was used for both T 2* and quantitative susceptibility measurements. The transverse relaxation rate, R 2* = 1/T 2*, was determined by nonlinear exponential fitting based on the mean signals in each sample. The susceptibilities, χ, of the samples were calculated after phase unwrapping and background field removal by fitting the spatial convolution of a unit dipole response to the measured internal field map. Relaxation rate changes, ΔR 2*(c Fe), and susceptibility changes, Δχ(c Fe), their linear slopes, as well as the ratios ΔR 2*(c Fe) / Δχ(c Fe) were determined for all concentrations. RESULTS: The linear slopes of the relaxation rate were (12.5 ± 0.4) s-1/(mmol/L) for Fe3+ and (0.77 ± 0.09) s-1/(mmol/L) for Fe2+ (significantly different, z test P < 0.0001). The linear slopes of the susceptibility were (0.088 ± 0.003) ppm/(mmol/L) for Fe3+ and (0.079 ± 0.006) ppm/(mmol/L) for Fe2+. The individual ratios ΔR 2*/Δχ were greater than 40 s-1/ppm for all samples with ferric solution and lower than 20 s-1/ppm for all but one of the samples with ferrous solution. CONCLUSION:Ferrous and ferric iron ions show significantly different relaxation behaviors in MRI but similar susceptibility patterns. These properties can be used to differentiate ferrous and ferric samples.
Entities:
Keywords:
Ferric and ferrous chloride; Iron; Magnetic resonance imaging; Magnetic susceptibility; Relaxation
Authors: Christian Langkammer; Nikolaus Krebs; Walter Goessler; Eva Scheurer; Franz Ebner; Kathrin Yen; Franz Fazekas; Stefan Ropele Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-09-15 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: E Mark Haacke; Norman Y C Cheng; Michael J House; Qiang Liu; Jaladhar Neelavalli; Robert J Ogg; Asadullah Khan; Muhammad Ayaz; Wolff Kirsch; Andre Obenaus Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Andrew D Schweitzer; Tian Liu; Ajay Gupta; Karen Zheng; Stephen Seedial; Alexander Shtilbans; Mona Shahbazi; Dale Lange; Yi Wang; A John Tsiouris Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Julio Acosta-Cabronero; Arturo Cardenas-Blanco; Matthew J Betts; Michaela Butryn; Jose P Valdes-Herrera; Imke Galazky; Peter J Nestor Journal: Brain Date: 2016-11-11 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: L Zecca; M Gallorini; V Schünemann; A X Trautwein; M Gerlach; P Riederer; P Vezzoni; D Tampellini Journal: J Neurochem Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 5.372
Authors: Marcus Kostka; Tobias Högen; Karin M Danzer; Johannes Levin; Matthias Habeck; Andreas Wirth; Richard Wagner; Charles G Glabe; Sabine Finger; Udo Heinzelmann; Patrick Garidel; Wenzhen Duan; Christopher A Ross; Hans Kretzschmar; Armin Giese Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2008-02-07 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Kobra Alizadeh; Qin Sun; Tabitha McGuire; Terry Thompson; Frank S Prato; Jim Koropatnick; Neil Gelman; Donna E Goldhawk Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-02-21 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Linshan Liu; Kobra Alizadeh; Sarah C Donnelly; Praveen Dassanayake; Tian Tian Hou; Rebecca McGirr; R Terry Thompson; Frank S Prato; Neil Gelman; Lisa Hoffman; Donna E Goldhawk Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-06-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Kofi Deh; Marjan Zaman; Yogindra Vedvyas; Zhe Liu; Kelly McCabe Gillen; Padraic O' Malley; Dina Bedretdinova; Thanh Nguyen; Richard Lee; Pascal Spincemaille; Juyoung Kim; Yi Wang; Moonsoo M Jin Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-01-24 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Eugene Kim; Davide Di Censo; Mattia Baraldo; Camilla Simmons; Ilaria Rosa; Karen Randall; Clive Ballard; Ben R Dickie; Steven C R Williams; Richard Killick; Diana Cash Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-06-14 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Erwin A van Vliet; Eleonora Aronica; Till S Zimmer; Bastian David; Diede W M Broekaart; Martin Schidlowski; Gabriele Ruffolo; Anatoly Korotkov; Nicole N van der Wel; Peter C van Rijen; Angelika Mühlebner; Wim van Hecke; Johannes C Baayen; Sander Idema; Liesbeth François; Jonathan van Eyll; Stefanie Dedeurwaerdere; Helmut W Kessels; Rainer Surges; Theodor Rüber; Jan A Gorter; James D Mills Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2021-07-22 Impact factor: 17.088