Meng Gu1, Ralph Hurd2, Ralph Noeske3, Laima Baltusis4, Roeland Hancock5, Matthew D Sacchet6, Ian H Gotlib6, Frederick T Chin1, Daniel M Spielman1. 1. Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA. 2. GE Healthcare, Menlo Park, California, USA. 3. GE Healthcare, Berlin, Germany. 4. Center for Cognitive and Neurobiological Imaging, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA. 5. Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA. 6. Neurosciences Program and Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The most common γ-aminobutyric-acid (GABA) editing approach, MEGA-PRESS, uses J-editing to measure GABA distinct from larger overlapping metabolites, but suffers contamination from coedited macromolecules (MMs) comprising 40 to 60% of the observed signal. MEGA-SPECIAL is an alternative method with better MM suppression, but is not widely used primarily because of its relatively poor spatial localization. Our goal was to develop an improved MM-suppressed GABA editing sequence at 3 Tesla. METHODS: We modified a single-voxel MEGA-SPECIAL sequence with an oscillating readout gradient for improved spatial localization, and used very selective 30-ms editing pulses for improved suppression of coedited MMs. RESULTS: Simulation and in vivo experiments confirmed excellent MM suppression, insensitive to the range of B0 frequency drifts typically encountered in vivo. Both intersubject and intrasubject studies showed that MMs, when suppressed by the improved MEGA-SPECIAL method, contributed approximately 40% to the corresponding MEGA-PRESS measurements. From the intersubject study, the coefficient of variation for GABA+/Cre (MEGA-PRESS) was 11.2% versus 7% for GABA/Cre (improved MEGA-SPECIAL), demonstrating significantly reduced variance (P = 0.005), likely coming from coedited MMs. CONCLUSIONS: This improved MEGA-SPECIAL sequence provides unbiased GABA measurements with reduced variance as compared with conventional MEGA-PRESS. This approach is also relatively insensitive to the range of B0 drifts typically observed in in vivo human studies. Magn Reson Med 79:41-47, 2018.
PURPOSE: The most common γ-aminobutyric-acid (GABA) editing approach, MEGA-PRESS, uses J-editing to measure GABA distinct from larger overlapping metabolites, but suffers contamination from coedited macromolecules (MMs) comprising 40 to 60% of the observed signal. MEGA-SPECIAL is an alternative method with better MM suppression, but is not widely used primarily because of its relatively poor spatial localization. Our goal was to develop an improved MM-suppressed GABA editing sequence at 3 Tesla. METHODS: We modified a single-voxel MEGA-SPECIAL sequence with an oscillating readout gradient for improved spatial localization, and used very selective 30-ms editing pulses for improved suppression of coedited MMs. RESULTS: Simulation and in vivo experiments confirmed excellent MM suppression, insensitive to the range of B0 frequency drifts typically encountered in vivo. Both intersubject and intrasubject studies showed that MMs, when suppressed by the improved MEGA-SPECIAL method, contributed approximately 40% to the corresponding MEGA-PRESS measurements. From the intersubject study, the coefficient of variation for GABA+/Cre (MEGA-PRESS) was 11.2% versus 7% for GABA/Cre (improved MEGA-SPECIAL), demonstrating significantly reduced variance (P = 0.005), likely coming from coedited MMs. CONCLUSIONS: This improved MEGA-SPECIAL sequence provides unbiased GABA measurements with reduced variance as compared with conventional MEGA-PRESS. This approach is also relatively insensitive to the range of B0 drifts typically observed in in vivo human studies. Magn Reson Med 79:41-47, 2018.
Authors: Richard A E Edden; Georg Oeltzschner; Ashley D Harris; Nicolaas A J Puts; Kimberly L Chan; Vincent O Boer; Michael Schär; Peter B Barker Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-05-30 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Frederic Boy; C John Evans; Richard A E Edden; Krish D Singh; Masud Husain; Petroc Sumner Journal: Curr Biol Date: 2010-09-30 Impact factor: 10.834
Authors: Kimberly L Chan; Georg Oeltzschner; Muhammad G Saleh; Richard A E Edden; Peter B Barker Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2019-02-22 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Lawrence K Fung; Ryan E Flores; Meng Gu; Kevin L Sun; David James; Rachel K Schuck; Booil Jo; Jun Hyung Park; Byung Chul Lee; Jae Ho Jung; Sang Eun Kim; Manish Saggar; Matthew D Sacchet; Geoff Warnock; Mohammad Mehdi Khalighi; Daniel Spielman; Frederick T Chin; Antonio Y Hardan Journal: Mol Psychiatry Date: 2020-05-06 Impact factor: 15.992
Authors: Venkatagiri Krishnamurthy; Isabella Paredes Spir; Kevin M Mammino; Joe R Nocera; Keith M McGregor; Bruce A Crosson; Lisa C Krishnamurthy Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2022-06-09 Impact factor: 5.435
Authors: Tiffany C Ho; Giana I Teresi; Jillian R Segarra; Amar Ojha; Johanna C Walker; Meng Gu; Daniel M Spielman; Matthew D Sacchet; Fei Jiang; Yael Rosenberg-Hasson; Holden Maecker; Ian H Gotlib Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2021-04-15 Impact factor: 5.435
Authors: Johanna C Walker; Giana I Teresi; Rachel L Weisenburger; Jillian R Segarra; Amar Ojha; Artenisa Kulla; Lucinda Sisk; Meng Gu; Daniel M Spielman; Yael Rosenberg-Hasson; Holden T Maecker; Manpreet K Singh; Ian H Gotlib; Tiffany C Ho Journal: Front Hum Neurosci Date: 2020-10-19 Impact factor: 3.473