Eugene C Lin1,2, Hua Li1,2, Zhongliang Zu1,2, Elizabeth A Louie1,2, Christopher L Lankford1,2, Richard D Dortch1,2,3, Mark D Does1,2,3, John C Gore1,2,3,4,5, Daniel F Gochberg1,2,4. 1. Vanderbilt University Institute of Imaging Science, Nashville, Tennessee. 2. Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. 3. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee. 4. Deparment of Physics and Astronomy, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee. 5. Molecular Physiology and Biophysics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To test the ability of a novel pulse sequence applied in vivo at 3 Tesla to separate the contributions to the water signal from amide proton transfer (APT) and relayed nuclear Overhauser enhancement (rNOE) from background direct water saturation and semisolid magnetization transfer (MT). The lack of such signal source isolation has confounded conventional chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST) imaging. METHODS: We quantified APT and rNOE signals using a chemical exchange rotation transfer (CERT) metric, MTRdouble . A range of duty cycles and average irradiation powers were applied, and results were compared with conventional CEST analyses using asymmetry (MTRasym ) and extrapolated magnetization transfer (EMR). RESULTS: Our results indicate that MTRdouble is more specific than MTRasym and, because it requires as few as 3 data points, is more rapid than methods requiring a complete Z-spectrum, such as EMR. In white matter, APT (1.5 ± 0.5%) and rNOE (2.1 ± 0.7%) were quantified by using MTRdouble with a 30% duty cycle and a 0.5-µT average power. In addition, our results suggest that MTRdouble is insensitive to B0 inhomogeneity, further magnifying its speed advantage over CEST metrics that require a separate B0 measurement. However, MTRdouble still has nontrivial sensitivity to B1 inhomogeneities. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated that MTRdouble is an alternative metric to evaluate APT and rNOE, which is fast, robust to B0 inhomogeneity, and easy to process.
PURPOSE: To test the ability of a novel pulse sequence applied in vivo at 3 Tesla to separate the contributions to the water signal from amide proton transfer (APT) and relayed nuclear Overhauser enhancement (rNOE) from background direct water saturation and semisolid magnetization transfer (MT). The lack of such signal source isolation has confounded conventional chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST) imaging. METHODS: We quantified APT and rNOE signals using a chemical exchange rotation transfer (CERT) metric, MTRdouble . A range of duty cycles and average irradiation powers were applied, and results were compared with conventional CEST analyses using asymmetry (MTRasym ) and extrapolated magnetization transfer (EMR). RESULTS: Our results indicate that MTRdouble is more specific than MTRasym and, because it requires as few as 3 data points, is more rapid than methods requiring a complete Z-spectrum, such as EMR. In white matter, APT (1.5 ± 0.5%) and rNOE (2.1 ± 0.7%) were quantified by using MTRdouble with a 30% duty cycle and a 0.5-µT average power. In addition, our results suggest that MTRdouble is insensitive to B0 inhomogeneity, further magnifying its speed advantage over CEST metrics that require a separate B0 measurement. However, MTRdouble still has nontrivial sensitivity to B1 inhomogeneities. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated that MTRdouble is an alternative metric to evaluate APT and rNOE, which is fast, robust to B0 inhomogeneity, and easy to process.
Authors: Zhongliang Zu; Hua Li; Junzhong Xu; Xiao-Yong Zhang; Moritz Zaiss; Ke Li; Mark D Does; John C Gore; Daniel F Gochberg Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2017-05-17 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Craig K Jones; Daniel Polders; Jun Hua; He Zhu; Hans J Hoogduin; Jinyuan Zhou; Peter Luijten; Peter C M van Zijl Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2011-11-14 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Jing Yuan; Shuzhong Chen; Ann D King; Jinyuan Zhou; Kunwar S Bhatia; Qinwei Zhang; David Ka Wei Yeung; Juan Wei; Greta Seng Peng Mok; Yi-Xiang Wang Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2014-08-19 Impact factor: 4.044
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: Hye-Young Heo; Craig K Jones; Jun Hua; Nirbhay Yadav; Shruti Agarwal; Jinyuan Zhou; Peter C M van Zijl; Jay J Pillai Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-12-10 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Zhongliang Zu; Eugene C Lin; Elizabeth A Louie; Xiaoyu Jiang; Christopher L Lankford; Bruce Damon; Mark D Does; John C Gore; Daniel F Gochberg Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2020-12-07 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Bárbara Schmitz-Abecassis; Elena Vinogradov; Jannie P Wijnen; Thijs van Harten; Evita C Wiegers; Hans Hoogduin; Matthias J P van Osch; Ece Ercan Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2021-09-14 Impact factor: 3.737
Authors: Jinyuan Zhou; Moritz Zaiss; Linda Knutsson; Phillip Zhe Sun; Sung Soo Ahn; Silvio Aime; Peter Bachert; Jaishri O Blakeley; Kejia Cai; Michael A Chappell; Min Chen; Daniel F Gochberg; Steffen Goerke; Hye-Young Heo; Shanshan Jiang; Tao Jin; Seong-Gi Kim; John Laterra; Daniel Paech; Mark D Pagel; Ji Eun Park; Ravinder Reddy; Akihiko Sakata; Sabine Sartoretti-Schefer; A Dean Sherry; Seth A Smith; Greg J Stanisz; Pia C Sundgren; Osamu Togao; Moriel Vandsburger; Zhibo Wen; Yin Wu; Yi Zhang; Wenzhen Zhu; Zhongliang Zu; Peter C M van Zijl Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2022-04-22 Impact factor: 3.737