Moritz Zaiss1, Annasofia Anemone2, Steffen Goerke3, Dario Livio Longo2,4, Kai Herz1, Rolf Pohmann1, Silvio Aime2, Michal Rivlin5, Gil Navon5, Xavier Golay6, Klaus Scheffler1,7. 1. High-field Magnetic Resonance Center, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tübingen, Germany. 2. Molecular Imaging Center, Department of Molecular Biotechnology and Health Sciences, University of Torino, Torino, Italy. 3. Division of Medical Physics in Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany. 4. Institute of Biostructures and Bioimaging (IBB), Italian National Research Council (CNR), Torino, Italy. 5. School of Chemisty, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel. 6. Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK. 7. Department of Biomedical Magnetic Resonance, Eberhard-Karls University Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Abstract
AIMS: To determine individual glucose hydroxyl exchange rates at physiological conditions and use this information for numerical optimization of glucoCEST/CESL preparation. To give guidelines for in vivo glucoCEST/CESL measurement parameters at clinical and ultra-high field strengths. METHODS: Five glucose solution samples at different pH values were measured at 14.1 T at various B1 power levels. Multi-B1 -Z-spectra Bloch-McConnell fits at physiological pH were further improved by the fitting of Z-spectra of five pH values simultaneously. The obtained exchange rates were used in a six-pool Bloch-McConnell simulation including a tissue-like water pool and semi-solid MT pool with different CEST and CESL presaturation pulse trains. In vivo glucose injection experiments were performed in a tumor mouse model at 7 T. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Glucose Z-spectra could be fitted with four exchanging pools at 0.66, 1.28, 2.08 and 2.88 ppm. Corresponding hydroxyl exchange rates could be determined at pH = 7.2, T = 37°C and 1X PBS. Simulation of saturation transfer for this glucose system in a gray matter-like and a tumor-like system revealed optimal pulses at different field strengths of 9.4, 7 and 3 T. Different existing sequences and approaches are simulated and discussed. The optima found could be experimentally verified in an animal model at 7 T. CONCLUSION: For the determined fast exchange regime, presaturation pulses in the spin-lock regime (long recover time, short yet strong saturation) were found to be optimal. This study gives an estimation for optimization of the glucoCEST signal in vivo on the basis of glucose exchange rate at physiological conditions.
AIMS: To determine individual glucose hydroxyl exchange rates at physiological conditions and use this information for numerical optimization of glucoCEST/CESL preparation. To give guidelines for in vivo glucoCEST/CESL measurement parameters at clinical and ultra-high field strengths. METHODS: Five glucose solution samples at different pH values were measured at 14.1 T at various B1 power levels. Multi-B1 -Z-spectra Bloch-McConnell fits at physiological pH were further improved by the fitting of Z-spectra of five pH values simultaneously. The obtained exchange rates were used in a six-pool Bloch-McConnell simulation including a tissue-like water pool and semi-solid MT pool with different CEST and CESL presaturation pulse trains. In vivo glucose injection experiments were performed in a tumormouse model at 7 T. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Glucose Z-spectra could be fitted with four exchanging pools at 0.66, 1.28, 2.08 and 2.88 ppm. Corresponding hydroxyl exchange rates could be determined at pH = 7.2, T = 37°C and 1X PBS. Simulation of saturation transfer for this glucose system in a gray matter-like and a tumor-like system revealed optimal pulses at different field strengths of 9.4, 7 and 3 T. Different existing sequences and approaches are simulated and discussed. The optima found could be experimentally verified in an animal model at 7 T. CONCLUSION: For the determined fast exchange regime, presaturation pulses in the spin-lock regime (long recover time, short yet strong saturation) were found to be optimal. This study gives an estimation for optimization of the glucoCEST signal in vivo on the basis of glucose exchange rate at physiological conditions.
Authors: Jinyuan Zhou; Jean-Francois Payen; David A Wilson; Richard J Traystman; Peter C M van Zijl Journal: Nat Med Date: 2003-07-20 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Greg J Stanisz; Ewa E Odrobina; Joseph Pun; Michael Escaravage; Simon J Graham; Michael J Bronskill; R Mark Henkelman Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Kai Herz; Tobias Lindig; Anagha Deshmane; Jens Schittenhelm; Marco Skardelly; Benjamin Bender; Ulrike Ernemann; Klaus Scheffler; Moritz Zaiss Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2019-06-23 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Steffen Goerke; Moritz Zaiss; Patrick Kunz; Karel D Klika; Johannes D Windschuh; Axel Mogk; Bernd Bukau; Mark E Ladd; Peter Bachert Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2015-05-26 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Moritz Zaiss; Goran Angelovski; Eleni Demetriou; Michael T McMahon; Xavier Golay; Klaus Scheffler Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-07-07 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Steffen Goerke; Katharina S Milde; Raul Bukowiecki; Patrick Kunz; Karel D Klika; Thomas Wiglenda; Axel Mogk; Erich E Wanker; Bernd Bukau; Mark E Ladd; Peter Bachert; Moritz Zaiss Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2016-11-11 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Daniel Paech; Patrick Schuenke; Christina Koehler; Johannes Windschuh; Sibu Mundiyanapurath; Sebastian Bickelhaupt; David Bonekamp; Philipp Bäumer; Peter Bachert; Mark E Ladd; Martin Bendszus; Wolfgang Wick; Andreas Unterberg; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Moritz Zaiss; Alexander Radbruch Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-06-16 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Moritz Zaiss; Zhongliang Zu; Junzhong Xu; Patrick Schuenke; Daniel F Gochberg; John C Gore; Mark E Ladd; Peter Bachert Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2014-12-15 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Karl Ludger Radke; Daniel B Abrar; Miriam Frenken; Lena Marie Wilms; Benedikt Kamp; Matthias Boschheidgen; Patrick Liebig; Alexandra Ljimani; Timm Joachim Filler; Gerald Antoch; Sven Nebelung; Hans-Jörg Wittsack; Anja Müller-Lutz Journal: Tomography Date: 2022-05-07
Authors: Anina Seidemo; Patrick M Lehmann; Anna Rydhög; Ronnie Wirestam; Gunther Helms; Yi Zhang; Nirbhay N Yadav; Pia C Sundgren; Peter C M van Zijl; Linda Knutsson Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2021-09-29 Impact factor: 4.478
Authors: Dennis Kleimaier; Steffen Goerke; Cordula Nies; Moritz Zaiss; Patrick Kunz; Peter Bachert; Mark E Ladd; Eric Gottwald; Lothar R Schad Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-07-06 Impact factor: 4.379