Sonia Isabel Goncalves1, Clémence Ligneul1, and Noam Shemesh1
1Champalimaud Neuroscience Programme, Champalimaud Centre for the Unknown, Lisbon PT, Lisbon, Portugal
Synopsis
About half of the proton spectrum (downfield of water) has been nearly
ignored over the decades of MRS application due to water suppression. We show
that ISIS-based Relaxation Enhanced MRS (iRE-MRS) which uses frequency
selective excitation and ISIS localization offers short echo times and enhances
exchange-broadened resonances. We take advantage of this to characterize the relaxation properties of downfield spectral peaks.
Synopsis
MRS allows non-invasive in-vivo exploration of tissue metabolism.
However,about half of the proton spectrum (downfield of water) has been nearly
ignored over the decades of MRS application due to water suppression.We show
that ISIS-based Relaxation Enhanced MRS (iRE-MRS) which uses frequency
selective excitation and ISIS localization offers short echo times and enhances
exchange-broadened resonances.We measure the T1s and calculate signal decay
due to T2 relaxation and find that downfield peaks show a signal decrease of
more than 50% when increasing TE from 5 to only 16 ms.Calculated T1 values are
in the range of 1.55-1.75 s.Introduction
Downfield magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) has received little
attention due to the difficulty in detecting resonances,mostly originating from
labile protons.In fact,few studies with high dynamic range MRS [1-4] or
Relaxation-Enhanced MRS [5] (RE-MRS),focused on downfield spectra.A recent
new method,termed iRE-MRS [6] combines RE-MRS with
ISIS localization [7] in the aim of
obtaining downfield spectra at TEs as short as 5 ms – an important attribute
given the rapidly exchanging signals downfield.Here,we use iRE-MRS to measure
T1 and T2 relaxation effects of multiple downfield resonances in-vivo,at 9.4
T.Methods
Animal
experiments were preapproved by the institutional and national authorities and
carried out according to European Directive 2010/63. Experiments were carried
out on N=6 Long-Evans female rats weighting 250, aged ~3
months.Pulse
sequence design.Figure 1 illustrates the iRE-MRS pulse
sequence.It is based on spectrally-selective excitation and refocusing,
avoiding water suppression [5]. However,unlike the previous RE-MRS studies,
localization is achieved by an ISIS block,consisting of three
spatially-selective adiabatic inversions.OVS modules were implemented to
improve localization quality. For T1 measurements,an additional
inversion-recovery (IR) module,consisting of a non-selective adiabatic
inversion followed by spoiler gradients,was added.Spectrally-selective
RF pulses.The spectrally-selective RF pulses were
generated by the shape algorithm implemented in Paravision 6.0.1 (Bruker
Biospin,Ettlingen,Germany),which employs the Shinar LeRoux algorithm [8].Excitation
and refocusing pulses were centered at 9.5 ppm,having a bandwidth of 6.5 ppm.MRS
experiments.All experiments were performed using a
9.4 T horizontal bore scanner (Bruker-Biospin, Karlsruhe, Germany), equipped
with an 86 mm coil for transmission and a 4-element array cryocoil (Bruker
BioSpin, Fallanden, Switzerland) for signal reception. iRE MRS spectra were
obtained in a centrally-positioned 6.0×2.5×3.5 mm3 voxel, including cortex and caudate-putamen.Experiments were executed using the
following common acquisition parameters:TR=15000 ms (>>5T1 of
metabolites),8 steps per ISIS cycle,8 repetitions (cycles) per experiment,spectral
width 5597.01 Hz,spectral resolution 1.94Hz/point.T2
relaxation.Data were acquired (N=3 rats) for three
TEs: 5, 16 and 40 ms.
T1
measurement.Data were acquired (N=3 rats) for the
following TIs (measured from the adiabatic inversion in IR module to the
frequency selective excitation): 148, 238, 468, 578, 798, 1118, 2538, 4138,
6138, 14538 ms.Post-processing.Each FID (ISIS
cycle) was Fourier transformed, the resulting spectra were individually
rephased and then averaged over the total number of repetitions for each scan.Apodization
with an exponential factor of 15 Hz-width.T1 data were fitted to function
M(TI)=M0(1-2e-TI/T1) using non-linear regression.Average
T1 values,weighted by the fit residuals,were calculated.For T2 relaxation
quantification,the relative signal decrease with respect to TE=5 ms was
calculated for all peaks and averaged over animals.Results
Figure 2 shows illustrative data obtained for T2 and T1 measurements.In
figure 2a,in addition to NAA,multiple other spectral peaks (a,b,c,d,e and f) are detected between 6.8 and 8.5 ppm.Figure 3 depicts typical data points and fit results (peak e) for the 3 animals that were used for T1 measurement.Table 1
shows the average T1 values are larger than 1.55 s and smaller than 1.75 s.The
T2 signal decay (Table 2),with the exception of NAA,is larger than 50% when
increasing TE from 5 to as little as 16 ms,which explains their detection
sensitivity to TE lengthening,as previously reported in [1].Discussion
With the exception of NAA,all downfield peaks are dramatically
attenuated with TE lengthening.In fact,changing TE from 5 to only 16 ms leads
to a decrease in signal intensity of 50 to 65%,being barely undetectable for
TE=40 ms.It is thus very important to densely sample very short TEs in order
to correctly recover the T2 decay curve of these species.T1 estimations are
longer than what has been reported before [6, 9].Two reasons for this might be
that we have sampled the IR recovery curve considering a longer maximum TI
value (14,5 s against 6 s in [9]) and that T1s are biased to longer values due
to exchange with water.Further research,calculating both T1 and exchange rate
values in a unified model and/or using multi-exponential models,is needed to disentangle these effects.Conclusions
Downfield
spectral peaks show large T2 relaxation effects already at TEs as short as 16ms.From here it results
that performing downfield MRS at short TE (< 10 ms) is of paramount
importance to detect these peaks.T1 values appear longer than previously
reported.Acknowledgements
No acknowledgement found.References
[1] Gonçalves and Shemesh, ISMRM 2018; [2]
Piotto et al., J. Biomol. NMR, 2, 661-665, 1992; [3] Dreher and Leibfritz,
Magn. Res. Med., 54, 190-195, 2005. [4] MacMillan et al., 65, 1239-1246, 2011;
[5] MacMillan et al., 70, 916-924, 2013; [6] Shemesh et al., Nat Commun, doi: 10.1038/ncomms5958, 2014; [7] Ordidge
et al., J. Magn. Res., 66, 283, 1986; [8] Pauly et al., IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging, 10,
53-65, 1991; [9] Fichtner et al. Magn. Res. Med., 78, 11-19,
2017.