Ashley D Harris1,2,3,4, Eric Porges5, Adam J Woods5,6, Damon G Lamb5,7, Ronald A Cohen5, John B Williamson5,8, Nicolaas AJ Puts3,4, and Richard AE Edden3,4
1Radiology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada, 2CAIR Program, Hotchkiss Brain Institute and Alberta Children's Hospital Research Institute, Calgary, AB, Canada, 3Russell H Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States, 4FM Kirby Center for Functional Brain Imaging, Kennedy Krieger Institute, Baltimore, MD, United States, 5Center for Cognitive Aging and Memory (CAM), McKnight Brain Institute, Department of Aging and Geriatric Research, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States, 6Department of Neuroscience, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States, 7Brain Rehabilitation and Research Center, Malcom Randall Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Gainesville, FL, United States, 8Brain Rehabilitation and Research Center, Brain Rehabilitation and Research Center, Gainesville, FL, United States
Synopsis
There are various strategies for tissue
correction for MRS. Here, using data from a healthy aging cohort, we show that
the selection of tissue correction method can change the conclusions that are
drawn from data.Introduction
Given the role of GABAergic inhibition in
cortical information processing, and the recent cross-sectional observation of GABA
levels decreasing with age, as measured using GABA-edited MRS [1], it is
interesting to ask to what extent age-related functional decline is caused by
loss of GABAergic control. One major difficulty in such studies is the
appropriate handling of age-related atrophy which results in decreasing voxel
tissue/CSF content. Additionally, the concentration of GABA differs between
gray (GM) and white matter (WM) [2]. While Gao et al. [1] quantified GABA
relative to Cr, making measures insensitive to the increasing CSF voxel
content, this does not account for differences in GABA concentration between WM
and GM. Recently Harris et al. [2] proposed a tissue correction that accounts
for differences in GABA concentration between WM and GM, captured by the factor
α (referred to as α-correction). In current study, we compare the impact of the typical CSF-correction
and the α-correction in water-referenced GABA-edited MRS in a healthy,
elderly cohort. Given the expectation that tissue fraction decreases with age,
this cohort enables the comparison of tissue correction strategies for GABA-edited
MRS with changing voxel-tissue content.
Methods
GABA-edited MRS data were collected in 94
participants (40 male) over an age range of 44 to 92, average age 73.1 ± 9.9
years. MEGA-PRESS data were collected on a 3T Philips Achieva scanner, using a
32-channel head coil and the following acquisition parameters: TR/TE = 2s/68ms,
14 ms-editing pulses at 1.9 ppm (‘On’) and 7.46 ppm (‘Off’), 320 averages, 2048
data points sampled at 2 kHz, VAPOR water suppression and 8 unsuppressed water averages
for quantification. Data were acquired from an anterior voxel and a posterior
voxel as shown in Figure 1.
Data were processed using Gannet2.0 [3],
with integrated voxel-to-image coregistration and segmentation using SPM [4].
Three different tissue correction strategies were compared: no tissue
correction, CSF-correction (division by the voxel tissue fraction), and α-correction including
the normalization to the group-average voxel-tissue fractions [2]. The α-correction (equation
below) used an α = 0.5, thus assumes there is twice as much GABA in GM compared to
WM.
$$
\alpha-corrected
GABA=\frac{I_{G}MM}{I_{w}\kappa}\frac{({\sum_i^{GM,WM,CSF}c_{w,i}}e^{-TE/T_{2w,i}}(1-e^{TR/T_{1w,i}})f_i)}{e^{-TE/T_{2G}}(1-e^{-TR/T_{1G}})}(\frac{\mu_{GM}+\alpha\mu_{WM}}{(f_{GM}+\alpha
f_{WM})(\mu_{GM}+\alpha\mu_{WM})})
$$
where i designates
the tissue compartments GM, WM and CSF, IG and Iw are the
signal integrals for GABA and water, respectively, cw,i is the water
visibility, MM is the macromolecular fraction and κ is the editing efficiency
of GABA, fi is the voxel fraction, and μGM and μWM is the
group average voxel fraction for GM and WM.
Results
Two anterior voxels were omitted due to
poor segmentation. For the posterior voxel, all tissue correction approaches
(no tissue correction, CSF-correction and α-correction) show a
significant relationship between GABA and age (Figure 2A). In the anterior
voxel the GABA values without tissue correction and the CSF-correction also
show a significant relationship between age and GABA levels; however, after
applying the α-correction, GABA and age are no longer correlated (Figure 2B). As
shown in Figure 3, the anterior voxel shows a higher rate of age-related WM fraction
decline and CSF fraction increase compared to the posterior voxel while GM
fraction shows similar changes in both voxels.
Discussion
There is a need for consensus over whether
to adjust MRS-measured concentrations for voxel content, and if so, how – here
we demonstrate that the choice of tissue correction will impact conclusions. In
this cohort, both regions show overall losses in tissue with age; however, the anterior
voxel shows a steeper decline due to a faster rate of white-matter loss. In this voxel, the α-correction removes the
relationship between GABA and age that is otherwise seen with no tissue
correction or CSF-correction. This may indicate that WM-tissue fraction changes
are driving the relationship between GABA and age in this voxel. In the
posterior voxel, the same relationship between age and voxel WM is not
apparent. Interestingly, the age-GABA relationship remains for the 3 different
tissue correction strategies in the posterior voxel. These results provide
compelling evidence for the need to consider tissue concentration differences
in GABA concentration.
Acknowledgements
NIH grants: UL1TR000064, KL2 TR000065, R01 EB 016089, R21 NS077300, P41 EB015909, the Center for Cognitive Aging and Memory at the University of Florida, the McKnight Brain Research Foundation, and the Claude D. Pepper Center at the University of Florida.
References
1 – Gao et al. Neuroimage. 2013;68:75-82.
2 – Harris et al. J Magn Reson Imaging.
2015;42:1431-40.
3 – Edden et al. J Magn Reson Imaging.
2014;40:1445-52.
4 – Ashburner and Friston. NeuroImage.
2005; 26: 839-51.