Nicola Bertolino1, Paul Polak1, Marilena Preda1,2, Robert Zivadinov1,2, and Ferdinand Schweser1,2
1Buffalo Neuroimaging Analysis Center, Department of Neurology,Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, The State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, United States, 2MRI Molecular and Translational Research Center, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, The State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, United States
Synopsis
In-vivo 1H-MR
spectroscopy is a non-invasive technique able to detect metabolites providing important information from investigated tissue. GABA and Glutamate are two metabolites altered in many neurological diseases, although challenging to quantify in vivo because of a number of technical issues: voxel localization, low concentration, short T2, overlapping peaks and spin-spin coupling. In this work we developed an
optimized parameter set for an ultra-short TE STEAM.Introduction
1H-MRS
(magnetic resonance spectroscopy) is an MRI technique that particularly benefits from moving to higher magnetic field strength, because of SNR improvements
that allow the use of smaller voxels, mitigating line-broadening due to
magnetic field inhomogeneities. There is strong interest in quantifying GABA
and Glutamate (Glu), because they are altered in many neurological pathologies.
However, these metabolites are among the most difficult to detect, due to their low concentration, and overlapping peaks. Detection of GABA and Glu improves with a short echo-time (TE),
because of short T2 times and J-coupling
1.
The purpose of
this work was to develop an optimized 1H-MRS pulse sequence for quantifying GABA
and Glu in selected anatomical sub-structures of the mouse brain as small as 3.6mm
3
in less than 20 minutes.
Methods
Setup and sequence optimization: All MRS
measurements were performed on a 9.4 T Bruker Biospec scanner with a horizontal bore
of 20 cm diameter (Biospec 94/20 USR, Bruker Biospin, Germany). We decided to
employ a dual-channel cryogenic surface transceiver RF coil (CP) for improved
signal-to-noise ratio. However, a limitation of this coil is that its power-limitations
are relatively low (max. 20W) rendering the 180o pulses of the widely
used PRESS sequence relatively long. In particular, due to the inhomogeneous
flip angle profile of the CP, more pulse power is required to create a desired flip angle physically farther away from the coil (ventral) than closer (dorsal).
The STEAM sequence employs only 90o pulses, allowing a much shorter TE
with the same pulse power, but suffers from a reduction of the SNR by a factor
of 2 compared to PRESS (at the same TE).
To compare the two
sequences we optimized them with respect to minimum TE using a 3.6mm3 voxel
placed in the basal ganglia (BG; ventral location) resulting in TE=2.6ms for
STEAM and TE=11.5ms for PRESS. Other
parameters were identical: VAPOR 250Hz; 4096 points; 6010Hz. The sequence TR
was optimized to yield the highest GABA/Glu signal per time interval resulting
in TR=2s for T1=1.5s.2 With 512 averages this resulted in a measurement time of
17:12 min:sec. The PRESS sequence had a maximal (fat-water) spatial displacement
of 1.19mm, the STEAM sequence 0.38mm.
Data acquisition: Experiments were
performed in a SJL/J mouse and were approved by our Institutional Animal Care
& Use Committee. Animals were anesthetized using 1-3% isoflurane
under monitoring of respiration rate and body temperature. We applied both optimized
sequences in two different brain regions with exactly equal voxel prescriptions:
frontal cortex and BG with voxel volumes of 3.8 and 3.6mm3,
respectively. Localized iterative shimming was performed before each MRS
acquisition. A water spectrum was acquired before each sequence for
eddy-current correction. To understand the benefit of using CP, we repeated
the experiment with a standard room temperature (RT) cross-coil configuration
employing a quadrature volume coil for excitation and a four-channel surface array
coil for signal detection.
Data analysis: All
spectra were analyzed using LCModel(v6.3) using appropriate basis sets for the
two sequences. SNR of spectra was evaluated using the following relation [cf. Eq. section 2.4 in Ref. 5]: $$\frac{\textrm{maximum peak height}-\textrm{baseline-fit}}{\textrm{analysis window} _{ppm}*2*\textrm{RMS}(\textrm{fit residual})}$$
Resuts
Excellent
spectral quality was obtained with both sequences using the CP configuration
(Fig.1). The PRESS spectrum had a lower noise level but the overlapping peaks
of GABA and Glu were better discernible in the STEAM spectrum due to the lower
TE3. SNR levels of STEAM and PRESS were 9 and 10, respectively. The LCModel
quantification yielded similar Cramér–Rao bounds (CRB) for GABA and Glu with
both sequences, between 2% and 8%.
Fig.2 shows
a comparison of the CP setup with the RT setup. The SNR was significantly
reduced compared to the CP, with 3 for STEAM and 4 for PRESS. Due to the low
SNR quantification of GABA and Glu was not possible (CRB>20%).
Fig.3 and 4
show voxel prescriptions and exemplary LCModel fits of the CP-based STEAM data
in the BG and cortex.
Discussion and Conclusion
We demonstrated the feasibility of GABA and Glu quantification in
anatomical sub-structures of the mouse brain with very low CRBs in 17 minutes acquisition time. STEAM and PRESS sequences yielded similar CRBs,
but the PRESS had rather poor voxel localization compared to the STEAM
sequence
4, with a maximum displacement as large as the voxel edge length.
The
quantification of GABA and Glu was ultimately enabled by using the CP, which
yielded a three fold improved SNR. To achieve the same SNR with RT, the number of
averages would have to be an order of magnitude higher, leading to an impractical acquisition time of 3 hours.
References
1.Puts NAJ and Edden RAE. In vivo magnetic resonance spectroscopy of GABA: A methodological Review. Progress in Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy, Volume 60, January 2012, Pages 29–41
2. Cudalbu C, Mlynárik V, Xin L and Gruette R. Comparison of T1 Relaxation Times of the Neurochemical Profile in Rat Brain at 9.4 Tesla and 14.1 Tesla. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, Volume 62, Issue 4, pages 862–867, October 2009
3. Prescot1 AP, Shi X, Choi C and Renshaw PF. In vivo T2 relaxation time measurements with echo-time averaging. NMR in Biomedicine, Volume 27, Issue 8, pages 863–869, August 2014
4. Zhu H and Barker B. MR Spectroscopy and Spectroscopic Imaging of the human Brain. Methods Mol Biol.,2011: 711: 203-226
5. Provencher S. LCModel & LCMgui User's Manual. 2014