Synopsis
Phosphomonoesters (PME) and phosphodiesters (PDE) are emerging
biomarkers in cirrhosis and fatty liver disease. In this study, phosphorus (31P)
liver metabolite concentrations were quantified at 7T for 10 healthy volunteers
using a 28 minute, 3D UTE-CSI sequence and an endogenous 2.5mM ATP reference. The
inorganic phosphate concentration was 1.95 ± 0.18mM (1.25-2.43mM in the
literature). Summing individual ester peaks, the total PME and PDE
concentrations were 1.90 ± 0.29mM (cf. 1.98-3.89mM) and 4.31 ± 0.80mM (cf. 8.01-11.40mM).
We attribute this apparent reduction in PDE to a broadening of the underlying
phospholipid bilayer resonance and the increased spectral resolution at 7T.Purpose
Hepatic disease affects over 10% of people in Western populations
1,
2.
Phosphomonoester (PME) and phosphodiester (PDE) concentrations are emerging
biomarkers indicating the presence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease
3 or liver cirrhosis
4. The region of the
liver phosphorus magnetic resonance spectroscopy (
31P-MRS) spectrum
containing PME and PDE has several other resonances which make accurate
quantitation difficult. Increasing field strength from 3T to 7T improves
spectral resolution for in vivo
31P-MRS
5, which should
allow for improved quantitation.
As yet, only inorganic phosphate (P
i) concentrations
have been reported at 7T
6. In this study, we
use our 16-element receive array coil
7 to report PME and PDE concentrations from
the livers of 10 healthy volunteers.
Theory
Each voxel can be corrected to yield an absolute
concentration8:
$$[M] = \frac{S_MF_M\nu_R\eta_M[R]}{S_RF_R\nu_M\eta_R}$$
in which S is the signal per voxel, F is the saturation correction
factor, ν is the filling factor, and $$$\eta$$$ is the sensitivity correction of
the tissue or reference sample in the voxel. The subscripts stand for reference
R and metabolite M.
When using an endogenous reference (i.e. concentration of
adenosine triphosphate (ATP) = 2.5mM), $$$\eta_M = \eta_R$$$ and $$$\nu_M =\nu_R$$$ reducing Eq.1 to:
$$[M] = \frac{S_MF_M}{S_RF_R}\times2.5\tt{mM} $$
Methods
10
fasted, healthy volunteers (6M/4F, 26.7 ± 4.8 years, 72.4 ± 10.3 kg, recruited
ethically) were scanned in a Magnetom 7T (Siemens) using a 16-channel 31P
receive array coil (Rapid Biomedical, Germany)9.
A
3D UTE-CSI pulse sequence, with 1s TR, excitation bandwidth covering all
metabolites from uridine diphosphoglycerate to phosphocholine (-12 to 10 ppm),
acquisition weighting with 10 averages at k=0, and one B1-insensitive train to obliterate
signal (BISTRO) saturation band to suppress overlying skeletal muscle10,
was used to acquire a 16x16x8 matrix of spectra over a 27 x 24 x 20 cm3
field of view covering the liver in a total of 28 min.
Spectra
from each receive element were combined with whitened singular value
decomposition (WSVD) combination11.
The combined spectra were analysed following our established protocol7; in brief: peaks
were fitted with linewidth-constrained AMARES12, fiducial markers
were used to localize each coil element, and saturation correction factors were
computed using the Biot-Savart law and literature metabolite T1 values13. Concentrations
were then calculated for this work using Eq. 2, assuming a 2.5mM concentration
of ATP14.
Results
A typical liver spectrum is shown in Figure 1. The
individual PME and PDE peaks were quantified separately and then summed
together for comparison with the literature. The concentrations for individual
subjects are plotted in Figure 2. The average concentrations from our study are
presented alongside comparators from the literature in Table 1 and Figure 3.
Discussion
The assumption of a 2.5mM ATP concentration is reasonable in
the fasted, healthy human liver14,
15,
and is consistent with exogenous reference studies16-18
(see Fig. 3).
PME is significantly smaller in this study than in several
previous studies16,
18, 19
(at a p=0.05 level for Student’s t-test, see Fig 3). However, the difference for PDE is more
significant in all cases (at a p=0.0001 level, 3.7-7.1mM difference).
At low field strength, it is difficult to distinguish the
phosphoenolpyruvate (PEP) / phosphatidylcholine (PtdCh) peak from the PDE peak
because the peaks strongly overlap5. At 3T it is only
possible with proton decoupling20 (see Fig. 4).
Another contributing factor is an underlying resonance in the PDE region due to
endoplasmic reticulum. This broadens from 210Hz at 1.9T to 7000Hz at 7T and
becomes indistinguishable from baseline noise21.
In a direct comparison between 1.5T and 3T, there was a small reduction in the
underlying broad peak and a small positive difference between PME/PDE ratios20. This effect is
likely to have become still more prominent at 7T, as the underlying peak has
broadened enough to be below the noise threshold for detection.
There are two possible sources of additional ATP, which
would reduce the apparent PDE concentration: skeletal muscle and blood. The
average phosphocreatine (PCr) contamination was 0.66 ± 0.12mM. Given the 4:1
ratio of PCr:ATP in skeletal muscle, the average ATP contamination is less than
0.17mM. Correcting for this would give a PDE concentration of 4.43mM. The 2,3-diphosphoglycerate
(2,3-DPG) to ATP ratio is about 9:122 in blood, so any contamination
would increase the 2,3-DPG signal, overlapping PDE, more than ATP and the
apparent PDE concentration would be increased.
Conclusion
The resolution of PDE into separate peaks at 7T allows more
accurate quantitation and presents an opportunity to determine which
metabolites are the true biomarkers for hepatic diseases. We anticipate that
this will improve the predictive accuracy of the method compared to lower field
strengths.
Acknowledgements
Funded by a Sir Henry Dale Fellowship from the Royal Society
and the Wellcome Trust [098436/Z/12/Z] and the Medical Research Council. We
would like to thank Stefan Neubauer for helpful discussion.References
1. Younossi ZM, et al. Clinical Gastroenterology and
Hepatology. 2011
2. Blachier M, et al. J Hepatol. 2013
3. Abrigo JM, et al. J Hepatol. 2014
4. Dezortova M, et al. World J Gastroenterol. 2005
5. Chmelík M, et al. Eur Radiol. 2015
6. Valkovic L, et al. Eur Radiol. 2014
7. Purvis LAB, et al. ISMRM, 2015
8. Bottomley PA. Encyclopaedia of Magnetic Resonance.
2009.
9. Rodgers CT, et al. ISMRM. 2014
10. Luo Y, et al. Magn Reson Med. 2001
11. Rodgers CT, Robson MD. Magn Reson Med. 2010
12. Purvis LAB, et al. ISMRM, 2014
13. Chmelik M, et al. NMR Biomed. 2014
14. Sijens PE, et al. Magn Reson Imaging. 1998
15. Hultman E, et al. Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 1975
16. Chmelik M, et al. Magn Reson Med. 2008
17. Laufs A, et al. Magn Reson Med. 2014
18. Buchli R, et al. Magn Reson Med. 1994
19. Menon DK, et al. Hepatology. 1995
20. Wylezinska M, et al. NMR Biomed. 2011
21. Murphy EJ, et al. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1992
22. Neubauer S, et al.
Circulation. 1992