Manuel Taso1,2,3,4, Oliver M. Girard1,3, Guillaume Duhamel1,3, Maxime Guye1,3, Jean-Philippe Ranjeva1,3,4, and Virginie Callot1,3,4
1CRMBM UMR 7339, Aix-Marseille Université, CNRS, Marseille, France, 2LBA UMR T 24, Aix-Marseille Université, IFSTTAR, Marseille, France, 3CEMEREM, AP-HM, Pôle d'imagerie médicale, Marseille, France, 4iLab-Spine international associate laboratory, Marseille/Montréal, France
Synopsis
Handedness
is known to influence brain structure. However, no evidences of such influence
in the spinal cord (SC) exist. Hence, we propose to use multi-parametric MRI
(DTI and inhomogeneous MT, both sensible to microstructural properties), combined
with atlas-based analysis in specific fascicles, to assess the influence of
handedness on the SC structure. Results demonstrated that right-handers presented
higher ihMTR/MTR values in the right motor tracts, suggesting an asymmetric
myelination while left-handers did not present differences between left and
right regions. This is consistent with brain findings suggesting that
right-handedness is associated with higher structural asymmetry in the central
nervous system.Target audience
Neuroscientists
and clinicians involved in spinal cord structure and function assessment using
MRI
Introduction
Handedness
is known to influence brain structure, and more especially asymmetry of the
brain microstructure. This has been previously assessed using morphological
analyses (especially sulcal depth
1) and diffusion MRI
2,3,4,
demonstrating structural asymmetry differences between left-handed and
right-handed healthy subjects. The objectives of this work were to assess
whether handedness-related asymmetry also exists within the spinal cord (SC)
and whether it may influence tract organization and myelination of the lateral
motor tracts. For that purpose, diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and inhomogeneous
magnetization transfer (ihMT)
5,6, which were shown to be robust and sensitive
to detect variations in SC microstructure
7, have been used.
Material and methods
MR
scanning: 29 volunteers (mean age 31±9yo) were recruited. Handedness
was assessed using the Edinburgh test 8 leading to a cohort of 10
left-handed (LH, Edinburgh < -50%) and 19 right-handed volunteers (RH, Edinburgh
> 50%). MRI was performed at 3T using standard coils. Anatomical imaging consisted in an axial ECG-gated T2*-w
sequence (0.5x0.5x5mm3, 7 slices, 1 slice/cervical level positioned
mid-vertebrally and perpendicularly to the SC curve). Axial HASTE ihMT5,6 sequence was
acquired at the C2 and C5 levels (resolution 0.9x0.9x10mm3,
ECG-gating, TR=4s, 500 saturation pulses, offset 7 KHz, alternation between
single and dual frequency saturation experiments). Retrospective data filtering9
was performed using ECG data prior to ihMTR (=ihMT/M0) and MTR
(=1-MT/M0) calculation. Monopolar single-shot SE-EPI DTI was acquired at the same levels (0.9x0.9x10mm3,
b=0 and 800 s/mm2, 30 directions, ECG-gating). FA, ADC, $$$\lambda_{//}$$$ and $$$\lambda_{\bot}$$$ and were estimated using vendor software.
Post-processing:
an
automated post-processing pipeline previously described was used7, providing
an automated SC segmentation10 as well as a normalization of both mp-MRI
and anatomical data in a reference space11, thereby allowing
quantification of the DTI/ihMT metrics in specific WM fascicles and GM horns.
In this study we looked more specifically at the lateral motor tracts
(corticospinal/rubrospinal/reticulospinal tracts) derived from the WM pathways
atlas12 included in the MNI-Poly-AMU template13 and at
the left and right anterior GM horns7. Asymmetry (A) of the metrics,
defined as the right-to-left ratio of the metric were also calculated. Statistical
analyses (two-sample t-test, JMP9, SAS) were performed to compare not only LH
and RH groups in the left and right regions, but also left and right tracts
within RH or LH group, as well as asymmetry coefficients for both LH and RH groups.
Results
No
significant differences were observed when considering the diffusion metrics
(FA, ADC, $$$\lambda_{\ //}$$$ and $$$\lambda_{\bot}$$$). When considering the MT
and ihMT ratios and asymmetry coefficient, no significant difference could be
observed between LH and RH volunteers when looking at the motor regions. However,
significant differences were detected between left and right regions within the
RH group (fig.2). More specifically, higher ihMTR (5.96±0.55 vs 5.58±0.64% for right and left
tracts respectively, p<0.001 ; A = 1.07) (cf. fig. 1) and MTR (27.4±2.4 vs 25.4±3% respectively, p<0.0005, A=1.08) were observed in the right
WM motor tracts as compared to the left ones. When performing the same
comparison within the LH volunteers, no significant differences were detected for
ihMTR (6.02±0.72 vs 5.85±0.69 for right and left motor
tracts respectively, p=0.81 ;
A=1.03) nor
MTR (26.9±4.2 vs 26.4±3.6 %
respectively, p=0.99;
A=1.03). No significant differences were detected in the somato-sensory tracts,
nor in the GM.
Discussion/Conclusion
Through
the observation of MT and ihMT metrics variations, this study highlighted significant
structural differences in the SC when considering LH and RH. In particular, myelination
differences in the lateral motor tracts seems to be right-hander specific as
seen when comparing left and right regions in each group. This study is the
first reporting an asymmetric behavior in the SC according to handedness, with
a focus on motor tracts myelination. Although structural asymmetry has been demonstrated
in the brain using either DTI
2,3,4 or morphometry
1, no
report demonstrated different myelination in the pyramidal tract in the brain
so far. A first interesting perspective would therefore be to use ihMT to study
the normal brain myelination asymmetry and to see whether confirmation of the
results presented here could arise in the brain. Reversely, extension of the
present work to study handedness influence on the SC motor GM morphometry, as
performed in the brain, is under investigation. These results may be of
particular interest to study for example normal or pathological aspects of SC structure
and function using MRI.
Acknowledgements
No acknowledgement found.References
1
Amunts et al, NeuroImage, 1996.
4(3 Pt 1): p. 216-22; 2 Powell et al, Neuroscience, 2012.
207: p. 227-42; 3
Seizeur et al, Surg Radiol Anat, 2014.
36(2): p. 111-24; 4 Buchel et al, Cerebral
Cortex, 2004.
14(9): p. 945-51; 5 Varma et al, MRM, 2015.
73(2): p. 614-22; 6 Girard et al,
MRM, 2015.
73(6): p. 2111-21; 7 Taso et al, ISMRM 2015 p.681; 8 Oldfield,
Neuropsychologia, 1971. 9(1): p. 97-113; 9 Girard et al., MRM, 2015 (in
revision) ; 10 De Leener et al, NeuroImage, 2014.
98: p. 528-36; 11
Taso et al, NeuroImage, 2015.
117: p. 20-28; 12 Lévy et al, NeuroImage, 2015.
119(0): p. 262-271; 13
Fonov et al, NeuroImage, 2014. 102P2: p. 817-827