Synopsis
Using a recently developed PFG-based framework for
fast diffusion kurtosis imaging we observe a strong time dependence of
diffusion and kurtosis metrics in fixed spinal cord white matter from 6-350 ms.
DKI metrics can be expressed in terms of intra- and extra axonal properties
using white matter tract integrity (biexponential modelling), but a sign
ambiguity results in two solutions of the inverse problem. The time dependence
of the two solutions observed here help identify the correct solution, and
allows comparing time-dependent compartment diffusivities with theory.
Introduction
Non-vanishing diffusion kurtosis and time-dependent
diffusion are both hallmarks of nongaussian diffusion in biological tissues. Here
we use the 199 fast kurtosis acquisition protocol [1-3] to estimate radial,
axial and mean kurtosis and diffusivity with reduced data requirements, allowing
us to cover an extended range of diffusion times (6-350 ms ) using the same PFG
based sequence. Combined with biophysical modelling, we use this data from
spinal cord white matter to provide microstructurally specific information,
i.e. axonal water fraction, intra-axonal diffusivity and extracellular
diffusivity in radial and axial directions as functions of diffusion time, and
compare with effective medium theory. The time dependence of axonal
diffusivities help resolve an inherent ambiguity in diffusion modelling related
to the relative magnitude of intra- and extra-cellular diffusivity.Methods
Fixed porcine spinal cord was imaged with a stimulated echo diffusion imaging
sequence (EPI) on an ultrahigh-field 16.4T Bruker Aeon Ascend magnet (700MHz)
equipped with a micro5 probe capable of producing up to 3000mT/m in all
directions. Six b=0 images were acquired, as well as six b-values
from 500 to 3000 µm2/ms, with nine directions for the 199 DKI scheme
each[1]. Other imaging parameters were: 4 averages, TE=16 ms, TR=7.5s, in-plane
resolution 140 µm x140 µm. Gradient pulse width was kept constant at 1.15ms,
and diffusion times ranged from 6 ms to 350 ms in 57 steps. The raw images were
corrected for Gibbs ringing[4] and denoised[5] before the subsequent analysis. Axial, radial, and mean diffusion and
kurtosis were estimated with axially symmetric DKI fitting[3], and analysed in seven white matter ROIs: A=dCST – dorsal corticospinal
tract, B=FG – Fasiculus Gracilis, C=FC – Fasiculus Cuneatis, D=ReST –
Reticulospinal tract, E=RST – Rubrospinal tract, F=STT – Spinothalamic tract,
G=VST – Vestibulospinal tract. In these regions of highly aligned axons,
biexponential modelling (WMTI[6]) is appropriate at least for sufficiently large diffusion times, and
allows kurtosis and diffusion tensors to be expressed in terms of compartmental
biophysical parameters: $$$D_{a}$$$ (intra-axonal diffusivity), $$$D_{e,||}$$$
(axial extra axonal diffusivity), $$$D_{e,\bot}$$$ (radial extra axonal
diffusivity), and $$$f$$$ (axonal water fraction). These relationships can be
analytically inverted in axially symmetric regions, resulting in
$$f = (1 + 3/K_{\bot})^{-1}$$
$$D_{e,\bot} = D_{\bot}(1 + K_{\bot}/3)$$
$$D_{e,||} = D_{||}(1 - \eta\sqrt{K_{||}K_{\bot}}/3)$$
$$D_{a} = D_{||} (1 + \eta \sqrt{K_{||}/K_{\bot}})$$
where $$$\eta = \pm 1$$$.
The unknown sign $$$\eta$$$ prevents an unambiguous solution for the
diffusion coefficients[7, 8]. The long time behavior of the diffusivities has been predicted using
effective medium theory[9, 10]
$$ D_{a}(t) \sim (D_{a}(\infty) +
\frac{c_1}{\sqrt{t}})$$
$$ D_{e,||}(t) \sim (D_{e,||}(\infty)
+ \frac{c_2}{\sqrt{t}})$$
$$ D_{\bot}(t)\approx (1-f) D_{e,\bot}(t) \sim (1-f)(D_{e,\bot}(\infty)
+ \frac{c_3}{t}\ln(t/t_c))$$Results
Figure 1 shows the ROI-averaged diffusion (top) and kurtosis metrics
(bottom). A pronounced, smoothly decaying time dependence was observed in axial
and radial diffusivity, and remarkably, neither seem to have plateaued at 350
ms. Axial kurtosis displays two types of behaviours. In regions D,G a clear nonmonotonic behavior is seen, with a
maximum around ~80 ms. Such nonmonotonic behavior is expected, as diffusion is
approximately Gaussian at very short and very long diffusion times. (For
confined diffusion, $$$K(t)\sim \sqrt{t}$$$
for $$$t\to 0$$$, $$$K(t)\propto 1-\textrm{constant}\cdot\exp(-\lambda_1 t)$$$ for $$$t\to \infty$$$. The
remaining ROIs show only decreasing behavior, perhaps because of a smaller
characteristic length scale. Radial kurtosis is noisier, but appears to
increase over the observable time range. Finally, mean kurtosis increases
sharply initially, plateauing above $$$t\sim 100$$$ ms. Figure 2 shows the two
branches of intra-axonal diffusivity as function of time. The + branch shows
the expected smooth decay of diffusivity for increasing diffusion times,
whereas the - branch shows an increasing behavior as a function of diffusion
time, although noisier. This indicates that the negative branch is unphysical,
and it is therefore discarded in the following. Figure 3 shows the remaining
WMTI parameters, f (a), $$$D_{e,||} $$$ (b) and $$$D_{e,\bot}$$$. Although
noisy, the axonal water fraction is relatively stable for most ROIs at
diffusion times above 100 ms. For lower diffusion times, there is a systematic
decrease, which may be due to non-negligible intra-compartmental kurtosis.
Extracellular axial diffusivity smoothly decays with time over the entire
range, fulfilling $$$D_{e,||}< D_a$$$. Radial diffusivity also decays with
time, but with a much lower rate at large diffusion times. Finally, figure 4
demonstrates fits to EMT diffusivity predictions with reasonable agreement. Fit
parameters are available from the table.Conclusions
We demonstrated
strong time dependence of directional kurtosis and diffusion metrics over an
extended range in fixed pig spinal cord. Biophysical modelling revealed
intra-axonal diffusivity to typically exceed extracellular axial diffusivity,
and effective medium theory provided reasonable predictions.Acknowledgements
Danish Ministry of
Science, Technology and Innovation’s University Investment Grant (MINDLab,
Grant no. 0601-01354B), and Lundbeck Foundation R83-A7548 .References
1. Hansen, B., et al., Magnetic Resonance
in Medicine, 2013. 69(6).
2. Hansen, B., et al., Magnetic Resonance
in Medicine, 2015.
3. Hansen, B., et al., NeuroImage, 2016.
4. Kellner, E., et al., Magn Reson Med,
2016. 76(5).
5. Veraart, J., et al., Magn Reson Med,
2016. 76(5).
6. Fieremans, E., et al., Neuroimage,
2011. 58(1).
7. Jelescu, I.O., et al., NMR in
biomedicine, 2016. 29(1).
8. Novikov, D.S., et al. (2016) ArXiv e-prints 1609.09144v1
9. Novikov,
D.S., et al., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2014.
10. Fieremans, E., et al., Neuroimage,
2016. 129.