Annakatrin Häni1, Gaelle Diserens2, Anna Oevermann3, Peter Vermathen2, and Christina Precht1
1Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland, 2DBMR, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland, 3DCR-VPH, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
Synopsis
Metabolic profiling of tissue biopsies
using HR-MAS NMR has potential diagnostic and prognostic value, but alterations
in the biochemical profile due to factors such as sampling method may lead to
misinterpretation. Therefore we investigated the effect of two different sampling
methods in normal caprine brain tissue, in
vivo sampling by stereotactic biopsy and direct post mortem surgical
sampling. We found significant differences between the two biopsy types with
elevated lactate and creatine, and altered choline-containing compounds. We
conclude that metabolite alterations depend on sampling methods and suggest the
use of in vivo biopsy in animal models.
Introduction
Metabolic profiling of tissue biopsies
using high resolution-magic angle spinning (HR-MAS)
1H NMR has
potential diagnostic and prognostic value and may aid in the interpretation of
in vivo Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy (MRS). It has been shown that the biochemical profile of brain
biopsies may be affected by experimental factors such as delayed sample
freezing and prolonged measurement time
1,2. Metabolite alterations have been attributed to
sample ischemia and mechanical stress before and during the NMR experiment in
neoplastic and normal brain biopsies obtained by surgical bulk resection or
post mortem biopsy
1,2. However, this did not include samples
obtained by
in vivo stereotactic
biopsy method, which is as close as possible to the
in vivo status. Therefore,
we investigated metabolite alterations between brain biopsies obtained
in vivo by a minimally invasive
stereotactic approach and by post mortem biopsy in healthy goat brain.
Methods
Bilateral brainstem and thalamus biopsies were
obtained from four healthy goats by minimally invasive stereotactic brain
biopsy under general anesthesia (in vivo
biopsies) and by surgical resection of adjacent areas within 20 minutes of
euthanasia (post mortem biopsies) (total of 8 samples per location and
sampling method). Both biopsy types were immediately snap-frozen in liquid
nitrogen and stored at -80°C, before being placed in a 12 μl MAS rotor with D2O-based
phosphate-buffered saline. 1H HR-MAS NMR experiments were performed
on a Bruker Avance II spectrometer (500.13 MHz) at 3 kHz MAS and 284 K. A 1D 1H
sequence with water presaturation and with a T2-filter eliminating J-modulation
(“project”3) was applied. After postprocessing of spectra using
TopSpin (Bruker Biospin GmbH), chemometric analysis to determine differences
between the two biopsy types was performed using a home-written Matlab script (R2011b, The MathsWorks
Inc.) and the PLS toolbox of Matlab. For multivariate analysis using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and
Partial Least Squares Discriminant Analysis (PLS-DA), 250 buckets of variable
size according to peak width were defined after exclusion of areas of pure
noise, lipids and the contaminant ethanol. PLS-DA
models were subsequently subject to permutation testing (cross validation, 50
iterations). For interpretation of loading plots, buckets with loading values
beyond an arbitrary threshold of +/-0.1 were considered as strong
contributors. After assignments of resonances, the multiple
resonances of a specific metabolite were analyzed and were only
assumed to be discriminating if all resonances showed a consistent
pattern. Experiments were performed in agreement with the local ethics
regulations.
Results
One in vivo biopsy sample of the
brainstem was excluded due to poor spectral quality. A significant
separation between in vivo and post
mortem biopsies of the brainstem (Fig. 1) and the thalamus (Fig. 2) was
achieved both in unsupervised PCA (t-test, Brainstem p<0.001, Thalamus
p<0.001) and supervised PLS-DA (Wilcoxon, Brainstem p=0.001, Thalamus
p=0.004). In both the brainstem and thalamus biopsies, choline was decreased
and phosphocholine, glycerophosphocholine, creatine and lactate were increased
in the post mortem compared to the in
vivo biopsies (Fig. 3). In addition, in the brainstem myo-inositol,
scyllo-inositol and acetate and in the thalamus gamma-aminobutyric acid were
increased in the post mortem compared to the in vivo biopsies (Fig. 3).
Discussion
The metabolite alterations observed in
the post mortem compared to the in vivo
brain biopsies demonstrate rapid changes most likely due to
sample ischemia after death and during sample excision prior to snap freezing. Lactate
is present in both sample types and increased in the post mortem samples consistent
with anaerobic glycolysis due to ischemia of the sample. Alterations in the
choline group likely reflect membrane damage. In contrast to a study of post
mortem metabolite levels in rabbit brain4, we also observed an
increase in creatine in the post mortem biopsies compared to the in vivo biopsies, as reported in rat
brain1. This suggests a release of NMR-invisible bound creatine as a
result of tissue damage in the post mortem biopsies. However, it seems
questionable that the mechanical stress during the MAS experiment is the main
cause of the creatine increase, as stated previously1 since the NMR
part was identical for the in vivo
and post mortem biopsies with the sampling method and delay in initial sample
freezing being the only differences.
Conclusion
Alterations of a number of
metabolites, most prominently the choline-group, creatine and lactate occur rapidly
due to sample ischemia and have to be accounted for when results of different
sampling methods are being interpreted. We suggest the use of in vivo over post
mortem biopsy in animal models to be more close to the in vivo status and aid in the interpretation of in vivo MRS data of human patients. The
increase in creatine in the post mortem biopsies underlines it´s variability and questionable value as an internal reference
standard.
Acknowledgements
No acknowledgement found.References
1. K. S. Opstad. B. A. Bell, J. R. Griffiths
and F. A. Howe, NMR Biomed., 2008, 21, 1138-1147.
2. D. Valverde-Saubi, A. P. Candiota, M. A.
Molins, M. Feliz, O. Godino, M. Davila, J. J. Acebes and C. Arus, Magn. Reson. Mater. Phy., 2010, 23, 203-215.
3. J. A. Aguilar, M. Nilsson, G. Bodenhausen
and G. A. Morris, Chem. Commun.,
2012, 48, 811-813.
4. O. A. Petroff, T. Ogino, J.R. Alger, J. Neurochem., 1988, 51, 163-171.