Daniel Djayakarsana1,2, Gregory J Czarnota1,2,3, and Colleen Bailey1,2
1Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, 2Physical Sciences, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada, 3Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
Synopsis
Signal attenuation due to diffusion is affected by several
different acquisition parameters, such as gradient duration, spacing, strength
and shape. In this study, I used free waveforms to investigate the effect of
non-rectangular pulses. I chose an isotropic in vitro system such that the signal represents time and spatial
scales relevant to human imaging and is independent of orientation. By varying
only the gradient shape to target certain q-space frequencies, the signal
measured could represent different combinations of diffusion time.
Introduction
Advancements in gradient
control and strength1 gives the freedom to
prescribe complex gradient waveforms, which probe microscopic diffusion
anisotropy, and can be analyzed by methods such as in DIfussional VarIance
DEcomposition (DIVIDE)2. However, aside from simpler
oscillating gradient cases, analysis of these complex waveforms typically
neglects diffusion time-dependence. For example, DIVIDE predicts that, in
systems that are microscopically isotropic, gradients that produce conventional
linear b-tensor shapes will demonstrate the same signal decay with b-value as
gradients that produce spherical b-tensor shapes, regardless of the gradients’
temporal characteristics. This assumption is likely valid in highly restricted
environments or in the absence of restrictions, but may not apply in larger
cells. Here, we examined the effect of gradient time-dependence on the diffusion
signal in an in vitro cell system with
low microscopic anisotropy and propose an analysis method to account for
restriction effects.Methods
An acute myeloid leukemia cell line (AML-5) was cultured in
suspension with alpha-MEM, FBS and penicillin/streptomycin. Apoptosis was
induced with 10 μg/mL of cisplatin for 36 hours. Control cells were
untreated. Each group was centrifuged at 2400 g to pack the cells into a
pellet. Approximately 1x109 cells were used in each NMR tube.
A 7T vertical small bore Bruker scanner was used with a
40/30 mm quadrature receive and transmit coil. Diffusion was quantified with four
different preparations of user-defined diffusion gradient shape (from Medical
College of Wisconsin, available on the Open Science Framework3) with TR=1.5s, 5
b-values=0-3000s/mm2. The gradient waveforms for spherical b-tensors
(1 direction) are shown in Figure 1 for two gradient durations (20 and 50 ms
with TE=67 and 127 ms, respectively) alongside the corresponding q-space power
spectrum. Linear b-tensors were constructed from the
z-channel of the spherical waveform and run in 6 directions. A pulsed-gradient
stimulated echo (PGSTE) sequence with square gradient waveforms (1 direction, 7
b-values=0-5000s/mm2, TE/TR=35ms/1.5s, 7 TM=6.7-233ms) was run for
comparison.
Diffusion signal for the four preparations was fitted with
the Camino diffusion MRI toolkit4 via the matrix method for
generalized gradient waveforms and a ball sphere model, where the ball
represents the extracellular space and the sphere represents the cells. For
free waveform fitting, the diffusivity was fixed to 1.1 µm2/ms.Results
Phase contrast microscopy showed that the AML cells were
spherical with an approximate radius of 5 μm (Figure 2).
For both the 20 and 50 ms gradient duration, the linear
tensor encoding showed a lower apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) compared to
the spherical tensor encoding (Figure 3). The fit parameters using the ball sphere model with the matrix method are shown in Figure 4 in comparison
with the PGSTE fit parameters.Discussion/Conclusion
AML represents an isotropic system since AML cells are
naturally spherical and were grown in isolation of any immune response or
extracellular matrix. With this isotropic consideration, the signal attenuation
for linear and spherical tensor encoding was expected to be the same throughout
the b-value range for the same gradient duration. Surprisingly, our results for
the same gradient duration showed an increasing difference in signal between
the linear and spherical tensor encoding with respect to diffusion weighting.
The shape of the free gradient waveform likely caused the
aforementioned difference in signal. The q-space power spectrum revealed that
the linear and spherical tensor encoding had different effective diffusion
times. The lower frequencies correspond to longer diffusion times, while higher
frequencies correspond to shorter diffusion times. The linear case had more
weighting towards the longer diffusion times relative to the spherical case. The
longer diffusion times resulted in a lower ADC likely due to increased
restriction of water by the cell membrane at these longer times.
PGSTE was used to validate that the difference in signal
between the linear and spherical tensor encoding was due to the different
effective diffusion times. The intracellular volume fraction and average
diameter from the ball sphere model agreed between PGSTE and the free waveform data
fits. Furthermore, the model’s estimate of cell radius, 4.9 µm
for control cells, agrees well with the cell diameter observed by phase
microscopy and the decrease in cell size for cisplatin-treated cells is
consistent with the expected changes during apoptosis. The fitted intracellular
diffusivity from the PGSTE fit was 0.69 µm2/ms was lower than the
fixed value used for fitting the free waveform data, but it has been
demonstrated that the fit has low sensitivity to this parameter unless short
diffusion times are present5.
This work demonstrates the importance of considering
time-dependence when using complex gradient waveforms to examine microscopic
features, as has been previously noted6. Here, we demonstrate that the
matrix method can be used to accurately account for restriction effects with
these waveforms. Future work will investigate different permutations of diffusion
times for linear and spherical tensor encoding, including waveforms with
matched power spectra, and with the addition of planar tensor encoding.Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge MRI protocols and assistance
from Wilfred Lam and Ryan Oglesby; cell work assistance from Anoja Giles.
Funding/support provided by NVIDIA GPU seeding grant, Sunnybrook Foundation and
Queen Elizabeth II/Sunnybrook and Women’s College Health Sciences Centre
Graduate Scholarship in Science and Technology.References
1. Chilla GS, Tan CH,
Xu C, Poh CL. Diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging and its recent
trend—a survey. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2015;5(3):16.
2. Szczepankiewicz
F, Sjölund J, Ståhlberg F, Lätt J, Nilsson M. Tensor-valued diffusion encoding
for diffusional variance decomposition (DIVIDE): Technical feasibility in
clinical MRI systems. Chen X, ed. PLOS ONE. 2019;14(3):e0214238.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0214238
3. Skinner
NP, Kurpad SN, Schmit BD, Budde MD. Detection of acute nervous system injury
with advanced diffusion-weighted MRI: a simulation and sensitivity analysis:
DIFFUSION MICROANISOTROPY OF NEURITE BEADING. NMR Biomed.
2015;28(11):1489-1506. doi:10.1002/nbm.3405
4. Cook
PA, Bai Y, Nedjati-Gilani S, et al. Camino: Open-Source Diffusion-MRI
Reconstruction and Processing. :1.
5. Li
H, Jiang X, Xie J, Gore JC, Xu J. Impact of transcytolemmal water exchange on
estimates of tissue microstructural properties derived from diffusion MRI. Magn
Reson Med. 2017;77(6):2239-2249. doi:10.1002/mrm.26309
6. Lundell
H, Nilsson M, Westin C-F, Topgaard D, Lasič S. Spectral anisotropy in
multidimensional diffusion encoding. In: ISMRM. Vol 26. 0887. ; 2018.
https://cds.ismrm.org/protected/18MPresentations/abstracts/0887.html.