Aline M. Thomas1,2 and Jeff W.M. Bulte1,2
1Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States, 2Institute for Cell Engineering, Imaging Section and Vascular Biology Program, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States
Synopsis
In amyotrophic
lateral sclerosis (ALS), genetic abnormalities damage motor neurons,
resulting in rapidly-progressing neurodegeneration, muscle wasting, and irreversible
disability. Current imaging strategies (T2w, DTI, fMRI) monitor structural
changes to motor neurons. Here, we investigated continuous wave chemical
exchange saturation transfer (CEST) MRI to monitor molecular changes resulting
from these abnormalities as a potentially complementary imaging biomarker for monitoring
ALS disease progression.
Introduction
In amyotrophic
lateral sclerosis (ALS), genetic abnormalities cause oxidative stress in
motor neurons and astrocytes that ultimately results in neurodegeneration, muscle
wasting, cognitive decline, and irreversible disability1,2. The
difficulty of diagnosing ALS using conventional MRI methods (T1w, T2w, PDw) has
prompted the exploration of novel imaging methods3. Many of these genetic
abnormalities are associated with metabolic changes1,4. We
investigated the utility of conventional (T2w) and metabolite-sensitive continuous
wave chemical exchange saturation transfer (cw CEST) MRI methods to monitor
changes in the lumbar spinal cord as disability progressed in a SOD1 G93A transgenic
mouse model of ALS.Methods
ALS model: We used the SOD1 G93A mouse model (Jackson laboratories, #2726, N=6),
which is characterized by progressive paralysis that typically starts around day
90 and subsequently rapidly progresses. Age-matched wild-type (WT) littermates
(N=6) were included as controls.
MRI: Mice were imaged at the L2
region of the spinal cord 60, 90, and 120 days (±4 days) after disease
induction using a horizontal bore Biospec 11.7T scanner with a 72-mm volume transmit
coil and a 15 mm 1x8 phase array surface receiver coil. A slice thickness of
0.7 mm was used to locate the lumbar region. A slick thickness of 2 mm was used
to measure MRI signal using the following imaging parameters. T2w MRI:
TE/TR=20.5 ms/2 s and rare factor=8 with a single average and repetition. CEST
MRI: TE/TR=11.15 ms/5 s, saturation time=3 s, B1=1 μT and rare factor=23
with a single average and 42 repetitions. For CEST maps, the average
magnetization transfer asymmetry at several commonly-investigated frequency
ranges centered at 1.2 and 3.6 ppm (±0.4 ppm) from
water were analyzed.
Statistics: Significance (p<0.05) at each time-point was evaluated using a
Student’s t-test.Results
We
evaluated the changes in endogenous CEST signal in the lumbar spinal cord as
disease progressed in the ALS mouse model (Figure 1). At 60 days,
paralysis was not yet observed. T2w MRI signal in the grey and white matter
region was similar in ALS and WT mice. The CEST MRI signal at 1.2 ppm was
higher in ALS mice than the WT mice, both in the grey and white matter. The CEST
MRI signal at 3.6 ppm was equivalent between the two groups. At 120 days old,
paralysis symptoms were observed in all ALS mice. The grey and white matter
regions in T2w MRI were more distinct in 5 of 6 ALS mice, although the
intensity of each region did not significantly differ between the two groups. The
CEST MRI signal at 1.2 ppm was equivalent between the two groups.
Interestingly, the CEST MRI signal at 3.6 ppm was higher in ALS mice than the
WT mice at this time point.Discussion and Conclusion
The use of CEST MRI at
1.2 ppm and 3.6 ppm frequencies has potential as a complementary imaging
biomarker for monitoring disease progression in ALS.Acknowledgements
This work was funded by the
NIH (R56NS098520, R01EB023647) and the
TEDCO Maryland Stem Cell Research Fund (MSCRFF-3900).References
(1) Hardiman, O.;
Al-Chalabi, A.; Chio, A.; Corr, E. M.; Logroscino, G.; Robberecht, W.; Shaw, P.
J.; Simmons, Z.; van den Berg, L. H. Nat
Rev Dis Primers 2017, 3, 17071.
(2) Brown, R. H.;
Al-Chalabi, A. N Engl J Med 2017, 377, 162.
(3) Agosta, F.; Chio,
A.; Cosottini, M.; De Stefano, N.; Falini, A.; Mascalchi, M.; Rocca, M. A.;
Silani, V.; Tedeschi, G.; Filippi, M. AJNR
Am J Neuroradiol 2010, 31, 1769.
(4) Valbuena,
G. N.; Tortarolo, M.; Bendotti, C.; Cantoni, L.; Keun, H. C. Sci Rep 2017, 7, 50.