Cargando…

Comparison of three reference methods for the measurement of intracellular pH using (31)P MRS in healthy volunteers and patients with lymphoma

(31)P magnetic resonance spectroscopy ((31)P MRS) can measure intracellular pH (pH(i)) using the chemical shift difference between pH‐dependent inorganic phosphate (P(i)) and a pH‐independent reference peak. This study compared three different frequency reference peaks [phosphocreatine (PCr), α reso...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rata, Mihaela, Giles, Sharon L., deSouza, Nandita M., Leach, Martin O., Payne, Geoffrey S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4290015/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24738141
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nbm.3047
_version_ 1782352181323628544
author Rata, Mihaela
Giles, Sharon L.
deSouza, Nandita M.
Leach, Martin O.
Payne, Geoffrey S.
author_facet Rata, Mihaela
Giles, Sharon L.
deSouza, Nandita M.
Leach, Martin O.
Payne, Geoffrey S.
author_sort Rata, Mihaela
collection PubMed
description (31)P magnetic resonance spectroscopy ((31)P MRS) can measure intracellular pH (pH(i)) using the chemical shift difference between pH‐dependent inorganic phosphate (P(i)) and a pH‐independent reference peak. This study compared three different frequency reference peaks [phosphocreatine (PCr), α resonance of adenosine triphosphate (αATP) and water (using (1)H MRS)] in a cohort of 10 volunteers and eight patients with non‐Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). Well‐resolved chemical shift imaging (CSI) spectra were acquired on a 1.5T scanner for muscle, liver and tumour. The pH was calculated for all volunteers and patients using the available methods. The consistency of the resulting pH was evaluated. The direct P(i)–PCr method was best for those spectra with a very well‐defined PCr, such as muscle (pH=7.05 ± 0.02). In liver, the P(i)–αATP method gave more consistent results (pH=7.30 ± 0.06) than the calibrated water‐based method (pH=7.27 ± 0.11). In NHL nodes, the measured pH using the P(i)–αATP method was 7.25 ± 0.12. Given that the measured range includes some biological variation in individual patients, treatment‐related changes of the order of 0.1 pH units should be detectable. © 2013 The Authors. NMR in Biomedicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4290015
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42900152015-02-01 Comparison of three reference methods for the measurement of intracellular pH using (31)P MRS in healthy volunteers and patients with lymphoma Rata, Mihaela Giles, Sharon L. deSouza, Nandita M. Leach, Martin O. Payne, Geoffrey S. NMR Biomed Research Articles (31)P magnetic resonance spectroscopy ((31)P MRS) can measure intracellular pH (pH(i)) using the chemical shift difference between pH‐dependent inorganic phosphate (P(i)) and a pH‐independent reference peak. This study compared three different frequency reference peaks [phosphocreatine (PCr), α resonance of adenosine triphosphate (αATP) and water (using (1)H MRS)] in a cohort of 10 volunteers and eight patients with non‐Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). Well‐resolved chemical shift imaging (CSI) spectra were acquired on a 1.5T scanner for muscle, liver and tumour. The pH was calculated for all volunteers and patients using the available methods. The consistency of the resulting pH was evaluated. The direct P(i)–PCr method was best for those spectra with a very well‐defined PCr, such as muscle (pH=7.05 ± 0.02). In liver, the P(i)–αATP method gave more consistent results (pH=7.30 ± 0.06) than the calibrated water‐based method (pH=7.27 ± 0.11). In NHL nodes, the measured pH using the P(i)–αATP method was 7.25 ± 0.12. Given that the measured range includes some biological variation in individual patients, treatment‐related changes of the order of 0.1 pH units should be detectable. © 2013 The Authors. NMR in Biomedicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2013-11-04 2014-02 /pmc/articles/PMC4290015/ /pubmed/24738141 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nbm.3047 Text en © 2013 The Authors. NMR in Biomedicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Articles
Rata, Mihaela
Giles, Sharon L.
deSouza, Nandita M.
Leach, Martin O.
Payne, Geoffrey S.
Comparison of three reference methods for the measurement of intracellular pH using (31)P MRS in healthy volunteers and patients with lymphoma
title Comparison of three reference methods for the measurement of intracellular pH using (31)P MRS in healthy volunteers and patients with lymphoma
title_full Comparison of three reference methods for the measurement of intracellular pH using (31)P MRS in healthy volunteers and patients with lymphoma
title_fullStr Comparison of three reference methods for the measurement of intracellular pH using (31)P MRS in healthy volunteers and patients with lymphoma
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of three reference methods for the measurement of intracellular pH using (31)P MRS in healthy volunteers and patients with lymphoma
title_short Comparison of three reference methods for the measurement of intracellular pH using (31)P MRS in healthy volunteers and patients with lymphoma
title_sort comparison of three reference methods for the measurement of intracellular ph using (31)p mrs in healthy volunteers and patients with lymphoma
topic Research Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4290015/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24738141
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nbm.3047
work_keys_str_mv AT ratamihaela comparisonofthreereferencemethodsforthemeasurementofintracellularphusing31pmrsinhealthyvolunteersandpatientswithlymphoma
AT gilessharonl comparisonofthreereferencemethodsforthemeasurementofintracellularphusing31pmrsinhealthyvolunteersandpatientswithlymphoma
AT desouzananditam comparisonofthreereferencemethodsforthemeasurementofintracellularphusing31pmrsinhealthyvolunteersandpatientswithlymphoma
AT leachmartino comparisonofthreereferencemethodsforthemeasurementofintracellularphusing31pmrsinhealthyvolunteersandpatientswithlymphoma
AT paynegeoffreys comparisonofthreereferencemethodsforthemeasurementofintracellularphusing31pmrsinhealthyvolunteersandpatientswithlymphoma