z-logo
Premium
Magnetization transfer in cartilage and its constituent macromolecules
Author(s) -
Gray Martha L.,
Burstein Deborah,
Lesperance Leann M.,
Gehrke Lee
Publication year - 1995
Publication title -
magnetic resonance in medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.696
H-Index - 225
eISSN - 1522-2594
pISSN - 0740-3194
DOI - 10.1002/mrm.1910340307
Subject(s) - magnetization transfer , cartilage , glycosaminoglycan , chemistry , macromolecule , nuclear magnetic resonance , proton , trypsin , analytical chemistry (journal) , magnetization , biophysics , chromatography , biochemistry , magnetic resonance imaging , anatomy , enzyme , magnetic field , biology , medicine , physics , radiology , quantum mechanics
The goal of this work was to investigate magnetization transfer (MT) in cartilage by measuring water proton signals M s /M o , as an indicator of MT, in (i) single‐component systems of the tissue's constituent macromolecules and (ii) intact cartilage under control conditions and after two pathomimetic interventions. M s / M o was quantified with a 12‐μT saturation pulse applied 6 kHz off resonance. Both glycosaminoglycans (GAG) and collagen exhibited concentration dependent effects on M s / M o , being approximately linear for GAG solutions ( M s / M o = ‐0.0137[% GAG] + 1.02] and exponential for collagen suspensions ( M s / M o = 0.80 x exp[‐(%collagen)/6.66] + 0.20); the direct saturation of water could not account for the measured M s / M o . Although the effect of collagen on M s / M o is much stronger than for a corresponding concentration of GAG, M s / M o is not very sensitive to changes in collagen concentration in the physiological range. Tissue degradation with 25 mg/ml trypsin led to an increase in M s / M o from the baseline value of 0.2 (final/initial values = 1.15 ± 0.13, n = 11, P < 0.001). In contrast, a 10‐day treatment of cartilage with 100 ng/ml of interleukin‐1β (1L‐1β) caused a 19% decrease in M s / M o (final/initial values = 0.81 ± 0.08, n = 3, P = 0.085). The changes in hydration and macromolecular content for the two treatments were comparable, suggesting that M s / M o is sensitive to macromolecular structure as well as concentration. In conclusion, whereas the baseline M s / M o value in cartilage may be primarily due to the tissue collagen concentration, changes in M s / M o may be due to physiological or pathophysiological changes in GAG concentration and tissue structure, and the measured M s / M o may differentiate between various pathomimetic degradative procedures.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom