Evidence Hub

Rapid, $B_1$-insensitive, dual-band quasi-adiabatic saturation transfer with optimal control for complete quantification of myocardial ATP flux

Jack J. Miller, Ladislav Valkovič, Matthew Kerr, Kerstin N. Timm, William Watson, Justin Y. C. Lau, Andrew Tyler, Christopher Rodgers et al.

arXiv, 2020

Abstract

Purpose: Phosphorus saturation-transfer experiments can quantify metabolic fluxes non-invasively. Typically, the forward flux through the creatine-kinase reaction is investigated by observing the decrease in phosphocreatine (PCr) after saturation of $γ$-ATP. The quantification of total ATP utilisation is currently under-explored, as it requires simultaneous saturation of inorganic phosphate (Pi) and PCr. This is challenging, as currently available saturation pulses reduce the already-low $γ$-ATP signal present. Methods: Using a hybrid optimal-control and Shinnar-Le-Roux method, a quasi-adiabatic RF pulse was designed for the dual-saturation of PCr and Pi to enable determination of total ATP utilisation. The pulses were evaluated in Bloch equation simulations, compared with a conventional hard-cosine DANTE saturation sequence, before application to perfused rat hearts at 11.7 Tesla. Results: The quasi-adiabatic pulse was insensitive to a $>2.5$-fold variation in $B_1$, producing equivalent saturation with a 53% reduction in delivered pulse power and a 33-fold reduction in spillover at the minimum effective $B_1$. This enabled the complete quantification of the synthesis and degradation fluxes for ATP in 30-45 minutes in the perfused rat heart. While the net synthesis flux ($4.24\pm0.8$ mM/s, SEM) was not significantly different from degradation flux ($6.88\pm2$ mM/s, $p=0.06$) and both measures are consistent with prior work, nonlinear error analysis highlights uncertainties…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a preprint, done in animal, not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free