Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 May 2.
Published in final edited form as: Analyst. 2017 May 2;142(9):1429–1433. doi: 10.1039/c7an00076f

Dicarboxylic Acids as pH Sensors for Hyperpolarized 13C Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopic Imaging

D E Korenchan a,b, C Taglang b, C von Morze b, J Blecha b, J Gordon b, R Sriram b, P E Z Larson a,b, D Vigneron b, H VanBrocklin b, J Kurhanewicz a,b, D M Wilson b, R R Flavell b,*
PMCID: PMC5462110  NIHMSID: NIHMS861815  PMID: 28322385

Abstract

Imaging tumoral pH may help characterize aggressiveness, metastasis, and therapeutic response. We report the development of hyperpolarized [2–13C,D10]diethylmalonic acid, which exhibits a large pH-dependent 13C chemical shift over the physiologic range. We demonstrate that co-polarization with [1–13C,D9]tert-butanol accurately measures pH via 13C NMR and magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging in phantoms.

TOC Image

Hyperpolarized [2-13C,D10]diethylmalonic acid demonstrates long-lived signal enhancements for high-accuracy pH imaging via 13C magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging.

graphic file with name nihms861815u1.jpg

Introduction

Interstitial acidification, one of the hallmarks of numerous human cancers,1 has significant impact on the tumor microenvironment. Upregulation of aerobic glycolysis leads to proton export from tumor cells and extracellular acidification,2 leading to reduced tumor uptake of chemotherapeutics,3 decreased antitumor immune cell function,4 and tumor invasion and metastasis.5,6 Interestingly, interstitial pH heterogeneity within a tumor may contain important information about tumor behavior, especially considering that tumor cells tend to grow and migrate predominantly along gradients of decreasing pH.6 These findings suggest that pH imaging approaches may provide valuable information for clinicians wishing to grade and effectively treat tumors.

Many techniques exist for the measurement of interstitial pH in vivo,7 including fluorescence,6,8 positron emission tomography,912 and magnetic resonance (MR) based approaches.13,14 The two pH imaging modalities best able to capture intratumoral pH heterogeneity with potential for clinical implementation are 1H chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST) MRI and hyperpolarized (HP) 13C magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging (MRSI).7 HP 13C MRSI, enabled by MR signal enhancement on the order of 104–105 via dynamic nuclear polarization (DNP),15 has enabled the study of several metabolic and transport processes relevant to cancer, and it has been applied to human prostate cancer imaging in phase I clinical trials.16 To date, the primary HP agent for measuring interstitial pH is 13C-bicarbonate, which represents a ratiometric approach to calculating pH. Because the conjugate acid (H2CO3, in rapid equilibrium with CO2) and base (HCO3) exhibit distinct MR resonances, the ratio of bicarbonate and CO2 MR signal intensities can be measured in each volume element (voxel) to calculate a pH map using a modified Henderson-Hasselbalch equation.17 However, the spatial resolution is limited in part by the low signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of CO2, which is typically at a concentration an order of magnitude lower than bicarbonate at physiologic pH values (pKa = 6.17 at 37 °C).17,18 Recently, a new class of chemical shift (CS) pH probes has been reported, in which the protonated and deprotonated forms of the molecule give rise to a single MR resonance rather than two. Such HP molecules, which include 15N-pyridine derivatives,19 imidazole-15N2,20 and 13C-N-(2-acetamido)-2-aminoethanesulfonic acid (ACES),21 may circumvent low SNR concerns regarding the quantification of two peak intensities.

Some dicarboxylic acids are known to have second pKa values in the physiologic range,22 as well as carbon nuclei with long T1 relaxation time constants, making them suitable for pH imaging via HP 13C MRSI. Therefore, the goal of this work was to identify a dicarboxylic acid that could be hyperpolarized and used for accurate pH measurement with 13C MRSI.

Experimental

Full experimental details can be found in the Electronic Supplementary Information (ESI).

Dicarboxylate screening

Eleven natural abundance dicarboxylates were initially screened to measure their pH-dependent 13C chemical shifts (Figure 1). Aqueous solutions of these compounds were prepared containing 250 mM dicarboxylate and 250 mM urea (CS standard), and the pH was carefully adjusted with HCl or NaOH to either 6.5 or 7.4 using a standard laboratory pH meter. 13C NMR spectra were acquired at 11.7 T and 37 °C, referenced to urea at 163.7 ppm, and the CS change between these two pH values was measured.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Investigation of dicarboxylates as 13C MR pH sensors. The downfield CS migration from pH 6.5 to 7.4 is listed near each labelled 13C nucleus. Two molecules with large CS migration over this pH range are highlighted in yellow: diethylmalonic acid (top right) and cyclopropane-1,1-dicarboxylic acid (lower left). Literature pKa values for these molecules can be found in the ESI.

Synthesis of [2–13C,D10]diethylmalonic acid and [2–13C,D4]cyclopropane-1,1-dicarboxylic acid

Based on the pH-dependent 13C chemical shifts obtained, enriched syntheses of both [2–13C,D10]diethylmalonic acid (DEMA) and [2–13C,D4]cyclopropane-1,1-dicarboxylic acid (CPDA) were performed (Figure 2). Brief synthetic routes are described below, based on previously described methods.23 [2–13C,D10]diethylmalonic acid: [2–13C]diethylmalonate was alkylated with [D5]bromoethane and saponified using NaOH. [2–13C,D4]cyclopropane-1,1-dicarboxylic acid: Similar to above, but [D4]1,2-dibromoethane was used in place of [D5]bromoethane. All compounds were characterized via standard methods, as described in the ESI.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Synthesis schemes and representative HP 13C T1 decay curves at 11.7 T for (a) [2–13C,D10]diethylmalonic acid (DEMA) 3, and (b) [2–13C,D4]cyclopropane-1,1-dicarboxylic acid (CPDA) 5. The measured T1 values at 11.7 T for DEMA and CPDA were 105.6 ± 5.2 s and 70.2 ± 4.5 s, respectively (n = 3 each).

Hyperpolarization and characterization of 13C dicarboxylate pH sensors

Enriched 13C dicarboxylate sensors were hyperpolarized via the dynamic nuclear polarization (DNP) technique and their solution-state T1 time constants were determined. ~3.8 M DEMA in N,N-dimethylacetamide was prepared with 15 mM OX063 trityl radical and 2 mM Gd-DOTA and co-polarized with tert-butanol (tBuOH), which was formulated with OX063 in glycerol as previously described.24 ~4 M CPDA in dimethyl sulfoxide was prepared with 15 mM OX063 trityl radical. After dissolution and NaOH titration (pH 6.6 - 7.5, both compounds), the HP solution-state T1 values were determined via dynamic 13C MRS (5° hard pulses, flip angle correction, TR = 3 s, n = 3) at 11.7 T and 37 °C.

Titration curve for 13C-enriched DEMA

Based on the T1 data obtained for 13C DEMA, we obtained a NMR titration curve for this compound in preparation for imaging studies. 5 mM solutions of [2–13C,D10]DEMA and [1–13C,D9]tBuOH were prepared ranging from pH 2.5 - 8.8. The CS difference between the labeled carbons was measured at 11.7 T and 37 °C, plotted versus pH, and fitted to a sigmoidal curve13 to obtain an MR titration curve. This MR titration curve was used to calculate pH for HP spectroscopy and phantom experiments using the 13C Δppm.

pH imaging phantom

Phantom studies were performed to investigate the use of HP DEMA for pH imaging. HP DEMA and tBuOH were diluted to ~5 mM each and titrated in five separate tubes to various pH values at about 37 °C. The phantom was imaged with a 13C 2D CSI sequence (10 × 10 matrix, 10° hard pulses, 7.5 mm isotropic in-plane resolution) on a clinical 3 T MRI scanner. After imaging, dynamic 13C NMR spectroscopy was performed for 3 T T1 measurement (10° hard pulses, TR = 3 s, n = 2).

Results & Discussion

We investigated several dicarboxylic acids using 13C MRS to identify nuclei that demonstrated a pH-dependent chemical shift (Figure 1). All compounds tested had two carboxylic acid groups separated by either one carbon (derivatives of malonic acid) or two carbons. All molecules also had a known or predicted pKa close to the physiologic range (i.e. near 7 - 7.4) and contained at least one carbon nucleus without directly bonded protons, making them likely to have long T1 relaxation time constants amenable to use with hyperpolarized imaging.25 Strikingly, the intermediate carbons of all malonic acid derivatives in this study demonstrated larger pH-dependent chemical shifts than did the carboxylic acid carbons themselves. This finding was somewhat surprising, considering that the carbonyl carbons are closer in proximity to the acidic protons in each molecule. Two of the malonic acid derivatives, highlighted in yellow in Figure 1, demonstrated large chemical shifts over the tested pH range: diethylmalonic acid (DEMA) and cyclopropane-1,1-dicarboxylic acid (CPDA). Of the compounds with two carbons separating the dicarboxylic acid moieties, the cis enantiomers demonstrated larger pH-dependent chemical shifts than the trans. However, these molecules exhibited smaller pH-dependent carbonyl chemical shifts than the quaternary carbons in the malonates.

Following the dicarboxylate investigation, two-step synthetic routes were developed for the isotopically-enriched, deuterated versions of DEMA and CPDA (Figure 2). These syntheses were based on a previously reported method applied to valproic acid.23 In addition to 13C labeling the pH-sensitive quaternary carbon, the functional groups were deuterated for each molecule in order to lengthen the 13C T1.25 The overall reaction yields were 64% for DEMA and 45% for CPDA. The reaction products were confirmed to be the target molecules by both NMR (1H, 13C) and high-resolution mass spectroscopy (see ESI). Based upon a preliminary T1 comparison between the two synthesized compounds (Figure 2), we chose DEMA for further development as a hyperpolarized pH probe.

The pH-dependent chemical shift behavior of the DEMA quaternary carbon was characterized via NMR spectroscopy (Figure 3a). The CS difference between DEMA and tert-butanol (tBuOH) was plotted against pH and fitted to a sigmoidal curve. The pKa was determined to be 7.39 under these conditions, similar to the reported value of 7.29.26 The slight difference may be attributable to temperature and/or isotopic enrichment. We demonstrated that the NMR titration curve could be used to measure the solution pH from HP spectra of co-polarized DEMA and tBuOH (Figure 3b). The pH measured from HP spectra was within 0.1 pH unit of the pH measured with a conventional pH electrode (Figure 3c, n = 5). The solution-state polarization, back-calculated to the time of dissolution, was 13.7 ± 0.6% (n = 3). The T1 values for the HP signal at 3 T and 11.7 T were 84.3 ± 1.4 s (n = 2) and 105.6 ± 5.2 s (n = 3), respectively. The T1 was longer at the higher field strength, as might be expected for a quaternary carbon nucleus dominated by dipole-dipole relaxation.27 Minimal variation in T1 was observed over the physiologic pH range (Figure S1). The HP DEMA linewidth broadened due to chemical exchange as pH increased from 6.8 (13.1 Hz) to 7.5 (18.7 Hz), as expected based on the exchange mechanism, which is both acid- and base-catalyzed.28,29

Figure 3.

Figure 3

(a) MR pH titration curve for [2–13C,D10]DEMA. CS difference between DEMA and tBuOH is plotted against pH, and best-fit equation to the data is displayed. Inset: representative 13C MR spectrum of DEMA (upfield) and tBuOH (downfield). (b) HP DEMA peak at two pH values (circled points in (c)), demonstrating pH-dependent chemical shift. Spectra are referenced to tBuOH peak. (c) Plot of pH calculated from spectra using equation in (a) vs. pH electrode measurements (n = 5). pH values agree within 0.1 pH unit.

In order to demonstrate that HP DEMA could be used with spectroscopic imaging techniques, we performed an imaging phantom experiment on a clinical 3 T MRI scanner. This allowed us to simultaneously measure the pH in several solutions (Figure 4a). As before, the pH in three of five tubes was measured by using the CS difference between the HP DEMA and tBuOH peaks (Figure 4b), and these pH values agreed with electrode measurements within 0.1 pH unit (Figure 4c). Two tubes had pH values at the high and low ends of the measurable pH range. However, the extreme high and extreme low pH tubes demonstrated CS differences of 6.9 and 10.3 ppm, respectively, which agree with the minimum and maximum ppm values determined for the titration curve in Figure 3a.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

HP phantom imaging with [2–13C,D10]DEMA: (a) T2-weighted 1H image of tubes containing ~5 mM co-polarized DEMA and tBuOH at varying pH values. Electrode pH measurements are displayed near each tube. (b) Overlaid 13C spectra from color-coded voxels, highlighting pH-dependent DEMA chemical shift observed via imaging. Spectra are referenced to tBuOH peak. (c) Plot of pH values calculated from spectra in (b) vs. electrode measurements, demonstrating agreement within 0.1 pH unit. The highest and lowest pH values are not plotted but demonstrated chemical shifts very close to the minimum and maximum CS differences, respectively, seen in the MR titration curve in Figure 3a.

The HP agents developed in this work, in addition to others reported previously,1921 represent a departure from previous techniques in HP pH imaging using 13C-bicarbonate. Important similarities exist between 13C pH agents that are “ratiometric” (eg. 13C-bicarbonate17), which quantify pH using the intensities of two separate 13C NMR resonances, and “chemical-shift” (eg. ACES,21 DEMA), which quantify pH based upon a change in observed 13C NMR frequency. In both cases, the pH-sensing molecule exists in both a protonated state and a deprotonated state, and the molecule exchanges between the two states with an overall first-order rate constant, k, representing both forward and reverse reaction rates. Ratiometric and chemical-shift sensors differ in the magnitude of the exchange rate constant, k, relative to the CS dispersion, Δf.30 For ratiometric pH sensors, the exchange is much slower relative to the CS dispersion (k << Δf), leading to the observation of two distinct resonances via MR spectroscopy. In the case of 13C-bicarbonate, the resonances for bicarbonate and CO2 are separated by a large CS difference of 35.5 ppm. Furthermore, the chemical exchange between the two states is rate-limited by CO2 hydration to form bicarbonate.31 Conversely, simple protonation-deprotonation of ACES or DEMA is fast relative to the total CS dispersion over all pH values (k >> Δf), as is generally the case for these reactions.28 Therefore, these molecules exhibit one MR resonance, with a chemical shift that is a weighted average of the chemical shifts of the protonated and deprotonated molecular states.

MR chemical-shift sensors of pH possess certain advantages and disadvantages relative to ratiometric sensors. The presence of a single peak is a significant boon concerning high spatial resolution imaging, since all HP molecules contribute to the magnitude of the single peak, and because imaging resolution is not limited by the signal of the lower of two peaks. However, these sensors also possess significant challenges. The resonant frequency, which gives a readout of pH, is also sensitive to main magnetic field inhomogeneity and changes in susceptibility throughout the imaging volume. These effects can be accounted for by co-injecting a pH-insensitive HP molecule, in our case tBuOH, that is used as a chemical shift reference. Our experimental results in phantoms demonstrate that we can use this approach for highly accurate pH imaging. The ability to resolve different pH values in vivo will depend upon image acquisition parameters, voxel size, and B0 inhomogeneity within each voxel. High-resolution pH imaging, which may be achievable using DEMA, should provide relevant data about pH gradients within tissue. As is the case with other magnetic resonance-based pH imaging approaches,21,32 the buffering capacity of DEMA could potentially alter the tissue pH. However, the signal gains resulting from hyperpolarization, and from the chemical shift imaging based approach compared against a ratiometric approach, have the potential to minimize these effects.

DEMA exhibits some striking properties that make it amenable to high spatial resolution imaging. Firstly, the T1 relaxation time constant is one of the longest measured for HP 13C compounds.25 Interestingly, the T1 increases with field strength, as opposed to the vast majority of HP compounds 13C-enriched at carbonyls, whose relaxation is dominated by chemical shift anisotropy. However, the T1 is still exceptionally long at a clinical field strength of 3 T. Combined with the high polarization obtainable for this compound, the long T1 offers significant flexibility in terms of spatial resolution and timing of HP imaging.

Conclusions

We report a novel compound for pH measurement via 13C MRSI, [2–13C,D10]diethylmalonic acid (DEMA). The pH is measured via changes in NMR chemical shift, potentially circumventing SNR limitations found with HP bicarbonate. The HP imaging pH accuracy and long T1 values make DEMA a strong potential candidate for high spatial resolution in vivo pH mapping.

Supplementary Material

ESI

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the National Institutes of Health (R01-CA166766), the Education and Research Foundation for Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMMI-ERF Mitzi and William Blahd, MD, Pilot Grant), the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA Research Fellow Grant), and the Department of Defense (Physician Research Training Grant PC150932). D. E. K. wishes to acknowledge Sukumar Subramaniam for his advice and guidance on imaging strategies and troubleshooting.

Footnotes

Electronic Supplementary Information (ESI) available: full experimental details, details on chemical synthesis, and molecular characterization

Notes and references

  • 1.Wike-Hooley JL, Haveman J, Reinhold HS. Radiother Oncol. 1984;2:343–366. doi: 10.1016/s0167-8140(84)80077-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Gatenby RA, Gillies RJ. Nat Rev Cancer. 2004;4:891–899. doi: 10.1038/nrc1478. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Webb BA, Chimenti M, Jacobson MP, Barber DL. Nat Rev Cancer. 2011;11:671–677. doi: 10.1038/nrc3110. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Choi SYC, Collins CC, Gout PW, Wang Y. J Pathol. 2013;230:350–355. doi: 10.1002/path.4218. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Gatenby RA, Gawlinski ET, Gmitro AF, Kaylor B, Gillies RJ. Cancer Res. 2006;66:5216–5223. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-4193. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Estrella V, Chen T, Lloyd M, Wojtkowiak J, Cornnell HH, Ibrahim-Hashim A, Bailey K, Balagurunathan Y, Rothberg JM, Sloane BF, Johnson J, Gatenby RA, Gillies RJ. Cancer Res. 2013;73:1524–1535. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-12-2796. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Chen LQ, Pagel MD. Adv in Radiol. 2015;2015:1–25. doi: 10.1155/2015/206405. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Sanders R, Draaijer A, Gerritsen HC, Houpt PM, Levine YK. Anal Biochem. 1995;227:302–308. doi: 10.1006/abio.1995.1285. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Rottenberg DA, Ginos JZ, Kearfott KJ, Junck L, Bigner DD. Ann Neurol. 1984;15:98–102. doi: 10.1002/ana.410150718. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Vāvere AL, Biddlecombe GB, Spees WM, Garbow JR, Wijesinghe D, Andreev OA, Engelman DM, Reshetnyak YK, Lewis JS. Cancer Res. 2009;69:4510–4516. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-08-3781. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Flavell RR, Truillet C, Regan MK, Ganguly T, Blecha JE, Kurhanewicz J, VanBrocklin HF, Keshari KR, Chang CJ, Evans MJ, Wilson DM. Bioconjugate Chem. 2016;27:170–178. doi: 10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.5b00584. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Bauwens M, De Saint-Hubert M, Cleynhens J, Brams L, Devos E, Mottaghy FM, Verbruggen A. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e38428. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0038428. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Gillies RJ, Liu Z, Bhujwalla Z. Am J Physiol-Cell Physiol. 1994;267:C195–C203. doi: 10.1152/ajpcell.1994.267.1.C195. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Hashim AI, Zhang X, Wojtkowiak JW, Martinez GV, Gillies RJ. NMR Biomed. 2011;24:582–591. doi: 10.1002/nbm.1644. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ardenkjaer-Larsen JH, Fridlund B, Gram A, Hansson G, Hansson L, Lerche MH, Servin R, Thaning M, Golman K. PNAS. 2003;100:10158–10163. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1733835100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Nelson SJ, Kurhanewicz J, Vigneron DB, Larson PEZ, Harzstark AL, Ferrone M, van Criekinge M, Chang JW, Bok R, Park I, Reed G, Carvajal L, Small EJ, Munster P, Weinberg VK, Ardenkjaer-Larsen JH, Chen AP, Hurd RE, Odegardstuen LI, Robb FJ, Tropp J, Murray JA. Sci Transl Med. 2013;5:198ra108. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3006070. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Gallagher FA, Kettunen MI, Day SE, Hu DE, Ardenkjaer-Larsen JH, Zandt RIT, Jensen PR, Karlsson M, Golman K, Lerche MH, Brindle KM. Nature. 2008;453:940–943. doi: 10.1038/nature07017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Korenchan DE, Flavell RR, Baligand C, Sriram R, Neumann K, Sukumar S, VanBrocklin H, Vigneron DB, Wilson DM, Kurhanewicz J. Chem Commun. 2016;52:3030–3033. doi: 10.1039/c5cc09724j. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Jiang W, Lumata L, Chen W, Zhang S, Kovacs Z, Sherry AD, Khemtong C. Sci Rep. 2015;5:9104. doi: 10.1038/srep09104. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Shchepin RV, Barskiy DA, Coffey AM, Theis T, Shi F, Warren WS, Goodson BM, Chekmenev EY. ACS Sens. 2016 doi: 10.1021/acssensors.6b00231. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Flavell RR, von Morze C, Blecha JE, Korenchan DE, Van Criekinge M, Sriram R, Gordon JW, Chen HY, Subramaniam S, Bok RA, Wang ZJ, Vigneron DB, Larson PE, Kurhanewicz J, Wilson DM. Chem Commun. 2015;51:14119–14122. doi: 10.1039/c5cc05348j. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Nachod FC. Determination of organic structures by physical methods. Academic Press; New York: 1955. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Servens C, Filliatre C, Sion R. J Labelled Comp Radiopharm. 1985;22:1097–1108. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Grant AK, Vinogradov E, Wang X, Lenkinski RE, Alsop DC. Magn Reson Med. 2011;66:746–755. doi: 10.1002/mrm.22860. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Keshari KR, Wilson DM. Chem Soc Rev. 2014;43:1627–1659. doi: 10.1039/c3cs60124b. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Nachod FC. Determination of organic structures by physical methods. Academic Press; New York: 1955. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Becker ED, Shoup RR, Farrar TC. Pure Appl Chem. 1972;32:51–66. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Eigen M. Angew Chem. 1964;3:1–19. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Ernst RR, Bodenhausen G, Wokaun A. Principles of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance in One and Two Dimensions. Clarendon Press; 1987. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Hore PJ. Nuclear Magnetic Resonance. Oxford University Press Inc; New York: 1995. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Brinkman R, Margaria R, Roughton FJW. Phil Trans R Soc A. 1934;232:65–97. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Gallagher FA, Kettunen MI, Brindle KM. NMR Biomed. 2011;24:1006–1015. doi: 10.1002/nbm.1742. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

ESI

RESOURCES