Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Mar 11.
Published in final edited form as: J Magn Reson Imaging. 2020 Sep 24;53(2):408–415. doi: 10.1002/jmri.27363

In Vivo Proton Exchange Rate (kex) MRI for the Characterization of Multiple Sclerosis Lesions in Patients

Haiqi Ye 1,, Mehran Shaghaghi 2,, Qianlan Chen 1, Yan Zhang 1, Sarah E Lutz 3, Weiwei Chen 1,*, Kejia Cai 2,4,5,*
PMCID: PMC8915262  NIHMSID: NIHMS1785864  PMID: 32975008

Abstract

Background:

Currently available radiological methods do not completely capture the diversity of multiple sclerosis (MS) lesion subtypes. This lack of information hampers the understanding of disease progression and potential treatment stratification. For example, inflammation persists in some lesions after gadolinium (Gd) enhancement resolves. Novel metabolic and molecular imaging methods may improve the current assessments of MS pathophysiology.

Purpose:

To compare the in vivo proton exchange rate (kex) MRI with Gd-enhanced MRI for characterizing MS lesions.

Study Type:

Retrospective.

Subjects:

Sixteen consecutively diagnosed relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) patients.

Field Strength/Sequence:

3.0T MRI with T2-weighted imaging, postcontrast T1-weighted imaging, and single-slice chemical exchange saturation transfer imaging.

Assessment:

MS lesions in white matter were assessed for Gd enhancement and kex elevation compared to normal-appearing white matter (NAWM).

Statistical Tests:

Student’s t-test was used for analyzing the difference of kex values between lesions and NAWM, with statistical significance set at 0.05.

Results:

Of all 153 MS lesions, 78 (51%) lesions were Gd-enhancing and 75 (49%) were Gd-negative. Without exception, all 78 Gd-enhancing lesions showed significantly elevated kex values compared to NAWM (924 ± 130 s−1 vs. 735 ± 61 s−1, P < 0.05). Of 75 Gd-negative lesions, 18 lesions (24%) showed no kex elevation (762 ± 29 s−1 vs. 755 ± 28 s−1, P = 0.47) and 57 (76%) showed significant kex elevation (950 ± 124 s−1 vs. 759 ± 48 s−1, P < 0.05) compared to NAWM. MS lesions with kex elevation appeared nodular (118, 87.4%), ring-like (15, 11.1%), or irregular-shaped (2, 1.5%).

Data Conclusion:

For Gd-enhancing lesions, kex MRI is highly consistent with Gd-enhanced images by showing 100% of elevated kex. For all Gd-negative lesions, the discrepancy on kex MRI may further differentiate active slowly expanding lesions or chronic inactive lesions, supporting kex as an imaging biomarker for tissue oxidative stress and inflammation.

Level of Evidence:

2

Technical Efficacy Stage:

3


MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS (MS) is the most common autoimmune inflammatory disease of the central nervous system, and a leading cause of neurologic disability in young adults.1 MS is characterized by multifocal demyelination, axonal injury, neuronal loss, and inflammation.2 Early therapeutic intervention is commonly considered the key to minimize the neurological disability of MS patients; however, this is dependent on early and accurate diagnosis.3 Patients exhibit substantial heterogeneity in clinical and histopathological presentation and progression over time.4 Novel molecular and metabolic imaging methods may be useful to refine the identification of lesion subtype to assist in understanding disease, including the contribution of reactive oxygen species and other direct causes of tissue damage.5 Better imaging strategies may enable prospective identification of aggressive disease to facilitate patient stratification into aggressive vs. conservative treatment plans.6 Moreover, new noninvasive imaging biomarkers of neuroprotection and repair are needed to guide clinical decisions and allow evaluation of experimental therapeutics, particularly those directed toward regeneration in gadolinium-negative lesions.710

Currently, the diagnosis of MS is based on the McDonald criteria, in which magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is an essential part.11 Besides clinical symptomatic attacks, fulfilling the imaging criteria for dissemination in space (DIS) and dissemination in time (DIT) are the important points for the diagnosis of MS11 according to the McDonald criteria. Dissemination in space means an MS patient has lesions located in at least two of the four distinct anatomical locations: periventricular, infratentorial, spinal cord, and juxtacortical regions. MS lesions can be classified into five pathological stages: early active, late active, smoldering, inactive, and shadow plaques.12 Dissemination in time means the lesions in an MS patient are in different stages. Gadolinium (Gd) enhancement on postcontrast T1-weighted images (T1WI), signaling blood–brain barrier disruption and active inflammation, is the widely used MRI method to define the stage of an MS lesion.13 A patient fulfils the criteria of DIT based on the coexistence of Gd-enhancing and nonenhancing lesions or the appearance of a new lesion on postcontrast T1WI or T2-weighted images (T2WI).11 However, the narrow window of Gd enhancement in MS lesions lead to underestimation of their activities. The average duration of Gd enhancement in individual new lesions is ~3 weeks, and the vast majority of Gd enhancement resolves in 6 months.14 Afterward, the stages of MS lesions cannot be identified when they turn into Gd-negative lesions. However, inflammation persists for a long time after the Gd enhancement is resolved.15,16 These nonenhanced lesions can be categorized into chronic active lesions (slowly expanding lesions) and chronic inactive lesions according to the presence or absence of ongoing inflammation.1618 Therefore, DIT is underestimated with Gd-enhanced MRI alone and new MRI methods will be highly desirable for improving the DIT determination. In addition, some recent studies proposed a correlation between lesions with typical paramagnetic rims on susceptibility-weighted imaging (SWI) and the chronic active MS lesions (slowly expanding lesions), and there is still a significant ongoing need to seek new MRI biomarkers to improve the characterization of MS lesions and the DIT determination.19,20

As an emerging MR contrast, the in vivo proton exchange rate (kex) quantified from direct water saturation (DS) removed omega plots has been recently shown applicable in healthy human brains.21,22 Through exchangeable protons, proton exchange happens between bulk water and metabolites, such as proteins, peptides, amino acids, and other small molecules. The major proton exchanging sites in endogenous metabolites include amine −NH2, amide −NH, hydroxyl −OH, and hydrosulfuric −SH groups. As a fundamental biophysical process, proton exchange plays important roles in producing MRI contrasts including T1- and T2-relaxations, chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST), magnetization transfer (MT), and nuclear Overhauser enhancement (NOE).22 We have previously developed CEST techniques for the in vivo assessment of myo-inositol and of glutamate in healthy brain and neurological lesions.23,24 The aim of the present study was to assess the use of kex MRI, in comparison with Gd-enhanced MRI, to characterize and stage MS lesions.

Materials and Methods

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) and written informed consent was obtained from all patients. All patients were previously diagnosed with relapsing–remitting MS according to the 2017 revisions of the McDonald criteria.11

Imaging Acquisition and Analysis

All patients underwent MR exams on a 3.0T GE MR750 scanner (GE Healthcare, Milwaukee, WI) with a 32-channel head coil and imaging sequences including T2WI, kex MRI based on omega plotting,22 and Gd-enhanced MRI. The parameters for T2WI were time of repetition (TR) = 5300 msec, time of echo (TE) = 92 msec, field of view (FOV) = 24 × 24 cm2, matrix = 512 × 512, slice thickness = 5 mm. The kex MRI protocol consisted of the acquisition of five CEST Z-spectral data with different saturation powers (B1) from a single slice covering most MS lesions delineated by T2WI, which was decided by a neuroradiologist (Y.Z., 8 years’ experience in neuroradiology). The CEST Z-spectra were acquired using a customized single-shot fast low angle shot (FLASH) sequence with imaging parameters: short TR = 3000 msec, TE = 22.6 msec, FOV = 24 × 24 cm2, matrix size = 128 × 128, slice thickness = 5 mm, number of average = 1, CEST saturation power = 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 μT, and saturation duration = 1.5 sec.24,25

A total of 33 frequency offsets were acquired at each saturation B1, ranging from −6 to +6 ppm with an increment of 0.25 ppm, +15.6 ppm, and + 39.1 ppm (used as reference image). The total scanning time for collecting each Z-spectral dataset was 3 minutes 18 seconds and the total imaging time for kex MRI in this study was ~16.5 minutes. After the kex MRI protocol, postcontrast T1-weighted imaging was performed 5 minutes after administration of 0.1 mmol/kg gadopentetate dimeglumine (Magnevist, Bayer, Berlin, Germany). The scanning parameters for the Gd-enhanced MRI were TR = 500 msec, TE = 8 msec, FOV = 24 × 24 cm2, matrix = 320 × 320, slice thickness = 5 mm.

All image processing and data analyses were performed using custom-written scripts in MATLAB (MathWorks, Natick, MA). The acquired Z-spectra were used to construct kex maps based on the direct-saturation-removed omega plot method.22 In brief, each Z-spectrum was modeled as a linear combination of two Lorentzian components corresponding to the water DS spectrum and the residual spectrum. The residual spectral signal was used to construct the omega plot of Mz/(M0Mz) as a linear function of 1/ω12, where M0 and Mz are the residual spectral signals far from water resonance (+39.1 ppm) and at the metabolite resonance, respectively, and ω1 is the amplitude of the saturation RF pulse. The X-axis intercept of the linear fit to the omega plot provided the kex value based on Eq. 1 as follows:

kex2=1Xintercept (1)

A generalized omega plot method (Eq. 2) was generated in the case of multiple proton exchange mechanisms contributing to the saturation transfer signal,22 including MT, CEST, and NOE:

MzM0Mz=1T1w(i=1nksifsiω12+i=1n1fsiksi) (2)

in which T1w is the longitudinal relaxation rate of the water, ksi are the exchange rates between the metabolites’ pool and the water pool, and fsi are the fraction of protons on the metabolites relative to water.

Since Eq. 2 indicates a linear relationship between MzM0Mz and the inverse of the square of saturation pulse power 1ω12, the extraction of the X-axis intercept provided an average readout (Eq. 3) of the convoluted exchanging rate of multiple exchange mechanisms:

1Xintercept=1nksifi1n1fiksi=M1(ksifi)×M1(fiksi)=p2(fiksi)=p2(k¯ex) (3)

where M1 and M−1 are the arithmetic and the harmonic mean operator, respectively. Following the kex quantification for each voxel, kex maps were produced.

Lesions with T2 hyperintensities were assumed to be MS lesions. White matter regions without an abnormal signal were considered to be normal-appearing white matter (NAWM). Regions of interest (ROIs) of MS lesions were drawn manually by a neuroradiologist (H.Y., 3 years of experience) by outlining the edge of the lesions on T2WI. ROIs of NAWM (circle, 55 mm2 in size, at least six ROIs for each MS patient) were also drawn on T2WI as an internal reference. All masks of ROIs were overlaid on kex images to calculate the kex values.

Three radiologists (H.Y., Q.C., W.C., with 3, 2, and 19 years of experience in neuroradiology, respectively) reviewed all MR images independently to assess MS lesions based on visual impression of three characteristics: the presence of Gd enhancement, kex signal elevation, and lesion shape (nodular, ring-like, or irregular-shaped), with the interobserver variation assessed. Any discrepancy for each characterization by these three neuroradiologists was resolved by majority votes.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software (v. 22, Chicago, IL). Descriptive results are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD). Interobserver agreement between three radiologists was assessed using Fleiss’ kappa statistic. The normality of data was assessed with the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. Two-tailed Student’s t-test was used for analyzing the difference of kex values between lesions and NAWM, and between Gd-enhancing MS lesions and Gd-negative MS lesions, with statistical significance set at 0.05.

Results

Sixteen consecutive MS patients (seven men and nine women) were recruited for this retrospective study between December 2018 and August 2019. Their age ranged from 18–50 years old (32.9 ± 8.1 years), expanded disability status scale scores (EDSS) ranged from 0–6.5 (median, 2.5), and the disease durations ranged from 1–12 years (7.6 ± 3.6 years). Of 16 patients, eight patients had a clinical relapse with corticosteroid therapy following the MRI examinations. Figure 1a demonstrates Z-spectra data from a representative MS lesion at different saturation B1 powers. Figure 1b shows the fitting of the Z-spectrum for direct saturation and DS-removed residual signals. The quantification of kex of lesions or NAWM is demonstrated in Fig. 1c. Most MS lesions showed elevated kex values.

FIGURE 1:

FIGURE 1:

Demonstration of kex quantification in MS brain. (a) Representative Z-spectra from an MS lesion for five different saturation powers, B1 = 1–5 μT. (b) Demonstration of inversed Z-spectrum at B1 = 1 μT with Lorentzian fittings to remove the water direct saturation (DS) contribution. DS was subtracted from the entire Z-spectrum and the residual spectrum was used to construct the omega plot. (c) Typical omega plots constructed using signals from normal-appearing white matter (NAWM) and an MS lesion. The X-intercept of the linear fit provides a readout of the exchange rate (kex).

Three neuroradiologists achieved great interobserver agreement on characterizing MS lesions. Specifically, the kappa values for interobserver agreement between the three neuroradiologists were 0.922 for the presence of Gd enhancement, 0.825 for kex signal elevation, and 0.825 for lesion shape.

Table 1 summarizes the clinical and imaging information of all patients. A total of 153 MS lesions with kex images were identified in 16 MS patients. Of the 153 MS lesions, 78 lesions (51%) were Gd-enhancing and 75 (49%) were Gd-negative. Furthermore, 135 MS lesions showed kex elevation relative to NAWM, with the majority (118/135, 87.4%) showing nodular kex elevation, the others showing ring-like (15/135, 11.1%) and irregular-shaped (2/135, 1.5%) kex elevation.

TABLE 1.

Demographic Data, EDSS Score, and Number of Lesions of Each MS Patient

Patient number Sex and age EDSS Score Total lesion number on T2WI Number of lesions on kex maps Number of lesions with Gd enhancement Number of lesions with kex elevation Number of lesions without kex elevation
1 Female, 18y 2 6 4 0 4 0
2 Male, 44y 5 43 27 27 27 0
3 Male, 37y 3 17 9 0 9 0
4 Male, 32y 1 3 1 1 1 0
5 Female, 33y 2.5 13 6 0 4 2
6 Female, 41y 1.5 8 4 0 4 0
7 Male, 34y 6.5 38 24 24 24 0
8 Male, 50y 3 19 8 0 6 2
9 Female, 32y 2.5 17 11 3 11 0
10 Female, 23y 2 13 7 2 3 4
11 Female, 31y 1 5 2 0 2 0
12 Male, 27y 3 36 19 1 13 6
13 Female, 33y 3 25 13 13 13 0
14 Female, 31y 2.5 16 7 6 6 1
15 Female, 37y 2 23 10 0 7 3
16 Male, 23y 0 2 1 1 1 0

EDSS = expanded disability status scale.

In all Gd-enhancing lesions, there were significantly elevated kex values in comparison to NAWM (924 ± 130 s−1 vs. 735 ± 61 s−1, P < 0.05). MR images from a representative patient with Gd-enhancing lesions are shown in Fig. 2. A representative patient without Gd-enhancing lesions is shown in Figs. 3 and 4, with some lesions that do not have elevated kex signal. Overall, in lesions without Gd enhancement, 18 lesions (24%) showed no kex elevation (762 ± 29 s−1 vs. 755 ± 28 s−1, P = 0.474) and 57 (76%) showed significant kex elevation (950 ± 124 s−1 vs. 759 ± 48 s−1, P < 0.05) compared to NAWM (Figs. 5, 6).

FIGURE 2:

FIGURE 2:

Images from the number 2 MS patient. A total of 27 lesions were identified on the selected slice of T2WI, including 12 lesions labeled by arrows. All Gd-enhancing lesions showed kex elevation (only 12 lesions labeled by black and white arrows), including 23 lesions with ring-like kex elevation (only eight lesions labeled by white arrows) and four with nodular kex elevation (black arrows).

FIGURE 3:

FIGURE 3:

Images from number 3 MS patient. Nine lesions were identified on the selected slice of T2WI (arrows and arrowheads). All lesions showed kex elevation without Gd enhancement, including one lesion with ring-like kex elevation (white arrow), six with nodular kex elevation (black arrows), and two with irregular-shaped kex elevation (black arrowheads).

FIGURE 4:

FIGURE 4:

Images from number 5 MS patient. Six lesions were identified on the selected T2WI slice (white and black arrows). No lesions showed Gd enhancement. While on the kex map, two of them (white arrows) showed similar kex to the normal-appearing white matter, and the other four lesions (black arrows) showed nodular elevated kex.

FIGURE 5:

FIGURE 5:

MS lesions can be categorized into three patterns by Gd enhancement and kex mapping.

FIGURE 6:

FIGURE 6:

All Gd-enhancing MS lesions and 76% non-Gd-enhancing MS lesions showed elevated kex in comparison to normal-appearing white matter.

Discussion

This study demonstrated the feasibility of kex imaging in MS patients. Interestingly, kex MRI was found to be highly consistent with Gd-enhanced contrast maps in Gd-enhanced enhancing lesions because all of them showed elevated kex. Nonenhancing MS lesions can be further classified into two patterns by kex MRI, showing elevated or unchanged kex compared to NAWM, suggesting that kex mapping may serve as a potential approach to further characterize Gd-negative MS lesions.

Under different B1s, varied proton species of CEST or MT-expressing metabolites are optimally saturated. For example, the amide proton transfer (APT) effect is optimally saturated under low B1 around 1 to 2 μT due to the relatively slow amide proton exchange rate.26 The glutamate CEST effect, on the other hand, is optimal under high saturation powers, for instance B1≥ 3 μT, given its relatively fast amine proton exchange rate.24 Therefore, kex as a general physical parameter is the weighted average of all exchanging proton species in tissues.

As a physical parameter, tissue kex may be altered by pH, temperature, reactive oxygen species (ROS), or the profile of tissue metabolites containing slow or fast exchangeable protons.27 A previous study using DS-removed omega plots has shown that exchange rate maps can linearly reflect the pH changes in the physiological range (pH 6.2 to 7.4).21 PH in MS lesions in vivo with the established 31P-MR spectroscopy has been consistently reported at neutral to slightly alkaline (7.03 ± 0.02).28 Based on our research with protein phantoms at different pH, 0.03 unit of pH will lead to kex change of only 4 s−1 which is <1%.22 There is literature reporting acidic pH in MS lesions as well.29 However, pH reduction leads to a kex decrease, while ROS leads to kex enhancement. The fact that we observed positive kex contrast in MS lesions indicates that the pH influence is not comparable. As another factor that could affect kex, the temperature is well controlled in the brain. There are prior MR spectroscopy studies on metabolite changes in MS lesions.30,31 While glutamate concentration has been found to be elevated in acute lesions and NAWM, N-acetyl-aspartate was significantly reduced, likely due to neuronal/axonal dysfunction or loss.30,31 Elevated choline was observed that is likely linked to heightened cell-membrane turnover, as seen in demyelination, remyelination, inflammation, or gliosis.31 Evidence was also found for increased glial activity in MS, with a significantly higher myo-inositol concentration.30 However, the aforementioned metabolite changes are unlikely to influence the observed tissue kex in MS lesions, given that these changes are at the mM level, a small fraction of the total exchangeable protons (including amide, amine, hydroxyl, and hydrosulfuric protons) whose concentration is estimated to be hundreds to thousands of mM.30

A recent study has shown that ROS can enhance tissue kex with high sensitivity even at the pM level.27 Due to the extremely short ROS half-lives and very low in vivo concentrations, in vivo ROS imaging is challenging.32 Several techniques have been developed for studying tissue ROS, including biochemical analyses, optical redox scanning, and methods such as electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) and Overhauser-enhanced MRI (OMRI).32,33 However, these techniques are either invasive, limited to ex vivo applications, or require exogenous contrast agents. The administration of exogenous contrast agents prevents repeated or longitudinal studies, as the agents react with radicals in the tissue, thereby changing the tissue ROS concentration under investigation. On the other hand, kex MRI has recently been developed to image in vivo ROS with advantages due to its endogenous contrast and high sensitivity and specificity, as confirmed by in vivo and ex vivo experiments.27,33,34 Given the high reactivity of ROS (particularly hydroxyl radicals, ˙OH), ROS promotes proton exchange or elevated kex, presumably through an oxidation-catalyzed mechanism, similar to, but likely more effective than, the base(OH)-catalyzed mechanism due to pH.27

Oxidative stress is implicated as one of the key factors in the pathogenesis of MS, given that evidence for oxidative stress is found in the experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis, pathologic specimens, and autopsied tissues from MS patients, and antioxidant therapy is reported to be a promising approach to treat MS.35 Activated macrophages and microglia and mitochondrial dysfunction are the main sources for oxidative stress in MS lesions.15 Elevated intracellular ROS due to oxidative stress causes the inflammatory destruction of myelin, as myelin sheaths are highly vulnerable to oxidative stress.36

Differing from Gd enhancement of an MS lesion, which represents the disruption of the blood–brain barrier, elevated ROS production and inflammation is reported to be present in active and slowly expanding MS lesions, but may be absent in inactive MS lesions.35,37 Therefore, detection and visualization of ROS in vivo is essential for studying oxidative stress in MS pathogenesis. The results of this study have shown that nonenhanced MS lesions could be further classified into two patterns by kex mapping, suggesting that kex may be an alternative endogenous MRI contrast for separating slowly expanding MS lesions (chronic active lesions) from inactive ones. Recently, other imaging tracers and approaches based on specific pathology were also proposed to separate the nonenhanced MS lesions, such as positron emission tomography (PET) with 11C-(R)-PK11195, an isoquinoline carboxamide that binds selectively to the peripheral benzodiazepine receptor (targeting activated microglia or macrophages), and SWI (targeting abnormal iron deposit).15,38,39 With kex MRI (potentially targeting ROS), the stage of Gd-negative lesions may be further characterized for the better determination of the DIT of MS lesions, encouraging further validation by comparison with other imaging approaches and studies in preclinical MS models.

Limitations

This study focused on the implementation of the novel kex MRI for MS patients; however, its clinical implication requires further validation with pathological studies in animal models. Second, this preliminary study of novel kex MRI was performed on a small number of MS patients from a single hospital, which needs to be further validated by multicenter studies in a large cohort. Third, the long scan time and only one slice scanning for kex mapping may be of concern. The former can be significantly shortened for future clinical applications by reducing the number of Z-spectra to two, given that the omega plot is a linear plot, and by reducing the number of frequency offsets in each Z-spectrum. Fourth, choosing NAWM as an internal reference might underestimate the kex elevation in MS lesions. Because MS is considered to be a disease involving the whole brain, NAWM may also have the risk of kex elevation.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated the implementation of kex MRI in the MS brain. Kex MRI showed consistent enhancement in Gd-enhancing MS lesions. In addition, kex MRI may further differentiate Gd-negative lesions based on their inflammatory status. Once validated, kex MRI may serve as a complementary imaging tool for the characterization of MS lesions in addition to Gd-enhanced MRI.

Acknowledgments

Contract grant sponsor: National Institutes of Health; Contract grant numbers: R21EB023516, R01AG061114, R21AG053876; Contract grant sponsor: National Natural Science Foundation of China; Contract grant number: 81401390.

References

  • 1.Noseworthy JH, Lucchinetti C, Rodriguez M, Weinshenker BG. Multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med 2000;343(13):938–952. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Bitsch A, Schuchardt J, Bunkowski S, Kuhlmann T, Brück W. Acute axonal injury in multiple sclerosis. Correlation with demyelination and inflammation. Brain 2000;123:1174–1183. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Kavaliunas A, Manouchehrinia A, Stawiarz L, et al. Importance of early treatment initiation in the clinical course of multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2017;23(9):1233–1240. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Kuhlmann T, Ludwin S, Prat A, Antel J, Bruck W, Lassmann H. An updated histological classification system for multiple sclerosis lesions. Acta Neuropathol 2017;133(1):13–24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Moccia M, Ciccarelli O. Molecular and metabolic imaging in multiple sclerosis. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 2017;27(2):343–356. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Iacobaeus E, Arrambide G, Pia Amato M, et al. Aggressive multiple sclerosis (1): Towards a definition of the phenotype. Mult Scler 2020;26 (9):1031–1044. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Lubetzki C, Zalc B, Williams A, Stadelmann C, Stankoff B. Remyelination in multiple sclerosis: From basic science to clinical translation. Lancet Neurol 2020;19(8):678–688. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Ciccarelli O, Barkhof F, Bodini B, et al. Pathogenesis of multiple sclerosis: Insights from molecular and metabolic imaging. Lancet Neurol 2014;13(8):807–822. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Raine CS. Multiple sclerosis: The resolving lesion revealed. J Neuroimmunol 2017;304:2–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Oh J, Ontaneda D, Azevedo C, Klawiter EC, et al. Imaging outcome measures of neuroprotection and repair in MS: A consensus statement from NAIMS. Neurology 2019;92(11):519–533. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Thompson AJ, Banwell BL, Barkhof F, et al. Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: 2017 revisions of the McDonald criteria. Lancet Neurol 2018;17 (2):162–173. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Frischer JM, Weigand SD, Guo Y, et al. Clinical and pathological insights into the dynamic nature of the white matter multiple sclerosis plaque. Ann Neurol 2015;78(5):710–721. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Grossman RI, Braffman BH, Brorson JR, Goldberg HI, Silberberg DH, Gonzalez-Scarano F. Multiple sclerosis: Serial study of gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 1988;169(1):117–122. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.He J, Grossman RI, Ge Y, Mannon LJ. Enhancing patterns in multiple sclerosis: Evolution and persistence. Am J Neuroradiol 2001;22(4): 664–669. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kaunzner UW, Kang Y, Zhang S, et al. Quantitative susceptibility mapping identifies inflammation in a subset of chronic multiple sclerosis lesions. Brain 2019;142(1):133–145. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Elliott C, Wolinsky JS, Hauser SL, et al. Slowly expanding/evolving lesions as a magnetic resonance imaging marker of chronic active multiple sclerosis lesions. Mult Scler 2019;25(14):1915–1925. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Matthews PM. Chronic inflammation in multiple sclerosis — Seeing what was always there. Nat Rev Neurol 2019;15(10):582–593. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Tommasin S, Giannì C, De Giglio L, Pantano P. Neuroimaging techniques to assess inflammation in multiple sclerosis. Neuroscience 2019; 403:4–16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Dal-Bianco A, Grabner G, Kronnerwetter C, et al. Slow expansion of multiple sclerosis iron rim lesions: Pathology and 7 T magnetic resonance imaging. Acta Neuropathol 2017;133(1):25–42. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Hametner S, Dal Bianco A, Trattnig S, Lassmann H. Iron related changes in MS lesions and their validity to characterize MS lesion types and dynamics with ultra-high field magnetic resonance imaging. Brain Pathol 2018;28(5):743–749. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Dixon WT, Ren J, Lubag AJ, et al. A concentration-independent method to measure exchange rates in PARACEST agents. Magn Reson Med 2010;63(3):625–632. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Shaghaghi M, Chen W, Scotti A, et al. In vivo quantification of proton exchange rate in healthy human brains with omega plot. Quant Imaging Med Surg 2019;9(10):1686–1696. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Haris M, Cai K, Singh A, Hariharan H, Reddy R. In vivo mapping of brain myo-inositol. Neuroimage 2011;54(3):2079–2085. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Cai K, Haris M, Singh A, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of glutamate. Nat Med 2012;18(2):302–306. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Zhang J, Zhu W, Tain R, Zhou XJ, Cai K. Improved differentiation of low-grade and high-grade gliomas and detection of tumor proliferation using APT contrast fitted from Z-spectrum. Mol Imaging Biol 2018;20 (4):623–631. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Zhou J, Payen JF, Wilson DA, Traystman RJ, van Zijl PC. Using the amide proton signals of intracellular proteins and peptides to detect pH effects in MRI. Nat Med 2003;9(8):1085–1090. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Tain RW, Scotti AM, Cai K. Improving the detection specificity of endogenous MRI for reactive oxygen species (ROS). J Magn Reson Imaging 2019;50(2):583–591. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Guillevin C, Agius P, Naudin M, et al. (1) H-(31) P magnetic resonance spectroscopy: Effect of biotin in multiple sclerosis. Ann Clin Transl Neurol 2019;6(7):1332–1337. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Hamilton NB, Kolodziejczyk K, Kougioumtzidou E, Attwell D. Protongated Ca(2+)-permeable TRP channels damage myelin in conditions mimicking ischaemia. Nature 2016;529(7587):523–527. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Srinivasan R, Sailasuta N, Hurd R, Nelson S, Pelletier D. Evidence of elevated glutamate in multiple sclerosis using magnetic resonance spectroscopy at 3 T. Brain 2005;128:1016–1025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Sajja BR, Wolinsky JS, Narayana PA. Proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy in multiple sclerosis. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 2009;19(1): 45–58. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Calabrese AN, Ault JR, Radford SE, Ashcroft AE. Using hydroxyl radical footprinting to explore the free energy landscape of protein folding. Methods 2015;89:38–44. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Tain RW, Scotti AM, Li W, Zhou XJ, Cai K. Imaging short-lived reactive oxygen species (ROS) with endogenous contrast MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2018;47(1):222–229. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Tain RW, Scotti AM, Li W, Zhou XJ, Cai K. Influence of free radicals on the intrinsic MRI relaxation properties. Adv Exp Med Biol 2017;977: 73–79. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Waslo C, Bourdette D, Gray N, Wright K, Spain R. Lipoic acid and other antioxidants as therapies for multiple sclerosis. Curr Treat Options Neurol 2019;21(6):26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Haider L, Fischer MT, Frischer JM, et al. Oxidative damage in multiple sclerosis lesions. Brain 2011;134:1914–1924. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Siotto M, Filippi MM, Simonelli I, et al. Oxidative stress related to iron metabolism in relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis patients with low disability. Front Neurosci 2019;13:86. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Bauckneht M, Capitanio S, Raffa S, et al. Molecular imaging of multiple sclerosis: From the clinical demand to novel radiotracers. EJNMMI Radiopharm Chem 2019;4(1):6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Mehta V, Pei W, Yang G, et al. Iron is a sensitive biomarker for inflammation in multiple sclerosis lesions. PLoS One 2013;8(3):e57573. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES