Volume 34, Issue 3 pp. 319-325
Miscellaneous
Full Access

Magnetization transfer in cartilage and its constituent macromolecules

Martha L. Gray Phd, Mit

Corresponding Author

Martha L. Gray Phd, Mit

Continuum Electromechanics Group, Laboratory for Electromagnetic and Electronic Systems, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Arthritis Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts

Room 38-377, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Boston, MA 02139===Search for more papers by this author
Deborah Burstein

Deborah Burstein

and Department of Radiology, Charles A. Dana Research Institute, Beth Israel Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts

Search for more papers by this author
Leann M. Lesperance

Leann M. Lesperance

Harvard-Massachusetts Institute of Technology Division of Health Sciences and Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts

Search for more papers by this author
Lee Gehrke

Lee Gehrke

Harvard-Massachusetts Institute of Technology Division of Health Sciences and Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts

Search for more papers by this author
First published: September 1995
Citations: 126

Abstract

The goal of this work was to investigate magnetization transfer (MT) in cartilage by measuring water proton signals Ms/Mo, 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. Ms/Mo was quantified with a 12-μT saturation pulse applied 6 kHz off resonance. Both glycosaminoglycans (GAG) and collagen exhibited concentration dependent effects on Ms/Mo, being approximately linear for GAG solutions (Ms/Mo = -0.0137[% GAG] + 1.02] and exponential for collagen suspensions (Ms/Mo = 0.80 x exp[-(%collagen)/6.66] + 0.20); the direct saturation of water could not account for the measured Ms/Mo. Although the effect of collagen on Ms/Mo is much stronger than for a corresponding concentration of GAG, Ms/Mo is not very sensitive to changes in collagen concentration in the physiological range. Tissue degradation with 25 mg/ml trypsin led to an increase inMs/Mo 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 Ms/Mo (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 Ms/Mo is sensitive to macromolecular structure as well as concentration. In conclusion, whereas the baseline Ms/Mo value in cartilage may be primarily due to the tissue collagen concentration, changes in Ms/Mo may be due to physiological or pathophysiological changes in GAG concentration and tissue structure, and the measured Ms/Mo may differentiate between various pathomimetic degradative procedures.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.