4.7 Article

Cryptococcomas distinguished from gliomas with MR spectroscopy: An experimental rat and cell culture study

期刊

RADIOLOGY
卷 220, 期 1, 页码 122-128

出版社

RADIOLOGICAL SOC NORTH AMER
DOI: 10.1148/radiology.220.1.r01jl25122

关键词

animals; cryptococcosis; fungi; magnetic resonance (MR), experimental studies; magnetic resonance (MR), spectroscopy; specimens, MR; specimens, MR spectroscopy; technology assessment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: To use magnetic resonance (MR) spectroscopy to characterize clinical isolates of Cryptococcus neoformans and a glioma cell line in culture and in experimental rats. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One- and two-dimensional hydrogen 1 MR spectra were acquired from fungi cultured in vitro (16 isolates of C. neoformqns, three of Candida albicans, three of Aspergillus fumigatus, three of Saccharomyces cerevisiae) and a C6 glioma cell line. Cerebral biopsy specimens were obtained from healthy rats and animals with experimental infections or gliomas (19 healthy brains, 20 cryptococcomas, and 19 gliomas). Unequivocal signal assignment was performed for cell suspensions and tissue samples by using homo- and heteronuclear two-dimensional correlation spectra. RESULTS: MP spectra of C neoformans and cerebral cryptococcomas - but not of other fungi, healthy brains, or gliomas - were dominated by resonances from the cytosolic disaccharide alpha,alpha-trehalose. This spectral pattern was different from that of gliomas, which was dominated by lipids and an increased choline-creatine ratio, and that of healthy brain. CONCLUSION: A remarkably high concentration of alpha,alpha-trehalose in relation to other metabolites that are visible with MR spectroscopy is diagnostic of C neoformans. Cerebral cryptococcomas are an uncommon but serious manifestation of cryptococcosis in humans. Application of these results to the noninvasive diagnosis of cerebral cryptococcomas would help reduce the risk and expense of unnecessary surgery or biopsy and expedite patient treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据