Are you sure you want to leave this community? Leaving the community will revoke any permissions you have been granted in this community.
By improving spatial and anatomical specificity, localized spectroscopy can enhance the power and accuracy of the quantitative analysis of cellular metabolism and bioenergetics. Localized and nonlocalized dynamic (31)P magnetic resonance spectroscopy using a surface coil was compared during aerobic exercise and recovery of human calf muscle. For localization, a short echo time single-voxel magnetic resonance spectroscopy sequence with adiabatic refocusing (semi-LASER) was applied, enabling the quantification of phosphocreatine, inorganic phosphate, and pH value in a single muscle (medial gastrocnemius) in single shots (T(R) = 6 s). All measurements were performed in a 7 T whole body scanner with a nonmagnetic ergometer. From a series of equal exercise bouts we conclude that: (a) with localization, measured phosphocreatine declines in exercise to a lower value (79 ± 7% cf. 53 ± 10%, P = 0.002), (b) phosphocreatine recovery shows shorter half time (t(1/2) = 34 ± 7 s cf. t(1/2) = 42 ± 7 s, nonsignificant) and initial postexercise phosphocreatine resynthesis rate is significantly higher (32 ± 5 mM/min cf. 17 ± 4 mM/min, P = 0.001) and (c) in contrast to nonlocalized (31)P magnetic resonance spectroscopy, no splitting of the inorganic phosphate peak is observed during exercise or recovery, just an increase in line width during exercise. This confirms the absence of contaminating signals originating from weaker-exercising muscle, while an observed inorganic phosphate line broadening most probably reflects variations across fibers in a single muscle.
Pubmed ID: 22334374
Publication data is provided by the National Library of Medicine ® and PubMed ®. Data is retrieved from PubMed ® on a weekly schedule. For terms and conditions see the National Library of Medicine Terms and Conditions.
Programming language for all operating systems that lets users work more quickly and integrate their systems more effectively. Often compared to Tcl, Perl, Ruby, Scheme or Java. Some of its key distinguishing features include very clear and readable syntax, strong introspection capabilities, intuitive object orientation, natural expression of procedural code, full modularity, exception-based error handling, high level dynamic data types, extensive standard libraries and third party modules for virtually every task, extensions and modules easily written in C, C (or Java for Python, or .NET languages for IronPython), and embeddable within applications as a scripting interface.
View all literature mentions