Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Magnetic Resonance Imaging01:24

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a noninvasive medical imaging technique based on a phenomenon of nuclear physics discovered in the 1930s, in which matter exposed to magnetic fields and radio waves was found to emit radio signals. In 1970, a physician and researcher named Raymond Damadian noticed that malignant (cancerous) tissue gave off different signals than normal body tissue. He applied for a patent for the first MRI scanning device in clinical use by the early 1980s. The early MRI...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

A Two-Stage Coarse-to-Fine Framework for Sparse Crowd Density Prediction in Digital Twin-Based Safety Monitoring.

Sensors (Basel, Switzerland)·2026
Same author

Beyond auto-segmentation: the case for planning and dosimetry AI in head and neck radiation oncology.

BMJ oncology·2026
Same author

MEGF8 controls osteogenic differentiation through post-transcriptional regulation of BMP-SMAD signaling in craniosynostosis.

Cell death and differentiation·2026
Same author

Continuous Pyruvate Supplementation Enhances Neuroprotective Resilience Against Kainate-Induced Status Epilepticus Through Metabolic Preconditioning.

Biomolecules·2026
Same author

Time-resolved GluCEST MRI of acute glutamate-related signal changes following kainic acid administration.

Journal of the neurological sciences·2026
Same author

SECmeres outperform extracellular vesicles as potential blood RNA biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease.

Nature communications·2026

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jul 10, 2026

A Randomized, Sham-Controlled Trial of Cranial Electrical Stimulation for Fibromyalgia Pain and Physical Function, Using Brain Imaging Biomarkers
08:33

A Randomized, Sham-Controlled Trial of Cranial Electrical Stimulation for Fibromyalgia Pain and Physical Function, Using Brain Imaging Biomarkers

Published on: January 5, 2024

Limited Contribution of T1 Relaxation to GluCEST MRI Signal Differences Across Four Rat Models with Distinct

Donghoon Lee1, Hind Binjaffar2, Yeon Ji Chae3,4

  • 1Faculty of Health Sciences, Higher Colleges of Technology, P.O. Box 1626, Fujairah, United Arab Emirates.

Molecular Imaging and Biology
|July 9, 2026
PubMed
Summary

Longitudinal relaxation time (T1) differences did not explain glutamate-weighted CEST (GluCEST) group differences in four rat disease models. GluCEST alterations reflect biological changes beyond T1 variations, suggesting model-specific interpretation.

Keywords:
Glutamate-weighted chemical exchange saturation transfer (GluCEST)Multi-model analysisRelaxation effectsT1 relaxation

More Related Videos

Diffusion Tensor Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Analysis of Neurodegenerative Diseases
09:33

Diffusion Tensor Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Analysis of Neurodegenerative Diseases

Published on: July 28, 2013

The Use of Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy as a Tool for the Measurement of Bi-hemispheric Transcranial Electric Stimulation Effects on Primary Motor Cortex Metabolism
13:56

The Use of Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy as a Tool for the Measurement of Bi-hemispheric Transcranial Electric Stimulation Effects on Primary Motor Cortex Metabolism

Published on: November 19, 2014

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jul 10, 2026

A Randomized, Sham-Controlled Trial of Cranial Electrical Stimulation for Fibromyalgia Pain and Physical Function, Using Brain Imaging Biomarkers
08:33

A Randomized, Sham-Controlled Trial of Cranial Electrical Stimulation for Fibromyalgia Pain and Physical Function, Using Brain Imaging Biomarkers

Published on: January 5, 2024

Diffusion Tensor Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Analysis of Neurodegenerative Diseases
09:33

Diffusion Tensor Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Analysis of Neurodegenerative Diseases

Published on: July 28, 2013

The Use of Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy as a Tool for the Measurement of Bi-hemispheric Transcranial Electric Stimulation Effects on Primary Motor Cortex Metabolism
13:56

The Use of Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy as a Tool for the Measurement of Bi-hemispheric Transcranial Electric Stimulation Effects on Primary Motor Cortex Metabolism

Published on: November 19, 2014

Area of Science:

  • Neuroimaging
  • Biomedical Engineering
  • Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Background:

  • Glutamatergic alterations are implicated in various neurological and psychiatric disorders.
  • Glutamate-weighted chemical exchange saturation transfer (GluCEST) imaging is a promising technique for assessing brain glutamate levels.
  • Quantitative T1 mapping provides information on water relaxation times, which can potentially influence CEST signal.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate whether longitudinal relaxation time (T1) differences account for observed group differences in GluCEST in four distinct rat disease models.
  • To assess the relationship between T1 values and GluCEST signal across models of insomnia, depression, demyelination, and sepsis.

Main Methods:

  • High-resolution (7T) GluCEST and quantitative T1 mapping were performed on control and disease model rats.
  • Statistical analyses included Welch's t-tests, effect size calculations, and analyses of covariance (ANCOVA).
  • Correlation analyses were employed to examine the relationship between T1 and GluCEST.

Main Results:

  • No significant T1 differences were found between control and disease groups in any model (p ≥ 0.53).
  • Significant group differences in GluCEST were observed across all four models (p < 0.01) with large effect sizes (Cohen's d = 1.75-7.02).
  • ANCOVA revealed that GluCEST group effects remained significant after adjusting for T1, and T1 was not a significant predictor of GluCEST.

Conclusions:

  • Measured T1 differences did not explain the observed GluCEST group differences in the studied rat models.
  • The findings suggest that GluCEST group separation is driven by biological changes beyond T1 variations.
  • Interpretation of GluCEST group comparisons should consider the specific biological model, T1 differences, and imaging acquisition parameters.