PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

W Vine

Publications and source records attributed to W Vine.

5 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1990

Clinical diagnosis by nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. If not now, when?

Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy is the epitome of the high-technology, expensive diagnostic method. Extrapolation from a limited number of patient examinations and from experiments in animal models predicts a bright future for the method. However, several barriers block widespread clinical application in the near future; technical difficulties still exist but they seem to be resolvable in due course. A more serious problem is the absence of an adequate database from which to interpret the vast array of information produced by nuclear magnetic resonance. The necessary understanding of the pathologic biochemistry of disease will be frustratingly slow to appear as will the routine clinical use of magnetic resonance spectroscopy. The critical need for improved diagnostic methods will stimulate experimentation to resolve these problems.

Body Fluids↗
PubMed1989

Injury and recovery of the liver from preservation assessed by 31P NMR spectroscopy: the contrast between preservation with Collins' solution and Ringer's lactate solution.

The biochemistry of hepatic injury and recovery from preservation for transplantation was studied in rat liver perfused in vitro with erythrocytes. ATP and its metabolites, inorganic phosphate (Pi) and pH were quantitated as often as every 2.5 min by 31P NMR spectroscopy during preservation and recovery. Release of the hepatocellular enzymes, lactate dehydrogenase V (LDV) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) were also measured. The duration of preservation with Collins' solution, the standard clinical preservative, affected the rate of recovery of ATP and monophosphate esters (MP), which include AMP + IMP, and the final recovery of Pi, but not of ATP. The difference between Collins' and Ringer's lactate solution, a poor preservative, became more apparent as preservation time increased. The differences included (1) pH at the end of preservative infusion; (2) pH between 0 and 2.5 min of reperfusion; (3) the MP increase (AMP + IMP) at the end of 13 h of preservation; (4) rate of recovery of ATP after preservation; (5) final ATP recovery during reperfusion; (6) LDV after 13h of preservation. These biochemical differences between good and poor preservation form a rational basis for prediction of liver failure after transplantation and for tests of the quality of new preservatives.

Animals↗