Review of Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 2015

There were 116 articles published in the Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (JCMR) in 2015, which is a 14 % increase on the 102 articles published in 2014. The quality of the submissions continues to increase. The 2015 JCMR Impact Factor (which is published in June 2016) rose to 5.75 from 4.72 for 2014 (as published in June 2015), which is the highest impact factor ever recorded for JCMR. The 2015 impact factor means that the JCMR papers that were published in 2013 and 2014 were cited on average 5.75 times in 2015. The impact factor undergoes natural variation according to citation rates of papers in the 2 years following publication, and is significantly influenced by highly cited papers such as official reports. However, the progress of the journal's impact over the last 5 years has been impressive. Our acceptance rate is <25 % and has been falling because the number of articles being submitted has been increasing. In accordance with Open-Access publishing, the JCMR articles go on-line as they are accepted with no collating of the articles into sections or special thematic issues. For this reason, the Editors have felt that it is useful once per calendar year to summarize the papers for the readership into broad areas of interest or theme, so that areas of interest can be reviewed in a single article in relation to each other and other recent JCMR articles. The papers are presented in broad themes and set in context with related literature and previously published JCMR papers to guide continuity of thought in the journal. We hope that you find the open-access system increases wider reading and citation of your papers, and that you will continue to send your quality papers to JCMR for publication

Review of Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 2014

There were 102 articles published in the Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (JCMR) in 2014, which is a 6 % decrease on the 109 articles published in 2013. The quality of the submissions continues to increase. The 2013 JCMR Impact Factor (which is published in June 2014) fell to 4.72 from 5.11 for 2012 (as published in June 2013). The 2013 impact factor means that the JCMR papers that were published in 2011 and 2012 were cited on average 4.72 times in 2013. The impact factor undergoes natural variation according to citation rates of papers in the 2 years following publication, and is significantly influenced by highly cited papers such as official reports. However, the progress of the journal’s impact over the last 5 years has been impressive. Our acceptance rate is <25 % and has been falling because the number of articles being submitted has been increasing. In accordance with Open-Access publishing, the JCMR articles go on-line as they are accepted with no collating of the articles into sections or special thematic issues. For this reason, the Editors have felt that it is useful once per calendar year to summarize the papers for the readership into broad areas of interest or theme, so that areas of interest can be reviewed in a single article in relation to each other and other recent JCMR articles. The papers are presented in broad themes and set in context with related literature and previously published JCMR papers to guide continuity of thought in the journal. We hope that you find the open-access system increases wider reading and citation of your papers, and that you will continue to send your quality papers to JCMR for publication

Calibration of myocardial T2 and T1 against iron concentration.

BACKGROUND: The assessment of myocardial iron using T2* cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) has been validated and calibrated, and is in clinical use. However, there is very limited data assessing the relaxation parameters T1 and T2 for measurement of human myocardial iron. METHODS: Twelve hearts were examined from transfusion-dependent patients: 11 with end-stage heart failure, either following death (n=7) or cardiac transplantation (n=4), and 1 heart from a patient who died from a stroke with no cardiac iron loading. Ex-vivo R1 and R2 measurements (R1=1/T1 and R2=1/T2) at 1.5 Tesla were compared with myocardial iron concentration measured using inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy. RESULTS: From a single myocardial slice in formalin which was repeatedly examined, a modest decrease in T2 was observed with time, from mean (± SD) 23.7 ± 0.93 ms at baseline (13 days after death and formalin fixation) to 18.5 ± 1.41 ms at day 566 (p<0.001). Raw T2 values were therefore adjusted to correct for this fall over time. Myocardial R2 was correlated with iron concentration [Fe] (R2 0.566, p<0.001), but the correlation was stronger between LnR2 and Ln[Fe] (R2 0.790, p<0.001). The relation was [Fe] = 5081•(T2)-2.22 between T2 (ms) and myocardial iron (mg/g dry weight). Analysis of T1 proved challenging with a dichotomous distribution of T1, with very short T1 (mean 72.3 ± 25.8 ms) that was independent of iron concentration in all hearts stored in formalin for greater than 12 months. In the remaining hearts stored for <10 weeks prior to scanning, LnR1 and iron concentration were correlated but with marked scatter (R2 0.517, p<0.001). A linear relationship was present between T1 and T2 in the hearts stored for a short period (R2 0.657, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Myocardial T2 correlates well with myocardial iron concentration, which raises the possibility that T2 may provide additive information to T2* for patients with myocardial siderosis. However, ex-vivo T1 measurements are less reliable due to the severe chemical effects of formalin on T1 shortening, and therefore T1 calibration may only be practical from in-vivo human studies

T1 at 1.5T and 3T compared with conventional T2* at 1.5T for cardiac siderosis

Background: Myocardial black blood (BB) T2* relaxometry at 1.5T provides robust, reproducible and calibrated non-invasive assessment of cardiac iron burden. In vitro data has shown that like T2*, novel native Modified Look-Locker Inversion recovery (MOLLI) T1 shortens with increasing tissue iron. The relative merits of T1 and T2* are largely unexplored. We compared the established 1.5T BB T2* technique against native T1 values at 1.5T and 3T in iron overload patients and in normal volunteers. Methods: A total of 73 subjects (42 male) were recruited, comprising 20 healthy volunteers (controls) and 53 patients (thalassemia major 22, sickle cell disease 9, hereditary hemochromatosis 9, other iron overload conditions 13). Single mid-ventricular short axis slices were acquired for BB T2* at 1.5T and MOLLI T1 quantification at 1.5T and 3T. Results: In healthy volunteers, median T1 was 1014 ms (full range 939–1059 ms) at 1.5T and modestly increased to 1165ms (full range 1056–1224 ms) at 3T. All patients with significant cardiac iron overload (1.5T T2* values <20 ms) had T1 values <939 ms at 1.5T, and <1056 ms at 3T. Associations between T2* and T1 were found to be moderate with y =377 · x0.282 at 1.5T (R2 = 0.717), and y =406 · x0.294 at 3T (R2 = 0.715). Measures of reproducibility of T1 appeared superior to T2*. Conclusions: T1 mapping at 1.5T and at 3T can identify individuals with significant iron loading as defined by the current gold standard T2* at 1.5T. However, there is significant scatter between results which may reflect measurement error, but it is also possible that T1 interacts with T2*, or is differentially sensitive to aspects of iron chemistry or other biology. Hurdles to clinical implementation of T1 include the lack of calibration against human myocardial iron concentration, no demonstrated relation to cardiac outcomes, and variation in absolute T1 values between scanners, which makes inter-centre comparisons difficult. The relative merits of T1 at 3T versus T2* at 3T require further consideration

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field

Correction to: Clinical recommendations for cardiovascular magnetic resonance mapping of T1, T2, T2* and extracellular volume: A consensus statement by the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR) endorsed by the European Association for Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI).

CORRECTION TO: J CARDIOVASC MAGN RESON (2017) 19: 75. DOI: 10.1186/S12968-017-0389-8: In the original publication of this article [1] the "Competing interests" section was incorrect. The original publication stated the following competing interests

Review of Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 2013

There were 109 articles published in the Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (JCMR) in 2013, which is a 21% increase on the 90 articles published in 2012. The quality of the submissions continues to increase. The editors are delighted to report that the 2012 JCMR Impact Factor (which is published in June 2013) has risen to 5.11, up from 4.44 for 2011 (as published in June 2012), a 15% increase and taking us through the 5 threshold for the first time. The 2012 impact factor means that the JCMR papers that were published in 2010 and 2011 were cited on average 5.11 times in 2012. The impact factor undergoes natural variation according to citation rates of papers in the 2 years following publication, and is significantly influenced by highly cited papers such as official reports. However, the progress of the journal's impact over the last 5 years has been impressive. Our acceptance rate is <25% and has been falling because the number of articles being submitted has been increasing. In accordance with Open-Access publishing, the JCMR articles go on-line as they are accepted with no collating of the articles into sections or special thematic issues. For this reason, the Editors have felt that it is useful once per calendar year to summarize the papers for the readership into broad areas of interest or theme, so that areas of interest can be reviewed in a single article in relation to each other and other recent JCMR articles. The papers are presented in broad themes and set in context with related literature and previously published JCMR papers to guide continuity of thought in the journal. We hope that you find the open-access system increases wider reading and citation of your papers, and that you will continue to send your quality manuscripts to JCMR for publication

Review of Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 2013.

There were 109 articles published in the Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (JCMR) in 2013, which is a 21% increase on the 90 articles published in 2012. The quality of the submissions continues to increase. The editors are delighted to report that the 2012 JCMR Impact Factor (which is published in June 2013) has risen to 5.11, up from 4.44 for 2011 (as published in June 2012), a 15% increase and taking us through the 5 threshold for the first time. The 2012 impact factor means that the JCMR papers that were published in 2010 and 2011 were cited on average 5.11 times in 2012. The impact factor undergoes natural variation according to citation rates of papers in the 2 years following publication, and is significantly influenced by highly cited papers such as official reports. However, the progress of the journal's impact over the last 5 years has been impressive. Our acceptance rate is &lt;25% and has been falling because the number of articles being submitted has been increasing. In accordance with Open-Access publishing, the JCMR articles go on-line as they are accepted with no collating of the articles into sections or special thematic issues. For this reason, the Editors have felt that it is useful once per calendar year to summarize the papers for the readership into broad areas of interest or theme, so that areas of interest can be reviewed in a single article in relation to each other and other recent JCMR articles. The papers are presented in broad themes and set in context with related literature and previously published JCMR papers to guide continuity of thought in the journal. We hope that you find the open-access system increases wider reading and citation of your papers, and that you will continue to send your quality manuscripts to JCMR for publication