OBJECTIVE: The amygdalae have been a focus of mood disorder research due to their key role in processing emotional information. It has been long known that depressed individuals demonstrate impaired functional performance while engaged in emotional tasks. The structural basis for these functional differences has been investigated via volumetric analysis with mixed findings. In this study, we examined the morphometric basis for these functional changes in late-life depression (LLD) by analyzing both the size and shape of the amygdalae with the hypothesis that shape differences may be apparent even when overall volume differences are inconsistent. METHODS: Magnetic resonance imaging data were acquired from 11 healthy, elderly individuals and 14 depressed, elderly individuals. Amygdalar size was quantified by computing total volume and amygdalar shape was quantified with a shape analysis method that we have developed. RESULTS: No significant volumetric differences were found for either amygdala. Nevertheless, localized regions of significant shape variation were detected for the left and right amygdalae. The most significant difference was contraction (LLD subjects as compared to control subjects) in a region typically associated with the basolateral nucleus, which plays a key role in emotion recognition in neurobiologic models of depression. CONCLUSIONS: In this LLD study, we have shown that, despite insignificant amygdalar volumetric findings, variations of amygdalar shape can be detected and localized. With further investigation, morphometric analysis of various brain structures may help elucidate the neurobiology associated with LLD and other mood disorders.
OBJECTIVE: The amygdalae have been a focus of mood disorder research due to their key role in processing emotional information. It has been long known that depressed individuals demonstrate impaired functional performance while engaged in emotional tasks. The structural basis for these functional differences has been investigated via volumetric analysis with mixed findings. In this study, we examined the morphometric basis for these functional changes in late-life depression (LLD) by analyzing both the size and shape of the amygdalae with the hypothesis that shape differences may be apparent even when overall volume differences are inconsistent. METHODS: Magnetic resonance imaging data were acquired from 11 healthy, elderly individuals and 14 depressed, elderly individuals. Amygdalar size was quantified by computing total volume and amygdalar shape was quantified with a shape analysis method that we have developed. RESULTS: No significant volumetric differences were found for either amygdala. Nevertheless, localized regions of significant shape variation were detected for the left and right amygdalae. The most significant difference was contraction (LLD subjects as compared to control subjects) in a region typically associated with the basolateral nucleus, which plays a key role in emotion recognition in neurobiologic models of depression. CONCLUSIONS: In this LLD study, we have shown that, despite insignificant amygdalar volumetric findings, variations of amygdalar shape can be detected and localized. With further investigation, morphometric analysis of various brain structures may help elucidate the neurobiology associated with LLD and other mood disorders.
Authors: E Mervaala; J Föhr; M Könönen; M Valkonen-Korhonen; P Vainio; K Partanen; J Partanen; J Tiihonen; H Viinamäki; A K Karjalainen; J Lehtonen Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 7.723
Authors: J C Pruessner; L M Li; W Serles; M Pruessner; D L Collins; N Kabani; S Lupien; A C Evans Journal: Cereb Cortex Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 5.357
Authors: M D De Bellis; B J Casey; R E Dahl; B Birmaher; D E Williamson; K M Thomas; D A Axelson; K Frustaci; A M Boring; J Hall; N D Ryan Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2000-07-01 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: D C Steffens; C E Byrum; D R McQuoid; D L Greenberg; M E Payne; T F Blitchington; J R MacFall; K R Krishnan Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2000-08-15 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Meryl A Butters; Jeffrey B Young; Oscar Lopez; Howard J Aizenstein; Benoit H Mulsant; Charles F Reynolds; Steven T DeKosky; James T Becker Journal: Dialogues Clin Neurosci Date: 2008 Impact factor: 5.986
Authors: Namkug Kim; Hengjun J Kim; Jaeuk Hwang; Sujung J Yoon; Han Byul Cho; Perry F Renshaw; In Kyoon Lyoo; Jieun E Kim Journal: Neurosci Lett Date: 2010-11-05 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Julie Burke; Douglas R McQuoid; Martha E Payne; David C Steffens; Ranga R Krishnan; Warren D Taylor Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: Stephanie L Willard; Beth Uberseder; Ashlee Clark; James B Daunais; Warwick D Johnston; David Neely; Adreanna Massey; Jeff D Williamson; Robert A Kraft; J Daniel Bourland; Sara R Jones; Carol A Shively Journal: Neuropharmacology Date: 2015-06-24 Impact factor: 5.250
Authors: Yvette I Sheline; Brianne M Disabato; Jennifer Hranilovich; Carrie Morris; Gina D'Angelo; Carl Pieper; Tommaso Toffanin; Warren D Taylor; James R MacFall; Consuelo Wilkins; Deanna M Barch; Kathleen A Welsh-Bohmer; David C Steffens; Ranga R Krishnan; P Murali Doraiswamy Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Muqing Lin; Peter T Fwu; Claudia Buss; Elysia P Davis; Kevin Head; L Tugan Muftuler; Curt A Sandman; Min-Ying Su Journal: Int J Dev Neurosci Date: 2013-06-14 Impact factor: 2.457
Authors: Maxim Zavorotnyy; Rebecca Zöllner; L R Schulte-Güstenberg; L Wulff; S Schöning; U Dannlowski; H Kugel; V Arolt; C Konrad Journal: J Neural Transm (Vienna) Date: 2017-11-20 Impact factor: 3.575