BACKGROUND: Serotonin 1A receptors (5-HT(1A)) are implicated in major depressive disorder (MDD). We previously reported higher 5-HT(1A) binding potential (BP(F)) in antidepressant naive MDD subjects compared with control subjects, while other studies report lower BP(ND). Discrepancies can be related to differences in study population or methodology. We sought to replicate our findings in a novel cohort and determine whether choice of reference region and outcome measure could explain discrepancies. METHODS: Nine new control subjects and 22 new not recently medicated (NRM) MDD subjects underwent positron emission tomography. BP(F) and BP(ND) were determined using a metabolite and free fraction corrected arterial input function. BP(ND) was also determined using cerebellar gray matter (CGM) and cerebellar white matter (CWM) reference regions as input functions. RESULTS: BP(F) was higher in the new NRM cohort (p = .037) compared with new control subjects, comparable to the previous cohort (p = .04). Cohorts were combined to examine the reference region and outcome measure. BP(F) was higher in the NRM compared with control subjects (p = .0001). Neither BP(ND) using CWM (p = .86) nor volume of distribution (V(T)) (p = .374) differed between groups. When CGM was used, the NRM group had lower 5-HT(1A) BP(ND) compared with control subjects (p = .03); CGM V(T) was higher in NRM compared with control subjects (p = .007). CONCLUSIONS: Choice of reference region and outcome measure can produce different 5-HT(1A) findings. Higher 5-HT(1A) BP(F) in MDD was found with the method with fewest assumptions about nonspecific binding and a reference region without receptors. Copyright 2010 Society of Biological Psychiatry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND:Serotonin 1A receptors (5-HT(1A)) are implicated in major depressive disorder (MDD). We previously reported higher 5-HT(1A) binding potential (BP(F)) in antidepressant naive MDD subjects compared with control subjects, while other studies report lower BP(ND). Discrepancies can be related to differences in study population or methodology. We sought to replicate our findings in a novel cohort and determine whether choice of reference region and outcome measure could explain discrepancies. METHODS: Nine new control subjects and 22 new not recently medicated (NRM) MDD subjects underwent positron emission tomography. BP(F) and BP(ND) were determined using a metabolite and free fraction corrected arterial input function. BP(ND) was also determined using cerebellar gray matter (CGM) and cerebellar white matter (CWM) reference regions as input functions. RESULTS: BP(F) was higher in the new NRM cohort (p = .037) compared with new control subjects, comparable to the previous cohort (p = .04). Cohorts were combined to examine the reference region and outcome measure. BP(F) was higher in the NRM compared with control subjects (p = .0001). Neither BP(ND) using CWM (p = .86) nor volume of distribution (V(T)) (p = .374) differed between groups. When CGM was used, the NRM group had lower 5-HT(1A) BP(ND) compared with control subjects (p = .03); CGM V(T) was higher in NRM compared with control subjects (p = .007). CONCLUSIONS: Choice of reference region and outcome measure can produce different 5-HT(1A) findings. Higher 5-HT(1A) BP(F) in MDD was found with the method with fewest assumptions about nonspecific binding and a reference region without receptors. Copyright 2010 Society of Biological Psychiatry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Ramin V Parsey; Maria A Oquendo; R Todd Ogden; Doreen M Olvet; Norman Simpson; Yung-Yu Huang; Ronald L Van Heertum; Victoria Arango; J John Mann Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2005-09-09 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Gregory M Sullivan; Maria A Oquendo; Norman Simpson; Ronald L Van Heertum; J John Mann; Ramin V Parsey Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2005-07-22 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Carolyn Cidis Meltzer; Julie C Price; Chester A Mathis; Meryl A Butters; Scott K Ziolko; Eydie Moses-Kolko; Sati Mazumdar; Benoit H Mulsant; Patricia R Houck; Brian J Lopresti; Lisa A Weissfeld; Charles F Reynolds Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Maria A Oquendo; Ramin S Hastings; Yung-Yu Huang; Norman Simpson; R Todd Ogden; Xian-Zhang Hu; David Goldman; Victoria Arango; Ronald L Van Heertum; J John Mann; Ramin V Parsey Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2007-02
Authors: Andreas Hahn; Wolfgang Wadsak; Christian Windischberger; Pia Baldinger; Anna S Höflich; Jan Losak; Lukas Nics; Cécile Philippe; Georg S Kranz; Christoph Kraus; Markus Mitterhauser; Georgios Karanikas; Siegfried Kasper; Rupert Lanzenberger Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2012-01-30 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Matthew S Milak; Spiro Pantazatos; Rain Rashid; Francesca Zanderigo; Christine DeLorenzo; Natalie Hesselgrave; R Todd Ogden; Maria A Oquendo; Stephanie T Mulhern; Jeffrey M Miller; Ainsley K Burke; Ramin V Parsey; J John Mann Journal: Psychiatry Res Neuroimaging Date: 2018-04-13 Impact factor: 2.376
Authors: Benjamin Adam Samuels; Indira Mendez-David; Charlène Faye; Sylvain André David; Kerri A Pierz; Alain M Gardier; René Hen; Denis J David Journal: Neuroscientist Date: 2014-12-08 Impact factor: 7.519
Authors: Jeffrey M Miller; Natalie Hesselgrave; R Todd Ogden; Gregory M Sullivan; Maria A Oquendo; J John Mann; Ramin V Parsey Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2013-03-01 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Michael Strupp-Levitsky; Jeffrey M Miller; Harry Rubin-Falcone; Francesca Zanderigo; Matthew S Milak; Gregory Sullivan; R Todd Ogden; Maria A Oquendo; Christine DeLorenzo; Norman Simpson; Ramin V Parsey; J John Mann Journal: Psychiatry Res Neuroimaging Date: 2016-08-08 Impact factor: 2.376