Francesca M Filbey1, Joseph Dunlop2. 1. Center for BrainHealth, School of Behavioral and Brain Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX 75235, USA. Electronic address: Francesca.Filbey@utdallas.edu. 2. Center for BrainHealth, School of Behavioral and Brain Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX 75235, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Emergent studies show that similar to other substances of abuse, cue-reactivity to cannabis is also associated with neural response in the brain's reward pathway (Filbey et al., 2009). However, the inter-relatedness of brain regions during cue-reactivity in cannabis users remains unknown. METHODS: In this study, we conducted a series of investigations to determine functional connectivity during cue-reactivity in 71 cannabis users. First, we used psychophysiological interaction (PPI) analysis to examine coherent neural response to cannabis cues. Second, we evaluated whether these patterns of network functional connectivity differentiated dependent and non-dependent users. Finally, as an exploratory analysis, we determined the directionality of these connections via Granger connectivity analyses. RESULTS: PPI analyses showed reward network functional connectivity with the nucleus accumbens (NAc) seed region during cue exposure. Between-group contrasts found differential effects of dependence status. Dependent users (N=31) had greater functional connectivity with amygdala and anterior cingulate gyrus (ACG) seeds while the non-dependent users (N=24) had greater functional connectivity with the NAc, orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) and hippocampus seeds. Granger analyses showed that hippocampal and ACG activation preceded neural response in reward areas. CONCLUSIONS: Both PPI and Granger analyses demonstrated strong functional coherence in reward regions during exposure to cannabis cues in current cannabis users. Functional connectivity (but not regional activation) in the reward network differentiated dependent from non-dependent cannabis users. Our findings suggest that repeated cannabis exposure causes observable changes in functional connectivity in the reward network and should be considered in intervention strategies.
BACKGROUND: Emergent studies show that similar to other substances of abuse, cue-reactivity to cannabis is also associated with neural response in the brain's reward pathway (Filbey et al., 2009). However, the inter-relatedness of brain regions during cue-reactivity in cannabis users remains unknown. METHODS: In this study, we conducted a series of investigations to determine functional connectivity during cue-reactivity in 71 cannabis users. First, we used psychophysiological interaction (PPI) analysis to examine coherent neural response to cannabis cues. Second, we evaluated whether these patterns of network functional connectivity differentiated dependent and non-dependent users. Finally, as an exploratory analysis, we determined the directionality of these connections via Granger connectivity analyses. RESULTS: PPI analyses showed reward network functional connectivity with the nucleus accumbens (NAc) seed region during cue exposure. Between-group contrasts found differential effects of dependence status. Dependent users (N=31) had greater functional connectivity with amygdala and anterior cingulate gyrus (ACG) seeds while the non-dependent users (N=24) had greater functional connectivity with the NAc, orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) and hippocampus seeds. Granger analyses showed that hippocampal and ACG activation preceded neural response in reward areas. CONCLUSIONS: Both PPI and Granger analyses demonstrated strong functional coherence in reward regions during exposure to cannabis cues in current cannabis users. Functional connectivity (but not regional activation) in the reward network differentiated dependent from non-dependent cannabis users. Our findings suggest that repeated cannabis exposure causes observable changes in functional connectivity in the reward network and should be considered in intervention strategies.
Authors: Eric D Claus; Sara K Blaine; Francesca M Filbey; Andrew R Mayer; Kent E Hutchison Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2013-05-24 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Jennifer Keller; Christina B Young; Elizabeth Kelley; Katherine Prater; Daniel J Levitin; Vinod Menon Journal: J Psychiatr Res Date: 2013-06-19 Impact factor: 4.791
Authors: Francesca M Filbey; Lara Ray; Andrew Smolen; Eric D Claus; Amy Audette; Kent E Hutchison Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Matthew B Lassen; J Elliott Brown; Sarah H Stobbs; Seth H Gunderson; Levi Maes; C Fernando Valenzuela; Andrew P Ray; Steven J Henriksen; Scott C Steffensen Journal: Brain Res Date: 2007-04-25 Impact factor: 3.252
Authors: Marina Goldman; Regina P Szucs-Reed; Kanchana Jagannathan; Ronald N Ehrman; Ze Wang; Yin Li; Jesse J Suh; Kyle Kampman; Charles P O'Brien; Anna Rose Childress; Teresa R Franklin Journal: J Addict Med Date: 2013 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 3.702
Authors: Jill X O'Reilly; Mark W Woolrich; Timothy E J Behrens; Stephen M Smith; Heidi Johansen-Berg Journal: Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci Date: 2012-05-07 Impact factor: 3.436
Authors: Sarah W Feldstein Ewing; Eric D Claus; Karen A Hudson; Francesca M Filbey; Elizabeth Yakes Jimenez; Krista M Lisdahl; Alberta S Kong Journal: Brain Imaging Behav Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 3.978
Authors: Samuel J DeWitt; Ariel Ketcherside; Tim M McQueeny; Joseph P Dunlop; Francesca M Filbey Journal: Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse Date: 2015 Impact factor: 3.829
Authors: Joseph Aloi; Karina S Blair; Kathleen I Crum; Johannah Bashford-Largo; Ru Zhang; Jennie Lukoff; Erin Carollo; Stuart F White; Soonjo Hwang; Francesca M Filbey; Matthew Dobbertin; R James R Blair Journal: Biol Psychiatry Cogn Neurosci Neuroimaging Date: 2020-02-19