| Literature DB >> 25973163 |
Christine Wu Nordahl1, Ana-Maria Iosif2, Gregory S Young1, Lee Michael Perry3, Robert Dougherty4, Aaron Lee1, Deana Li1, Michael H Buonocore5, Tony Simon1, Sally Rogers1, Brian Wandell3, David G Amaral1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Abnormalities in the corpus callosum have been reported in individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), but few studies have evaluated young children. Sex differences in callosal organization and diffusion characteristics have also not been evaluated fully in ASD.Entities:
Keywords: Connectivity; Diffusion tensor imaging; Longitudinal; MRI; White matter
Year: 2015 PMID: 25973163 PMCID: PMC4429319 DOI: 10.1186/s13229-015-0005-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mol Autism Impact factor: 7.509
Figure 1Sex differences in cortical projection zone subregions across three MRI time points. Estimated trajectories depicted were estimated for TCV equal to the time 1 average for TD children before the scanner upgrade. (A) The orbitofrontal fiber region is smaller in males with ASD than in TD males but does not differ in females. (B) The anterior frontal fiber region is smaller in females with ASD than in TD females. In males, the opposite pattern is observed; males with ASD are larger than TD males. (C) The superior frontal fiber region is smaller in both males and females with ASD than TD counterparts, though the difference is larger in females.
Participant characteristics across the three scanning time points
|
|
|
| ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 97 | 21 | 44 | 25 | 76 | 15 | 30 | 15 | 34 | 8 | 20 | 12 |
| Age | 36.5 (5.6) | 37.4 (5.0) | 35.98 (5.1) | 34.9 (4.5) | 49.8 (5.7) | 51.0 (5.5) | 49.1 (5.0) | 51.3 (6.1) | 63.5 (5.5) | 63.5 (4.0) | 64.7 (7.7) | 64.9 (1.8) |
| DQ | 64.7 (22.1) | 66.7 (21.5) | 106.4 (13.0) | 108.6 (10.8) | -- | -- | -- | -- | ||||
| ADOS severity score | 7.97 (1.7) | 7.71 (1.8) | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | |||||
Data are expressed as mean (standard deviation). DQ, developmental quotient; ADOS, Autism Diagnostic Observation.
Estimated diagnosis and sex differences across cortical projection zone subregions
|
|
| |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Subdivision | ||||||||
| Orbitofrontal | −6.98 (2.93) | 0.02 | 1.04 (4.67) | 0.82 | −8.66 (3.84) | 0.02 | −0.64 (4.05) | 0.88 |
| Anterior frontal | 8.17 (4.81) | 0.09 | −20.45 (7.81) | 0.01 | 16.77 (6.37) | 0.01 | −11.85 (6.67) | 0.08 |
| Lateral frontal | −3.18 (5.28) | 0.55 | 8.24 (7.97) | 0.30 | −11.23 (6.58) | 0.09 | 0.18 (6.70) | 0.98 |
| Superior frontal | −7.92 (4.36) | 0.07 | −17.49 (7.02) | 0.01 | 1.40 (5.73) | 0.81 | −8.17 (6.02) | 0.18 |
| Superior parietal | −2.92 (3.81) | 0.44 | −6.91 (6.09) | 0.26 | −5.11 (4.99) | 0.31 | −9.10 (5.25) | 0.08 |
| Posterior parietal | 5.47 (4.49) | 0.22 | −13.34 (7.23) | 0.07 | 15.75 (5.90) | 0.01 | −3.06 (6.20) | 0.62 |
| Temporal | −4.06 (3.70) | 0.27 | 1.89 (6.02) | 0.75 | −5.69 (4.92) | 0.26 | 0.27 (5.15) | 0.96 |
| Occipital | −2.30 (3.01) | 0.44 | −5.73 (4.80) | 0.23 | −2.66 (3.95) | 0.50 | −6.09 (4.16) | 0.14 |
Parameter estimates and standard errors are from the mixed-effects models assessing the relationship of diagnostic group, age, cortical projection zone subregions, and sex with diffusion measures. The reported models included fixed effects for diagnosis, sex, age, scanner upgrade, TCV, subregion, the three-way interaction between subregion, sex, and diagnosis, as well as all two-way interactions involving subregion, sex, and diagnosis, and the two-way interaction between age and subregion. Random effects for person and region were included to account for the repeated measures. Models also included and tested the rest of the two-way interactions involving age, sex, and diagnosis, but none were significant and were not retained in the reported model.
Figure 2Segmenting the corpus callosum based on cortical projection zones using DTI tractography. (A) Callosal fibers are tracked separately for each hemisphere. (B) Callosal fibers are then segmented based on fiber termination points in eight anatomically defined cortical projection zones (see legend at lower right). (C) Cortical projection zones displayed on the lateral surface of the left hemisphere. (D) Cross-sectional areas for each subregion are determined on the midsagittal slice. (E) Callosal fibers for each hemisphere are merged and clipped at 1 cm, a zone of high coherence. Diffusion properties are determined for these fiber segments.
Figure 3Diffusion measures of callosal fibers across three MRI time points. The reference cortical projection zone subregion (occipital) is depicted, which is representative of all subregions given that there were no diagnosis or sex interactions with subregion. (A) FA is higher in males than in females both ASD and TD groups. There were no differences in FA across ASD and TD. (B-D) MD, AD, and RD were all increased in females with ASD relative to TD females. Males with ASD did not differ from TD males.
Estimated diagnosis and sex differences for diffusion measures
|
|
| |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Diffusion parameter | ||||||||
| Mean diffusivity (10−5 mm2/s) | −0.30 (0.88) | 0.74 | 4.14 (1.41) | 0.003 | −3.51 (1.13) | 0.002 | 0.92 (1.22) | 0.45 |
| Axial diffusivity (10−5 mm2/s) | −0.55 (1.01) | 0.59 | 4.44 (1.62) | 0.006 | −3.09 (1.30) | 0.02 | 1.90 (1.40) | 0.17 |
| Radial diffusivity (10−5 mm2/s) | −0.15 (0.99) | 0.88 | 4.04 (1.58) | 0.01 | −3.76 (1.27) | 0.003 | 0.42 (1.37) | 0.76 |
Parameter estimates and standard errors are from the mixed-effects models assessing the relationship of diagnostic group, age, cortical projection zone subregions, and sex with diffusion measures. The reported models included fixed effects for scanner upgrade, diagnosis, sex, age, subregion, and the interactions between diagnosis and sex and between age and subregion. Random effects for person and region were included to account for the repeated measures. Models also included and tested other two-way interactions, but none were significant and were not retained in the reported model.
Figure 4Comparison of (A) cortical projection zone subregions and (B) Witelson subdivisions in an ASD (left) and TD (right) example. Although there is some overlap between the two parcellation methods, there is also a high degree of variability, particularly in the cortical projection zone segmentation. Using cortical projection zones provides a finer-grained anatomic parcellation of the corpus callosum.