| Literature DB >> 26439278 |
Pan Wang1,2, Bo Zhou1, Hongxiang Yao3, Yafeng Zhan4,5, Zengqiang Zhang1,6, Yue Cui4,7, Kaibin Xu4,7, Jianhua Ma5, Luning Wang1, Ningyu An3, Xi Zhang1, Yong Liu4,7, Tianzi Jiang4,7,8.
Abstract
Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients and those with high-risk mild cognitive impairment are increasingly considered to have dysfunction syndromes. Large-scale network studies based on neuroimaging techniques may provide additional insight into AD pathophysiology. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the impaired network functional connectivity with the disease progression. For this purpose, we explored altered functional connectivities based on previously well-defined brain areas that comprise the five key functional systems [the default mode network (DMN), dorsal attention network (DAN), control network (CON), salience network (SAL), sensorimotor network (SMN)] in 35 with AD and 27 with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) subjects, compared with 27 normal cognitive subjects. Based on three levels of analysis, we found that intra- and inter-network connectivity were impaired in AD. Importantly, the interaction between the sensorimotor and attention functions was first attacked at the MCI stage and then extended to the key functional systems in the AD individuals. Lower cognitive ability (lower MMSE scores) was significantly associated with greater reductions in intra- and inter-network connectivity across all patient groups. These profiles indicate that aberrant intra- and inter-network dysfunctions might be potential biomarkers or predictors of AD progression and provide new insight into AD pathophysiology.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26439278 PMCID: PMC4594099 DOI: 10.1038/srep14824
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Demographic, clinical and neuropsychological data in normal control (NC), mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer’s disease (AD) subjects.
| NC(n = 27) | MCI(n = 27) | AD(n = 35) | p value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender (M/F) | 16/11 | 13/14 | 12/23 | 0.143 |
| Age (year) | 69.2 ± 6.5 | 73.8 ± 7.8 | 72.4 ± 8.5 | 0.090 |
| MMSE | 28.9 ± 1.0 | 26.8 ± 1.8 | 19.7 ± 4.1 | <0.001 |
| CDR | 0 | 0.5 | 1.3 ± 0.5 | <0.001 |
| AVLT-Immediate Recall | 5.9 ± 1.1 | 4.6 ± 1.5 | 2.6 ± 1.6 | <0.001 |
| AVLT-Delay Recall | 5.8 ± 2.0 | 3.1 ± 2.0 | 0.6 ± 1.2 | <0.001 |
| ApoE e4 carrier (%) | 15% | 38% | 64% | — |
| Head Motion | 0.25 ± 0.27 | 0.16 ± 0.10 | 0.30 ± 0.27 | 0.084 |
MMSE, mini-mental state examination; CDR, Clinical Dementia Rating; AVLT, auditory verbal learning test, ApoE, apolipoprotein E.
Chi-square was used for gender comparisons, One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc test was used for age, and neuropsychological tests comparisons.
aSignificant compared to NC.
bSignificant compared to MCI.
cThree AD subjects refuse to continue this test.
d66 (NC = 20, MCI = 21, AD = 25) of the 89 subjects have ApoE genotype.
Group effects and correlations with MMSE scores at the integrity level.
| RSN | ANOVA | Correlation (AD&MCI) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F | p | p_permutation | r | p | |
| rpIPS | 5.160 | 0.008 | 0.006 | ||
| rMC | 4.391 | 0.015 | 0.015 | ||
| lV1 | 4.659 | 0.012 | 0.011 | ||
| rV1 | 4.050 | 0.021 | 0.019 | ||
| laPFC | 0.274 | 0.032 | |||
Abbreviation: rpIPS: right anterior intraparietal sulcus; rMC: right motor cortex; lV1: left primary visual cortex; rV1: right primary visual cortex; laPFC: left anterior prefrontal cortex.
Figure 1Group effects by one-way ANOVA for and the relationship between integrity connectivity and MMSE scores.
Bar graphs show the differences in the mean Z scores for the affected regions among the three groups. The changed regions were anchored in the right motor cortex (rMC) (A), the right posterior intraparietal sulcus (rpIPS) (B) and the bilateral primary visual (V1) (C,D). The Z scores for the bilateral V1 and rpIPS were higher in the NC group than in the AD and MCI groups, and the rMC of the NC group was greater than that of the MCI group only. The NC group is indicated by black rectangles, the MCI group by grey rectangles and the AD group by white rectangles. The error bars represent the standard error of each subgroup. The scatter plots show the relationship between the mean Z scores of rpIPS and MMSE scores in the MCI patients (r = −0.418, p = 0.03) (E).
Group effects and correlations with MMSE scores within individual RSNs.
| RSN | ANOVA | Correlation (MCI&AD) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F | p | p_permutation | r | p | |
| 0.006 | |||||
| DAN | 0.767 | 0.468 | 0.123 | 0.343 | |
| 0.033 | |||||
| SAL | 0.720 | 0.490 | −0.001 | 0.995 | |
| 0.003 | 0.098 | 0.451 | |||
Abbreviation: DMN: default mode network; DAN: dorsal attention network; CON: control network; SAL: salience network; SMN: sensorimotor network.
Figure 2(A) The differences in mean Z scores within the five RSNs. The bar graph shows that the majority of network composite Z scores tended to lower value in DMN and SMN with increasing disease severity. Compared with the NC group, the Z scores within the DMN and SMN showed significant decreases in the AD and MCI groups (DMN, p = 0.005 for MCI, p = 0.008 for AD; and SMN, p = 0.01 for MCI, p = 0.006 for AD). A transient increase in composite Z scores was seen in the CON between NC and MCI, but a sharp decrease (MCI versus AD, p = 0.011) occurred in the AD group. The NC group is indicated by black rectangles, the MCI group by grey rectangles and the AD group by white rectangles. The error bars represent the standard error of each subgroup. (B) Scatter plots showing the relationship between the mean Z scores for the DMN (r = −0.291, p = 0.022), the CON (r = −0.359, p = 0.004) and the MMSE scores in the AD and MCI patients. MCI patients are indicated by the blue triangles and the AD patients by the blue circles.
Group effects and correlations with MMSE scores on RSN pairs.
| RSN | ANOVA | Correlation (AD&MCI) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F | p | p_permutation | r | p | |
| DAN-SMN | 4.543 | 0.013 | 0.011 | ||
| CON-SAL | 0.252 | 0.048 | |||
Abbreviation: DMN: default mode network; DAN: dorsal attention network; CON: control network; SAL: salience network; SMN: sensorimotor network.
Figure 3(A) Bar graph of the DAN-SAN connectivity strength in the three groups, which shows that the strength differed significantly in the NC group compared with the MCI (p = 0.008) and AD (p = 0.0258) groups. The NC group is indicated by black rectangles, the MCI group by grey rectangles and the AD group by white rectangles. The error bars represent the standard error of each subgroup. (B) Scatter plots showing the relationship between the mean Z scores for DAN-CON (r = −0.252, p = 0.048) and the MMSE scores in the AD and MCI patients. The MCI patients are indicated by the blue triangles and the AD patients by the blue circles.
Figure 4(A) Distribution of the altered functional connectivity. All affected ROI pairs for all 5 RSNs (blue for DMN, dark green for DAN, yellow for CON, green for SAL and pink for SMN), except for intra-network ROI pairs, were mainly distributed between the DMN and other RSNs and between the DAN and the SMN.(B) The correlations between the functional strength of the affected ROI pairs and the MMSE scores. The blue color represents the functional connectivity that shows positive correlations with the MMSE scores, and the red color represents negative correlations. (C) The differences in connectivity between the NC and MCI groups. (D) The differences in connectivity between the NC and AD groups. (E) The differences in connectivity between the MCI and AD groups. In the subfigure (C–E), the blue color indicates that the functional connectivity of the former group is stronger than that for the latter, and the red color indicates the reverse. For details, please refer to Table S2 in the supplemental material.