| Literature DB >> 27633394 |
Sarah J Ordaz1, Joelle LeMoult2, Natalie L Colich2, Gautam Prasad3, Madeline Pollak2, Morgan Popolizio2, Alexandra Price2, Michael Greicius4, Ian H Gotlib2.
Abstract
Rumination, and particularly ruminative brooding, perpetuates dysphoric mood states and contributes to the emergence of depression. Studies of adults and older adolescents have characterized the association between rumination and intrinsic functional connectivity within default mode (DMN), salience (SN) and executive control (ECN) networks; we know little, however, about the brain network basis of rumination during early puberty, a sensitive period for network reorganization. 112 early puberty boys and girls completed resting-state scans, the Ruminative Response Scale, and the Youth Self-Report questionnaire. Using independent components analysis and dual regression, we quantified coherence for each individual in networks of interest (SN, ECN, DMN) and in non-relevant networks (motor, visual) in which we predicted no correlations with behavioral measures. Boys and girls did not differ in levels of rumination or internalizing symptoms, or in coherence for any network. The relation between SN network coherence and rumination; however, and specifically ruminative brooding, was moderated by sex: greater SN coherence was associated with higher levels of brooding in girls but not in boys. Further, in girls, brooding mediated the relation between SN coherence and internalizing symptoms. These results point to coherence within the SN as a potential neurodevelopmental marker of risk for depression in early pubertal girls.Entities:
Keywords: anterior cingulate; intrinsic functional connectivity; puberty; rumination; salience network
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 27633394 PMCID: PMC5390708 DOI: 10.1093/scan/nsw133
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci ISSN: 1749-5016 Impact factor: 3.436
Fig. 1.ICA—identified networks of interest.
Demographic features and sex differences in behavioral outcomes, motion during scan, and network coherence.
| Boys | Girls | Cohen’s d | Test statistic | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 53 | 59 | ||||
| Tanner stage | 1.92 (0.68) | 2.14 (0.78) | −0.301 | 0.117 | |
| Age | 11.90 (0.82) | 11.18 (1.05) | 0.764 | 0.000 | |
| Reflection | 8.86 (2.56) | 9.42 (3.06) | −0.199 | 0.315 | |
| Brooding | 10.30 (3.71) | 9.58 (3.20) | 0.208 | 0.289 | |
| YSR Anxious/Depressed Total Score | 5.23 (4.26) | 5.58 (4.84) | −0.077 | 0.692 | |
| Motion (RMS Relative Motion; mm2) | 0.050 (0.025) | 0.051 (.025) | −0.040 | 0.878 | |
| ECNL coherence | 3.046 (0.500) | 3.212 (0.467) | −0.350 | 0.072+ | |
| ECNR coherence | 3.094 (0.519) | 3.245 (0.599) | −0.285 | 0.159 | |
| SN coherence | 3.581 (0.677) | 3.654 (0.630) | −0.107 | 0.556 | |
| DMNA coherence | 3.181 (0.495) | 3.043 (0.478) | 0.289 | 0.136 | |
| DMNV coherence | 3.665 (0.576) | 3.867 (0.637) | −0.344 | 0.083+ | |
| Motor coherence | 3.985 (0.922) | 4.100 (0.811) | −0.127 | 0.484 | |
| Visual coherence | 4.848 (1.133) | 4.466 (0.911) | 0.370 | 0.051+ |
Values denote mean (±SD) or number of subjects; P-values refer to t-test.
P < 0.001, **P < 0.010, *P < 0.050, + P < 0.100.
Fig. 2.Sex differences in network coherence.
Sex moderation of the relation between network coherence and behavioral outcomes
| Brooding | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| B (SE) | Δ | ||
| ECNL coherence | 0.480 (0.707) | 0.498 | 0.005 |
| ECNR coherence | −0.775 (0.620) | 0.214 | 0.015 |
| SN coherence | 1.144 (0.522) | 0.031* | 0.045 |
| DMNA coherence | 0.663 (0.691) | 0.339 | 0.009 |
| DMNV coherence | 0.948 (0.572) | 0.100 | 0.026 |
| Motor coherence | 0.397 (0.396) | 0.319 | 0.009 |
| Visual coherence | 0.521 (0.336) | 0.124 | 0.023 |
Betas reported are interaction terms from a regression that includes main effect of network coherence, sex, and network coherence by sex interaction. All main effect terms are centered.
Fig. 3.SN coherence is associated with ruminative brooding and depressive symptoms in females but not males.
Fig. 4.(A) In girls only, ruminative brooding mediates the relation between SN coherence and anxious/depressed symptoms. The relation is present even after excluding participants who meet criteria for major depressive disorder. Indirect effect is significant: ab = 1.323, SE = 0.651, 95% bias-corrected CI = 0.351, 2.991. When the model is run excluding n = 9 participants who met criteria for MDD, the indirect effect remains significant: ab = 1.226, SE = 0.652, 95% bias-corrected CI = 0.270, 2.881. (B) A moderated mediation model including both boys and girls reveals a significant conditional indirect effect of SN coherence on anxious/depressed symptoms through brooding. This relation is significant even after excluding participants who meet criteria for major depressive disorder. Conditional indirect effect of SN coherence on anxious/depressed symptoms through brooding is significant:ω = 1.918, SEω = 0.900, 95% bias-corrected CI = 0.302, 3.877. When excluding n = 9 participants who met criteria for MDD, the conditional indirect effect remains significant: ω = 1.849, SEω = 0.905, 95% bias-corrected CI = 0.233, 3.808. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.
Fig. 5.Follow-up analyses revealed a cluster (x = 10, y = −36, z = 30) within the left dACC of the SN shows a significant sex moderation of the relation between network coherence and brooding. A voxelwise regression with centered sex, brooding, and interaction terms was run; clusters for the interaction term were identified using a P < 0.001 voxelwise and P < 0.01 cluster threshold. Coordinates are in RAI