| Literature DB >> 27841320 |
Yali Jiang1, Weixiang Liu2,3, Qingsen Ming1, Yidian Gao1, Ren Ma1, Xiaocui Zhang1, Weijun Situ4, Xiang Wang1,5,6, Shuqiao Yao1,5,6, Bingsheng Huang1,3,7.
Abstract
Regional abnormalities in brain structure and function, as well as disrupted connectivity, have been found repeatedly in adolescents with conduct disorder (CD). Yet, the large-scale brain topology associated with CD is not well characterized, and little is known about the systematic neural mechanisms of CD. We employed graphic theory to investigate systematically the structural connectivity derived from cortical thickness correlation in a group of patients with CD (N = 43) and healthy controls (HCs, N = 73). Nonparametric permutation tests were applied for between-group comparisons of graphical metrics. Compared with HCs, network measures including global/local efficiency and modularity all pointed to hypo-functioning in CD, despite of preserved small-world organization in both groups. The hubs distribution is only partially overlapped with each other. These results indicate that CD is accompanied by both impaired integration and segregation patterns of brain networks, and the distribution of highly connected neural network 'hubs' is also distinct between groups. Such misconfiguration extends our understanding regarding how structural neural network disruptions may underlie behavioral disturbances in adolescents with CD, and potentially, implicates an aberrant cytoarchitectonic profiles in the brain of CD patients.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27841320 PMCID: PMC5107936 DOI: 10.1038/srep37053
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1This figure indicates the comparison of five small world parameters between the two groups.
(A) group differences in clustering coefficient (Cp); (B) group differences in shortest path length (Lp); (C) group differences in γ; (D) group differences in λ; (E) group differences in σ. *Indicates differences between groups obtained from 1000 permutation tests (P < 0.05).
Figure 2This figure indicates the group comparison of global efficiency (A), local efficiency (B) and modularity (C) between the two groups. CD network displayed decreased local, global efficiency as well as disrupted modularity compared with HCs across the whole densities. *Indicates differences between groups obtained from 1000 permutation tests (P < 0.05).
Figure 3This figure displays the modular architecture of the HC (left) and CD (right) network under the density of 19%.
(Red: module I, green: module II, dark blue: module III, light blue: module IV, purple: module V, respectively). The size of each node denotes the relative betweenness centrality of the cortical region in the brain network and the edges are unweighted and undirected.
Regions showing high betweenness (Hubs) relative to random networks for each group.
| Region | Class | NB | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right insula | Paralimbic | 5.34 | <0.001* |
| Left insula | Paralimbic | 4.16 | 0.001* |
| Right transverse temporal | Primary | 3.30 | <0.001* |
| Left fusiform | Association | 3.18 | 0.019* |
| Right pars triangularis | Paralimbic | 3.15 | 0.306 |
| Left inferior temporal | Association | 2.86 | 0.007* |
| Right superior frontal | Association | 2.42 | 0.299 |
| Right cuneus | Association | 2.15 | 0.004* |
| Right superior temporal | Association | 2.14 | 0.423 |
| Left precuneus | Association | 4.84 | <0.001* |
| Right fusiform | Association | 4.41 | <0.001* |
| Left cuneus | Association | 3.19 | <0.001* |
| Right pars triangularis | Paralimbic | 2.75 | 0.306 |
| Right superior frontal | Association | 2.46 | 0.299 |
| Left lingual | Association | 2.37 | 0.166 |
| Right superior parietal | Association | 2.36 | 0.001* |
| Right medial OFC | Paralimbic | 2.02 | 0.027* |
NB, Normalized Nodal betweenness; HC, healthy control; CD, conduct disorder; OFC, orbitofrontal cortex. P values indicate differences between groups obtained from 1000 permutation tests (under a network density of 19%).
Figure 4This figure illustrates the results of robustness test of CD and HC network.
The top row indicates the relative size of the largest connected component (i.e., the largest subnetwork of nodes that are interconnected to each other) as a fraction of removed edges (A) and nodes (B) by random failures. The bottom row displays the relative size of the largest connected component after gradually removing edges (C) and nodes (D) according to their betweenness in a decreasing order. *indicates differences between groups obtained from 1000 permutation tests (P < 0.05).