Michael Suttie1,2, Jeffrey R Wozniak3, Scott E Parnell4, Leah Wetherill5, Sarah N Mattson6, Elizabeth R Sowell7, Eric Kan7, Edward P Riley6, Kenneth L Jones8, Claire Coles9, Tatiana Foroud5, Peter Hammond1,2. 1. Nuffield Department of Women's and Reproductive Health , University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom. 2. Big Data Institute , University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom. 3. Department of Psychiatry , University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 4. Department of Cell Biology and Physiology , University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 5. Department of Medical and Molecular Genetics , Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana. 6. Department of Psychology , San Diego State University, San Diego, California. 7. Department of Pediatrics , University of Southern California and Children's Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 8. Department of Pediatrics , School of Medicine, UCSD, San Diego, California. 9. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences , Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since the 1970s, a range of facial, neurostructural, and neurocognitive adverse effects have been shown to be associated with prenatal alcohol exposure. Typically, these effects are studied individually and not in combination. Our objective is to improve the understanding of the teratogenic effects of prenatal alcohol exposure by simultaneously considering face-brain morphology and neurocognitive measures. METHODS: Participants were categorized as control (n = 47), fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS, n = 22), or heavily exposed (HE) prenatally, but not eligible for a FAS diagnosis (HE, n = 50). Structural brain MRI images and high-resolution 3D facial images were analyzed using dense surface models of features of the face and surface shape of the corpus callosum (CC) and caudate nucleus (CN). Asymmetry of the CN was evaluated for correlations with neurocognitive measures. RESULTS: (i) Facial growth delineations for FAS, HE, and controls are replicated for the CN and the CC. (ii) Concordance of clinical diagnosis and face-based control-FAS discrimination improves when the latter is combined with specific brain regions. In particular, midline facial regions discriminate better when combined with a midsagittal profile of the CC. (iii) A subset of HE individuals was identified with FAS-like CN dysmorphism. The average of this HE subset was FAS-like in its facial dysmorphism. (iv) Right-left asymmetry found in the CNs of controls is not apparent for FAS, is diminished for HE, and correlates with neurocognitive measures in the combined FAS and HE population. CONCLUSIONS: Shape analysis which combines facial regions with the CN, and with the CC, better identify those with FAS. CN asymmetry was reduced for FAS compared to controls and is strongly associated with general cognitive ability, verbal learning, and recall in those with prenatal alcohol exposure. This study further extends the brain-behavior relationships known to be vulnerable to alcohol teratogenesis.
BACKGROUND: Since the 1970s, a range of facial, neurostructural, and neurocognitive adverse effects have been shown to be associated with prenatal alcohol exposure. Typically, these effects are studied individually and not in combination. Our objective is to improve the understanding of the teratogenic effects of prenatal alcohol exposure by simultaneously considering face-brain morphology and neurocognitive measures. METHODS:Participants were categorized as control (n = 47), fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS, n = 22), or heavily exposed (HE) prenatally, but not eligible for a FAS diagnosis (HE, n = 50). Structural brain MRI images and high-resolution 3D facial images were analyzed using dense surface models of features of the face and surface shape of the corpus callosum (CC) and caudate nucleus (CN). Asymmetry of the CN was evaluated for correlations with neurocognitive measures. RESULTS: (i) Facial growth delineations for FAS, HE, and controls are replicated for the CN and the CC. (ii) Concordance of clinical diagnosis and face-based control-FAS discrimination improves when the latter is combined with specific brain regions. In particular, midline facial regions discriminate better when combined with a midsagittal profile of the CC. (iii) A subset of HE individuals was identified with FAS-like CN dysmorphism. The average of this HE subset was FAS-like in its facial dysmorphism. (iv) Right-left asymmetry found in the CNs of controls is not apparent for FAS, is diminished for HE, and correlates with neurocognitive measures in the combined FAS and HE population. CONCLUSIONS: Shape analysis which combines facial regions with the CN, and with the CC, better identify those with FAS. CN asymmetry was reduced for FAS compared to controls and is strongly associated with general cognitive ability, verbal learning, and recall in those with prenatal alcohol exposure. This study further extends the brain-behavior relationships known to be vulnerable to alcohol teratogenesis.
Authors: Claire D Coles; Felicia C Goldstein; Mary Ellen Lynch; Xiangchuan Chen; Julie A Kable; Katrina C Johnson; Xiaoping Hu Journal: Brain Cogn Date: 2010-11-09 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Elizabeth A Godin; Deborah B Dehart; Scott E Parnell; Shonagh K O'Leary-Moore; Kathleen K Sulik Journal: Neurotoxicol Teratol Date: 2010-11-11 Impact factor: 3.763
Authors: Peter Hammond; Tim J Hutton; Judith E Allanson; Bernard Buxton; Linda E Campbell; Jill Clayton-Smith; Dian Donnai; Annette Karmiloff-Smith; Kay Metcalfe; Kieran C Murphy; Michael Patton; Barbara Pober; Katrina Prescott; Pete Scambler; Adam Shaw; Ann C M Smith; Angela F Stevens; I Karen Temple; Raoul Hennekam; May Tassabehji Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2005-10-26 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Peter Hammond; Femke Hannes; Michael Suttie; Koen Devriendt; Joris Robert Vermeesch; Francesca Faravelli; Francesca Forzano; Susan Parekh; Steve Williams; Dominic McMullan; Sarah T South; John C Carey; Oliver Quarrell Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2011-07-27 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: P Hammond; C Forster-Gibson; A E Chudley; J E Allanson; T J Hutton; S A Farrell; J McKenzie; J J A Holden; M E S Lewis Journal: Mol Psychiatry Date: 2008-03-04 Impact factor: 15.992
Authors: Krishna Chinthapalli; Emanuele Bartolini; Jan Novy; Michael Suttie; Carla Marini; Melania Falchi; Zoe Fox; Lisa M S Clayton; Josemir W Sander; Renzo Guerrini; Chantal Depondt; Raoul Hennekam; Peter Hammond; Sanjay M Sisodiya Journal: Brain Date: 2012-09-13 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Laurence O'Dwyer; Colby Tanner; Eelco V van Dongen; Corina U Greven; Janita Bralten; Marcel P Zwiers; Barbara Franke; Dirk Heslenfeld; Jaap Oosterlaan; Pieter J Hoekstra; Catharina A Hartman; Wouter Groen; Nanda Rommelse; Jan K Buitelaar Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-11-02 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Philip A May; Julie M Hasken; Melanie A Manning; Luther K Robinson; Omar Abdul-Rahman; Margaret P Adam; Tamison Jewett; Amy J Elliott; Wendy O Kalberg; David Buckley; H Eugene Hoyme Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2022-03-31 Impact factor: 2.578
Authors: Maxime M Wang; Roberto L Flores; Lukasz Witek; Andrea Torroni; Amel Ibrahim; Zhong Wang; Hannah A Liss; Bruce N Cronstein; Christopher D Lopez; Samantha G Maliha; Paulo G Coelho Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-12-05 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Evelyne Muggli; Jane Halliday; Elizabeth J Elliott; Anthony Penington; Deanne Thompson; Alicia Jane Spittle; Della Forster; Sharon Lewis; Stephen Hearps; Peter J Anderson Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-01-17 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Fleur L Warton; Christopher D Molteno; Christopher M R Warton; Pia Wintermark; Nadine M Lindinger; Neil C Dodge; Lilla Zöllei; Andre J W van der Kouwe; R Colin Carter; Joseph L Jacobson; Sandra W Jacobson; Ernesta M Meintjes Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2021-08-18 Impact factor: 3.928
Authors: Wael AbdAlmageed; Hengameh Mirzaalian; Xiao Guo; Linda M Randolph; Veeraya K Tanawattanacharoen; Mitchell E Geffner; Heather M Ross; Mimi S Kim Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2020-11-02