| Literature DB >> 30177910 |
Gloria Castellazzi1,2, Laetitia Debernard3,4, Tracy R Melzer3,4,5, John C Dalrymple-Alford3,5,6, Egidio D'Angelo7,8, David H Miller1,3,4, Claudia A M Gandini Wheeler-Kingshott1,7,9, Deborah F Mason3,4,10.
Abstract
Resting state functional MRI (rs-fMRI) has provided important insights into functional reorganization in subjects with Multiple Sclerosis (MS) at different stage of disease. In this cross-sectional study we first assessed, by means of rs-fMRI, the impact of overall T2 lesion load (T2LL) and MS severity score (MSSS) on resting state networks (RSNs) in 62 relapsing remitting MS (RRMS) patients with mild disability (MSSS < 3). Independent Component Analysis (ICA) followed by dual regression analysis confirmed functional connectivity (FC) alterations of many RSNs in RRMS subjects compared to healthy controls. The anterior default mode network (DMNa) and the superior precuneus network (PNsup) showed the largest areas of decreased FC, while the sensory motor networks area M1 (SMNm1) and the medial visual network (MVN) showed the largest areas of increased FC. In order to better understand the nature of these alterations as well as the mechanisms of functional alterations in MS we proposed a method, based on linear regression, that takes into account FC changes and their correlation with T2LL and MSSS. Depending on the sign of the correlation between FC and T2LL, and furthermore the sign of the correlation with MSSS, we suggested the following possible underlying mechanisms to interpret altered FC: (1) FC reduction driven by MS lesions, (2) "true" functional compensatory mechanism, (3a) functional compensation attempt, (3b) "false" functional compensation, (4a) neurodegeneration, (4b) pre-symptomatic condition (damage precedes MS clinical manifestation). Our data shows areas satisfying 4 of these 6 conditions (i.e., 1,2,3b,4b), supporting the suggestion that increased FC has a complex nature that may exceed the simplistic assumption of an underlying compensatory mechanism attempting to limit the brain damage caused by MS progression. Exploring differences between RRMS subjects with short disease duration (MSshort) and RRMS with similar disability but longer disease duration (MSlong), we found that MSshort and MSlong were characterized by clearly distinct pattern of FC, involving predominantly sensory and cognitive networks respectively. Overall, these results suggest that the analysis of FC alterations in multiple large-scale networks in relation to radiological (T2LL) and clinical (MSSS, disease duration) status may provide new insights into the pathophysiology of relapse onset MS evolution.Entities:
Keywords: functional connectivity; functional impairment; relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis; resting state fMRI; resting state networks
Year: 2018 PMID: 30177910 PMCID: PMC6109785 DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2018.00690
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurol ISSN: 1664-2295 Impact factor: 4.003
Proposed analysis and hypothesis of mechanisms of functional connectivity (FC) alterations in MS.
| Scenario 1 | FC reductions driven by MS lesions | |||
| Scenario 2 | True functional compensation | |||
| Scenario 3a | Functional compensation attempt | |||
| Scenario 3b | False functional compensation | |||
| Scenario 4a | Neurodegeneration (reduced FC not due to MS lesions) | |||
| Scenario 4b | Pre-symptomatic condition (damage precedes clinical manifestation of MS) | |||
Multiple-scenarios have been hypothesized to interpret the role of FC changes within the resting state networks (RSNs) of MS subjects. Each proposed mechanism describes a specific relation between FC changes, overall lesion load (T2LL) and MS severity score (MSSS).
Demographic and clinical characteristics.
| Gender (female/male) | 21/8 | 47/15 | 30/6 | 17/9 | > 0.2 |
| Age (years) | 34.45 ± 10.17 | 38.58 ± 8.25 | 37.34 ± 8.82 | 40.62 ± 7.26 | < |
| Education (years) | 13.62 ± 2.19 | 13.03 ± 2.53 | 13.43 ± 2.73 | 12.38 ± 2.17 | > 0.05 |
| WTAR | 107.62 ± 7.08 | 104.65 ± 9.40 | 104.29 ± 9.90 | 105.15 ± 9.05 | > 0.1 |
| Disease duration (years) | n.a. | 5.27 ± 4.08 | 2.29 ± 1.22 | 9.46 ± 2.80 | < |
| EDSS | n.a. | 1.77 ± 1.18 | 1.42 ± 0.90 | 2.23 ± 1.40 | |
| MSSS | n.a. | 2.89 ± 1.87 | 2.95 ± 1.99 | 2.86 ± 1.79 | > 0.05 |
| MFIS | n.a. | 7.45 ± 4.66 | 7.69 ± 4.95 | 7.15 ± 4.53 | > 0.1 |
| BDI | 4.45 ± 5.24 | 8.32 ± 6.10 | 8.29 ± 6.90 | 8.23 ± 5.20 | < |
| PASAT (z score) | 0.21 ± 1.05 | 0.62 ± 1.22 | 0.56 ± 1.07 | 0.70 ± 1.44 | > 0.1 |
| SDMT (z score) | 0.29 ± 1.03 | 0.12 ± 0.91 | 0.04 ± 0.92 | 0.21 ± 0.93 | > 0.2 |
| MSFC | 0.36 ± 0.46 | 0.11 ± 0.70 | 0.04 ± 0.58 | 0.18 ± 0.86 | < |
| MoCA | 28.68 ± 1.51 | 28.29 ± 1.76 | 28.17 ± 1.82 | 28.46 ± 1.72 | > 0.2 |
| Executive (z score) | 0.80 ± 0.54 | 0.39 ± 0.77 | 0.46 ± 0.76 | 0.28 ± 0.81 | > 0.05 |
| Memory (z score) | 0.71 ± 0.68 | 0.47 ± 0.79 | 0.43 ± 0.84 | 0.50 ± 0.74 | > 0.3 |
| Attention (z score) | 0.02 ± 0.71 | 0.32 ± 0.71 | 0.29 ± 0.76 | 0.36 ± 0.66 | > 0.1 |
| Visuospatial (z score) | 0.27 ± 0.55 | 0.04 ± 0.59 | 0.13 ± 0.52 | 0.09 ± 0.68 | > 0.05 |
| Composite z score | 0.44 ± 0.49 | 0.18 ± 0.53 | 0.22 ± 0.53 | 0.12 ± 0.68 | > 0.05 |
| T2 lesion load (mL) | n.a. | 16.63 ± 22.23 | 16.49 ± 23.77 | 16.82 ± 20.84 | > 0.1 |
WTAR, Wechsler Test of Adult Reading; EDSS, Expanded Disability Status score; MSSS, MS severity score; MFIS, Modified Fatigue Impact Scale; BDI, Beck Depression Inventory; PASAT, Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test; SDMT, Symbol Digit Modality Test; MSFC, MS Functional Composite; MoCA, Montreal Cognitive Assessment. Mean and SD are reported. A chi-square test was used to test difference in gender, whereas one-way ANOVA test was used to test difference in age. Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests were used to test all the other measures. Significant findings are shown in bold.
Significant difference between HC and MS.
Significant difference between HC and MSshort.
Significant difference between HC and MSlong.
Significant difference between MSshort and MSlong.
Figure 1Altered FC in RSNs of MS vs. HC. On the left: in blue, brain areas showing significantly reduced FC (p ≤ 0.01 FWE-corrected) within the RSNs in MS compared to HC (i.e., MS < HC). The blue bar plot on the bottom shows, for MS < HC, the ranking of the RSNs according to their gFC alteration: DMNa and PNsup (highlighted with an asterisk mark in the bar plot) resulted the networks with the largest FC reductions in MS. On the right: global map showing on top, in red, the RSN voxels that resulted to have a significantly increased FC (p ≤ 0.01 FWE-corrected) in MS vs HC (i.e., MS > HC). The details of each RSN alteration for MS > HC are reported in the red bar plot on the bottom right: SMNm1, MVN (highlighted with an asterisk mark in the bar plot) resulted as the top-ranked altered networks.
Figure 2Global maps of FC alterations which correlate with the overall lesion load (T2LL) and MSSS. Findings have been interpreted according to the multiple-scenario hypothesis presented in Table 2: four of the six proposed mechanism have been identified and represented as a map: (1) reduced FC driven by lesion (magenta voxels, corresponding to reduced FC areas in MS that negatively correlated at p ≤ 0.05 FWE-corrected with T2LL); (2) true functional compensation (blue voxels, corresponding to increased FC areas in MS that negatively correlated with T2LL); (3) false functional compensation (red voxels, corresponding to increased FC areas in MS that positively correlated with T2LL and MSSS); (4) pre-symptomatic condition (green voxels, corresponding to decreased FC areas in MS that positively correlated with T2LL and MSSS).
Figure 3Areas with altered FC in RSNs of MSshort compared to MSlong patients. On the left: magenta voxels show the areas of significantly greater FC (p ≤ 0.01, FWE-corrected) in the MSshort > MSlong contrast. On the right: aquamarine voxels represent the global map of the areas found with significantly lower FC (p ≤ 0.01, FWE-corrected) in MSshort compared to MSlong (i.e., MSshort < MSlong). Interestingly, the direct comparison of MSshort and MSlong highlighted a distinct pattern of FC differences. Below the brain representations of areas of differences, bar plots show, for each considered contrast, the ranking of the RSNs according to their gFC parameter. In each bar plot we colored in red the top-ranked networks for MSshort > MSlong and in blue the top-ranked networks for the MSshort < MSlong contrast. Note that the top-ranked networks (marked with an asterisk) in one contrast (e.g., MSshort > MSlong) are also some of the bottom-ranked network in the opposite contrast (MSshort < MSlong).
Figure 4Magenta voxels: areas satisfying the condition of reduced FC driven by lesion (Table 2: Scenario 1), mainly located in the cerebellum (crus I and lobule VI) and in the temporal areas (middle and inferior temporal gyri). Green voxels: areas satisfying the criteria for the pre-symptomatic condition (Table 2: Scenario 4b), mainly located in the frontal lobe (superior frontal gyrus).