Most of what scientists know about fetal brain development comes from looking at animal brains or analyzing human postmortem samples.5 This research has provided insights on the development of brain structure but offers few clues about how functional systems become organized.The earliest investigations of human fetal brain function date back to the 1950s. When researchers placed electrodes on a pregnant woman’s abdomen and on the walls of her cervix during labor, they could detect electrical impulses that signaled fetal brain activity.5 Researchers began to notice that certain patterns of electrical activity were associated with neurological abnormalities.9In the 1990s, scientists began experimenting with fMRI to map the connections in different regions in the brain.5 fMRI detects changes in brain activity associated with changes in blood flow. During fMRI, the patient typically performs a task—looking at pictures of faces or finger tapping, for instance—while the machine scans his or her brain. Researchers look for areas of the brain that light up during the task.By that point, neuroscientists knew there was much more happening functionally than could be probed with a stimulus or task, but it was unclear how to best examine these functions. Then, in 1995, then–graduate student Bharat Biswal made a fortuitous observation: The brain produces signals all the time, even when it is not engaged in a task.10 Manipulating fMRI to measure these resting-state signals allowed scientists for the first time to investigate brain activity without the subject needing to so much as tap a finger.Resting-state fMRI offered a more nuanced look at the highways and interstates connecting different brain regions. These connections form the basis of how different regions of the brain communicate with each other. Whereas investigators previously were limited to studying function within a particular brain region, they could now begin to ask big-picture, network-level questions about brain function.7In the search for answers about how and when brain networks form, researchers turned to preterm infants.11 Nearly 10% of all babies worldwide are born preterm, meaning before the end of the 37th week of pregnancy.12 Compared with term babies, these children are more likely to develop autism spectrum disorders, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, emotional disorders, and neurological abnormalities.13 Preterm infants also are more likely to have cognitive difficulties and trouble in school later on.13 A growing body of research suggests that these cognitive impairments may be caused by disruptions in the way the brain is wired before or shortly after birth.5Christopher Smyser, a pediatric neurologist at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, used fMRI images of preterm infant brains to study prenatal development of the connectome. In 2010, he showed that babies born as early as 26 weeks possessed immature forms of many of the functional brain networks seen in adults.14These first studies by Smyser and others showed that the brain’s communication channels were present before term birth, albeit in an immature state. Preterm babies offered researchers the opportunity to study the development of neural patterns that usually takes place inside the womb. However, researchers found it difficult to know if the patterns they were seeing in these infants reflected the normal development of brain communication networks. What did functional connectivity look like in a healthy term pregnancy?
Imaging the Fetal Brain
Task-based fMRI had always been a poor option for studying children too young to follow instructions. In utero, it was even less feasible. “You could never know what a fetus was up to, whether it was performing a task or at rest,” says Veronika Schöpf, a professor of neuroimaging at the University of Graz in Austria.In 2010, Schöpf began using resting-state fMRI to study the brains of fetuses. She ultimately scanned the brains of more than 100 fetuses in their mothers’ wombs.15 It was a tricky task—too much movement on the part of the fetus could blur the picture. In the end, Schöpf had collected functional images of 16 healthy fetuses spanning the 20th to 36th weeks of gestation. Her study was the first to show that resting-state networks were present—and could be detected—in a fetus.At the time of this study, the chronology for the emergence of the brain’s functional networks was still unknown. However, in a 2014 follow-up study of 32 healthy fetuses, Schöpf et al. showed how the connectome developed over the second half of pregnancy as short- and long-range connections between different brain regions begin to form.16 They found that development of those network connections peaks between about 27 and 30 weeks.In 2012, Veronika Schöpf et al. captured functional images of fetal brains at gestational weeks 20–36 (the numbers in the figure above indicate gestational week). The team was the first to show that resting-state networks can be detected in utero. This imaging was a major advance over the use of task-based fMRI because, as Schöpf put it, “You could never know what a fetus was up to, whether it was performing a task or at rest.” Image: Schöpf et al. (2012).5Around the same time, Moriah Thomason, a pediatric neuroscientist at New York University School of Medicine, published the first study to demonstrate age-related changes in fetal brain networks. In a cohort of pregnant Detroit women, she found differences in functional connectivity among 25 healthy fetuses in the second versus the third trimester.17 She also found evidence of synchronized activity between mirror regions in the two hemispheres of the brain. The study showed that this pattern of coordinated activity became stronger with each passing week of pregnancy.Schöpf’s and Thomason’s early studies offered the first evidence about the timing of functional development in the fetal brain. They also demonstrated that resting-state fMRI may be a helpful tool in identifying and better understanding critical windows of fetal neurodevelopment. With this groundwork laid, investigators now aim to elucidate the origins of neurological disease.
Disentangling the Pre- and Postnatal Environments
In studies of preterm infants conducted after birth, researchers find it difficult to know whether developmental abnormalities arise from the preterm birth itself (e.g., as a result of oxygen deprivation) and the stress of subsequent medical interventions, or if those abnormalities are the result of disease processes that started in the womb. Without that piece of the puzzle, it is impossible to establish whether preterm birth is a symptom or a cause of developmental problems.The same can be said for most studies of early-life environmental exposures. “If you cannot disentangle the prenatal from the postnatal environment, you cannot get at the genesis of disease,” says Thomason.Lead exposure is one example. Fetal exposure to lead has been associated with cognitive impairments in childhood.8 However, if lead was present in the mother’s environment during pregnancy, it’s likely to be present in the child’s environment, too (provided the mother and child live together in the home where she resided while pregnant). Therefore, whether an adverse cognitive outcome is a result of something that happened either in fetal life or when the child was 1 or 2 years old is difficult to determine. “Establishing when the effect started might be a clue to understanding if the critical window is fetal life or later in life,” says Wright.In the case of preterm births, researchers would ideally analyze the brains of preterm infants before birth, but it is often difficult to identify which babies will be born early. However, Thomason has managed to do just that by studying a subset of her cohort of pregnant Detroit women who went on to deliver prematurely. In 2017, Thomason presented the first direct evidence that infants born preterm may be wired differently before birth.18 The fMRI images generated during pregnancy suggested a difference between the brains of preterm versus term babies: An area on the left side of the brain that later forms a language-processing region had weaker connections to other brain regions in fetuses that would be born preterm compared with fetuses carried to term.Importantly, the was small—just 14 preterm and 18 term pregnancies—and the medical relevance of the findings is not yet clear. Long-term studies are needed to determine whether differences detected in utero predict cognitive impairment later in life, according to Thomason.The oldest children in Thomason’s Detroit cohort have now reached school age. She is working to link patterns of early brain activity to childhood behavioral outcomes, including speech, motor skills, and cognition. If maps of functional connectivity in the fetal brain turn out to predict health outcomes later in life, the findings will bring us closer to understanding the origins of neurodevelopmental problems.However, for Thomason, her research is as much about finding the alterable conditions in an environment that could change a child’s developmental trajectory as it is about understanding the genesis of disease. During home visits, she has collected information about each child’s environment. “Fetal brain activity may predict a particular outcome, but what other environmental factors buffer or exacerbate prenatal risk factors?” she asks.
Authors: Christopher D Smyser; Terrie E Inder; Joshua S Shimony; Jason E Hill; Andrew J Degnan; Abraham Z Snyder; Jeffrey J Neil Journal: Cereb Cortex Date: 2010-03-17 Impact factor: 5.357
Authors: Moriah E Thomason; Maya T Dassanayake; Stephen Shen; Yashwanth Katkuri; Mitchell Alexis; Amy L Anderson; Lami Yeo; Swati Mody; Edgar Hernandez-Andrade; Sonia S Hassan; Colin Studholme; Jeong-Won Jeong; Roberto Romero Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2013-02-20 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: András Jakab; Ernst Schwartz; Gregor Kasprian; Gerlinde M Gruber; Daniela Prayer; Veronika Schöpf; Georg Langs Journal: Front Hum Neurosci Date: 2014-10-22 Impact factor: 3.169
Authors: Martijn P van den Heuvel; Karina J Kersbergen; Marcel A de Reus; Kristin Keunen; René S Kahn; Floris Groenendaal; Linda S de Vries; Manon J N L Benders Journal: Cereb Cortex Date: 2014-05-15 Impact factor: 5.357
Authors: Yu Ni; Christine T Loftus; Adam A Szpiro; Michael T Young; Marnie F Hazlehurst; Laura E Murphy; Frances A Tylavsky; W Alex Mason; Kaja Z LeWinn; Sheela Sathyanarayana; Emily S Barrett; Nicole R Bush; Catherine J Karr Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2022-06-23 Impact factor: 11.035
Authors: Sharna J Coker; Carlos C Smith-Díaz; Rebecca M Dyson; Margreet C M Vissers; Mary J Berry Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2022-01-21 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: Esha Bansal; Hsiao-Hsien Hsu; Erik de Water; Sandra Martínez-Medina; Lourdes Schnaas; Allan C Just; Megan Horton; David C Bellinger; Martha M Téllez-Rojo; Robert O Wright Journal: Environ Res Date: 2021-07-08 Impact factor: 6.498