| Literature DB >> 30619055 |
Tian Li1,2, Chunyan Liu3,4, Hanqing Lyu5, Zhexue Xu3,4, Qingmao Hu2, Bibo Xu1, Yuping Wang3,4, Jinping Xu2.
Abstract
Object: The purpose of this study was to uncover the pathology of restless legs syndrome (RLS) by exploring brain structural alterations and their corresponding functional abnormality. Method: Surface-based morphometry (SBM) and voxel-based morphometry (VBM) were performed to explore the alterations in cortical and sub-cortical gray matter volume (GMV) in a cohort of 20 RLS and 18 normal controls (NC). Furthermore, resting-state functional connectivity (RSFC) was also performed to identify the functional alterations in patients with RLS.Entities:
Keywords: resting-state functional connectivity; restless legs syndrome; sub-cortical alteration; surface-based morphometry; voxel-based morphometry
Year: 2018 PMID: 30619055 PMCID: PMC6304426 DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2018.01098
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurol ISSN: 1664-2295 Impact factor: 4.003
Demographics and clinical data.
| Number | 20 | 18 | ||
| Gender (male:female) | 5:15 | 5:13 | 1.00 | 0.032 |
| Age (mean ± SD) | 56.60 ± 9.86 | 57.28 ± 4.63 | 0.79 | 0.088 |
| Durations (mean ± SD) | 16.05 ± 12.72 | – | – | |
| RS_RLS (mean ± SD) | 23.25 ± 6.95 | – | – | |
| PSQI (mean ± SD) | 11.90 ± 4.02 | – | – |
χ-test.
Two-sample t-test.
Cramer's V.
Cohen's d.
ES, effect size; RLS, Restless Legs Syndrome; NC, Normal Controls; RS_RLS, Rating Scale for RLS; and PSQI, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index.
Figure 1Sub-cortical regions which showed altered gray matter volumes (GMV) using surface-based morphometry (SBM) in patients with restless legs syndrome (RLS) compared to normal controls (NC). Multi-comparison was used to identify the altered GMV (Bonferroni correction, p < 0.05). L, left; R, right; THA, thalamus; CAU, caudate; PUT, putamen; PALL, globus pallidus; HIPP, hippocampus; and AMY, amygdala. *means the significant difference between RLS and NC.
Figure 2Brain regions which showed altered GMV using voxel-based morphology (VBM) in patients with RLS compared to NC. Two sample t-test was used to identify the changed GMV, and false discovery error (FDR, p < 0.05) was used for multi-comparison. Abbreviations were listed in Table 2.
Brain regions showing significantly altered GMV in patients with RLS using VBM.
| BS.L | 1,449 | (−11, −15, −30) | 7.175 | 1.514 |
| BS.L | 331 | (−9, −32, −9) | 6.927 | 1.411 |
| PUT.L | 226 | (−24, −11, 0) | 7.624 | 1.709 |
| PUT.R | 144 | (24, −12, 0) | 6.227 | 1.140 |
| CC.L | 389 | (−3, −22, 21) | 6.213 | 1.135 |
The significance was determined using False discovery error (FDR) correction (p < 0.05, cluster size ≥100 voxels). L, left; R, right; BS, brainstem; PUT, putamen; and CC, corpus callosum.
Figure 3Sub-regions of PUT which showed altered GMV in patients with RLS compared to NC. Two-sample t-test was used to identify the changed GMV. dcPUT, dorsal caudal putamen; drPUT, dorsal rostral putamen; and vrPUT, ventral rostral putamen. *means the significant difference between RLS and NC.
Figure 4Altered resting-state functional connectivity (RSFC) of PUT in patients with RLS compared to NC. Two sample t-tests and Gaussian random field (GRF) correction (voxel level p < 0.001, cluster level p < 0.05) were used. Abbreviations were listed in Table 3.
Brain regions showing significantly altered RSFC of PUT in RLS.
| PUT.R | 184 | (0, 30, 18) | −6.021 | CG | 1.066 |
| drPUT.L | 71 | (−30, 0, 9) | −5.300 | PUT.L | 0.826 |
| 83 | (33, 3, 9) | −6.939 | PUT.R | 1.416 | |
| 43 | (−9, 30, 18) | −5.267 | CG.L | 0.816 | |
| dcPUT.L | 37 | (−24, 18, −3) | −5.509 | PUT.L | 0.893 |
| 38 | (−27, 51, 24) | −4.942 | FP.L | 0.718 | |
| 52 | (3, 12, 69) | −4.957 | SFG.R | 0.723 | |
| vrPUT.L | 219 | (24, 15, −6) | −6.443 | PUT.R | 1.221 |
| 196 | (−27, 6, −3) | −6.540 | PUT.L | 1.258 | |
| 32 | (−30, 48, 9) | −4.618 | FP.L | 0.627 | |
| 56 | (−36, 3, 27) | −5.606 | PreCG.L | 0.924 | |
| 122 | (6, 30, 33) | −4.962 | ParaCG.R | 0.724 | |
| drPUT.R | 54 | (12, −51, −33) | 6.040 | CERE.R | 1.073 |
| 104 | (−18, 12, 3) | −5.768 | PUT.L | 0.979 | |
| 60 | (12, 12, 3) | −5.378 | CAU.R | 0.851 | |
| 73 | (−30, 48, 24) | −5.565 | FP.L | 0.911 | |
| 61 | (6, 30, 39) | −5.085 | ParaCG.R | 0.761 | |
| dcPUT.R | 83 | (−21, 12, 3) | −5.288 | PUT.L | 0.822 |
| vrPUT.R | 44 | (−12, 12, −3) | −5.444 | CAU.L | 0.871 |
| 60 | (27, 12, −3) | −5.040 | PUT.R | 0.747 | |
| 97 | (−3, 33, 45) | −5.987 | SCG.L | 1.054 |
The significance was determined using Gaussian random field (GRF) correction, voxel level p < 0.001, cluster level p < 0.05. MNI, Montreal Neurological Institute; CG, cingulate gyrus; FP, frontal pole; SFG, superior frontal gyrus; CAU, caudate; PreCG, precentral gyrus; ParaCG, paracingulate gyrus; and CERE, cerebellum.
Figure 5Correlation analyses. (A) Correlation analyses showed the GMV of CAU.L was correlated with disease duration in patients with RLS (p < 0.05). (B) Correlation analyses showed the GMV of vrPUT.L was correlated with disease duration in patients with RLS (p < 0.05).