| Literature DB >> 30710870 |
Shih-Yen Lin1, Chen-Pei Lin2, Tsung-Jen Hsieh3, Chung-Fen Lin3, Sih-Huei Chen2, Yi-Ping Chao4, Yong-Sheng Chen5, Chih-Cheng Hsu3, Li-Wei Kuo6.
Abstract
Alzheimer's disease (AD), an irreversible neurodegenerative disease, is the most common type of dementia in elderly people. This present study incorporated multiple structural and functional connectivity metrics into a graph theoretical analysis framework and investigated alterations in brain network topology in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and AD. By using this multiparametric analysis, we expected different connectivity metrics may reflect additional or complementary information regarding the topological changes in brain networks in MCI or AD. In our study, a total of 73 subjects participated in this study and underwent the magnetic resonance imaging scans. For the structural network, we compared commonly used connectivity metrics, including fractional anisotropy and normalized streamline count, with multiple diffusivity-based metrics. We compared Pearson correlation and covariance by investigating their sensitivities to functional network topology. Significant disruption of structural network topology in MCI and AD was found predominantly in regions within the limbic system, prefrontal and occipital regions, in addition to widespread alterations of local efficiency. At a global scale, our results showed that the disruption of the structural network was consistent across different edge definitions and global network metrics from the MCI to AD stages. Significant changes in connectivity and tract-specific diffusivity were also found in several limbic connections. Our findings suggest that tract-specific metrics (e.g., fractional anisotropy and diffusivity) provide more sensitive and interpretable measurements than does metrics based on streamline count. Besides, the use of inversed radial diffusivity provided additional information for understanding alterations in network topology caused by AD progression and its possible origins. Use of this proposed multiparametric network analysis framework may facilitate early MCI diagnosis and AD prevention.Entities:
Keywords: Alzheimer's disease; Brain network; Diffusion tensor imaging; Functional connectivity; Graph theoretical analysis; Mild cognitive impairment; Resting-state functional MRI; Structural connectivity
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30710870 PMCID: PMC6357901 DOI: 10.1016/j.nicl.2019.101680
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neuroimage Clin ISSN: 2213-1582 Impact factor: 4.881
Demographic details of the recruit participants in this study.
| Subject group | HC | MCI | AD | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Structural data | |||||
| Number of subjects | (Male/Female) | 26 (5/21) | 23 (6/17) | 22 (4/18) | |
| Age (years) | Mean ± std. dev. | 63.5 ± 5.7 | 71.2 ± 8.3 | 76.4 ± 7.6 | <0.0001 |
| Education (years) | Mean ± std. dev. | 10.5 ± 4.4 | 6.8 ± 4.3 | 4.5 ± 4.7 | 0.0001 |
| BMI (years) | Mean ± std. dev. | 23.9 ± 2.9 | 25.3 ± 3.1 | 22.9 ± 2.8 | 0.0245 |
| MMSE | Mean ± std. dev. | 27.6 ± 2.2 | 24.7 ± 3.8 | 14.5 ± 6.5 | <0.01 |
| MoCA | Mean ± std. dev. | 26.9 ± 2.9 | 19.6 ± 5.1 | 9.4 ± 5.5 | <0.01 |
| Functional data | |||||
| Number of subjects | (Male/female) | 25(4/21) | 23 (6/17) | 22 (4/18) | |
| Age (years) | Mean ± std. dev. | 63.1 ± 5.6 | 71.1 ± 8.2 | 76.3 ± 7.5 | <0.0001 |
| Education (years) | Mean ± std. dev. | 10.5 ± 4.4 | 6.6 ± 4.2 | 4.6 ± 4.7 | 0.0002 |
| BMI (years) | Mean ± std. dev. | 23.8 ± 2.9 | 25.1 ± 3.0 | 22.6 ± 2.5 | 0.0245 |
| MMSE | Mean ± std. dev. | 27.7 ± 2.1 | 24.6 ± 3.8 | 14.4 ± 6.4 | <0.01 |
| MoCA | Mean ± std. dev. | 27.5 ± 1.5 | 19.7 ± 5.1 | 9.3 ± 5.4 | <0.01 |
Tables of abbreviations for brain regions.
| Abbreviation | Region name |
|---|---|
| ACG | Anterior cingulate and paracingulate gyri |
| AMYG | Amygdala |
| ANG | Angular gyrus |
| CAL | Calcarine fissure and surrounding cortex |
| CAU | Caudate nucleus |
| CUN | Cuneus |
| FFG | Fusiform gyrus |
| HES | Heschl gyrus |
| HIP | Hippocampus |
| IFGoperc | Inferior frontal gyrus, opercular part |
| IFGtriang | Inferior frontal gyrus, triangular part |
| IOG | Inferior occipital gyrus |
| IPL | Inferior parietal, but supramarginal and angular gyri |
| ITG | Inferior temporal gyrus |
| LING | Lingual gyrus |
| MFG | Middle frontal gyrus |
| MOG | Middle occipital gyrus |
| MTG | Middle temporal gyrus |
| OLF | Olfactory cortex |
| ORBinf | Inferior frontal gyrus, orbital part |
| ORBmid | Middle frontal gyrus, orbital part |
| ORBsup | Superior frontal gyrus, orbital part |
| ORBsupmed | Superior frontal gyrus, medial orbital |
| PAL | Lenticular nucleus, pallidum |
| PCG | Posterior cingulate gyrus |
| PCUN | Precuneus |
| PHG | Parahippocampal gyrus |
| PUT | Lenticular nucleus, putamen |
| REC | Gyrus rectus |
| SFGdor | Superior frontal gyrus, dorsolateral |
| SFGmed | Superior frontal gyrus, medial |
| SOG | Superior occipital gyrus |
| SPG | Superior parietal gyrus |
| STG | Superior temporal gyrus |
| TPOsup | Temporal pole: superior temporal gyrus |
Fig. 1Illustration of the multiple-sparsity thresholding employed in structural network analysis. (a) Network masks were generated by applying several sparsity thresholds on the streamline count matrices. (b) The generated network masks were subsequently applied to each type of structural network, yielding thresholded structural networks at different levels of network sparsity.
Fig. 2Regions showing significant between-group differences in nodal network metrics. Significantly increased and decreased nodal network indices are indicated using red and blue, respectively, whereas gray entries indicate nonsignificant differences. (a) Differences in SC indices. (b) Differences in diffusivity indices. (a) Differences in FC indices.
Fig. 3Significant between-group differences in global network metrics. (a) Differences in SC indices. (b) Differences in diffusivity indices. (c) Differences in FC indices. Significantly increased and decreased global network indices are indicated using red and blue, respectively, whereas gray entries indicate nonsignificant differences.
Significant differences in global network measures between the three patient groups (HC, MCI, and AD), as quantified through GLM and one-way ANOVA. ANOVA was used for three-group comparison, and differences between pairs of patient groups were quantified by the β values from GLM.
| Network measure | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Structural connectivity | −0.029 | 0.021 | 0.0214 | |||
| 0.125 | 0.132 | 0.0309 | ||||
| −0.003 | 0.0050 | |||||
| −0.006 | 0.0176 | |||||
| −0.004 | 0.0044 | |||||
| −0.004 | 0.0024 | |||||
| −0.033 | 0.03 | 0.0109 | ||||
| 0.043 | 0.0023 | |||||
| −0.013 | 0.0002 | |||||
| −0.026 | 0.0011 | |||||
| −0.017 | 0.0001 | |||||
| −0.003 | 0.017 | 0.0418 | ||||
| −0.016 | 0.0002 | |||||
| Tract-specific diffusivity | 0.002 | 0.0002 | ||||
| 0.011 | 0.0002 | |||||
| −0.004 | 0.0033 | |||||
| 0.007 | 0.0005 | |||||
| 0.004 | 0.0001 | |||||
| 0.012 | 0.0002 | |||||
| Functional connectivity | 0.087 | −0.431 | 0.0418 | |||
| 0.004 | 0.0161 | |||||
| 0.003 | 0.0190 |
Bold numbers signify significant differences (p < .05). (*: p < .05; **: p < .01; ***: p < .001).
Fig. 4Connections showing significant between-group differences in the SC and tract-specific diffusivity metrics. The color of the connection signifies the type of groupwise differences. Black: no significant differences; green: decrease in MCI patients compared with HCs; magenta: decrease in AD patients compared with HCs; red: increase in AD patients compared with HCs; blue: increase in AD patients compared with MCI patients.
Individual fiber connections demonstrating significant differences between the three patient groups (HC, MCI, and AD), as quantified through GLM and one-way ANOVA.
| 1st ROI | 2nd ROI | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MOG.R | FFG.R | −0.036 | 0.001 | 0.0403 | ||
| PHG.L | FFG.L | −0.125 | −0.081 | 0.0006 | ||
| PCG.R | PCUN.R | −0.021 | 0.0062 | |||
| HIP.L | PHG.L | −0.092 | −0.11 | 0.0032 | ||
| HIP.R | PHG.R | −0.063 | −0.091 | 0.0295 | ||
| PHG.L | FFG.L | 0.074 | 0.070 | 0.0054 | ||
| ORBsup.L | OLF.L | 0.006 | 0.0014 | |||
| PCG.R | PCUN.R | 0.083 | 0.098 | 0.015 | 0.0366 | |
| OLF.L | REC.L | 0.007 | 0.0135 | |||
| REC.L | ACG.L | 0.034 | 0.069 | 0.0367 | ||
| HIP.L | PHG.L | 0.075 | 0.117 | 0.0043 | ||
| HIP.R | PHG.R | 0.05 | 0.098 | 0.0375 | ||
| PHG.L | FFG.L | 0.067 | 0.079 | 0.0190 | ||
| ORBsup.L | OLF.L | 0.026 | 0.0130 | |||
| PHG.L | PUT.L | 0.053 | 0.036 | 0.0499 | ||
| HIP.L | PHG.L | 0.085 | 0.131 | 0.0035 | ||
| PHG.L | FFG.L | 0.077 | 0.066 | 0.0055 | ||
| ORBsup.L | OLF.L | −0.004 | 0.135 | 0.0159 | ||
| PCG.R | PCUN.R | 0.092 | 0.104 | 0.011 | 0.0425 | |
| OLF.L | REC.L | 0.009 | 0.141 | 0.0432 | ||
| REC.L | ACG.L | 0.022 | 0.084 | 0.0339 | ||
| HIP.L | PHG.L | 0.07 | 0.110 | 0.0078 | ||
| HIP.R | PHG.R | 0.048 | 0.092 | 0.0358 | ||
| SFGdor.L | IPL.R | −0.287 | 0.084 |
Bold numbers signify significant differences (p < .05 after Bonferroni correction for all 4005 undirected connections between 90 AAL regions). (*: p < .05 after Bonferroni correction; **: p < .01 after Bonferroni correction; ***: p < .001 after Bonferroni correction).
Fig. 5Connections showing significant between-group differences in the FC metrics. Black: no significant differences; Green: decrease in MCI patients compared with HCs; magenta: decrease in AD patients compared with HCs; red: increase in AD patients compared with HCs; blue: increase in AD patients compared with MCI patients.