Logan Grosenick1, Tracey C Shi2, Faith M Gunning2, Marc J Dubin2, Jonathan Downar3, Conor Liston4. 1. Feil Family Brain and Mind Research Institute and Department of Psychiatry, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York; Department of Statistics, Columbia University, New York, New York; Simons Foundation, New York, New York. 2. Feil Family Brain and Mind Research Institute and Department of Psychiatry, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York. 3. Department of Psychiatry, Toronto Western Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 4. Feil Family Brain and Mind Research Institute and Department of Psychiatry, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York. Electronic address: col2004@med.cornell.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previously, we identified four depression subtypes defined by distinct functional connectivity alterations in depression-related brain networks, which in turn predicted clinical symptoms and treatment response. Optogenetic functional magnetic resonance imaging offers a promising approach for testing how dysfunction in specific circuits gives rise to subtype-specific, depression-related behaviors. However, this approach assumes that there are robust, reproducible correlations between functional connectivity and depressive symptoms-an assumption that was not extensively tested in previous work. METHODS: First, we comprehensively reevaluated the stability of canonical correlations between functional connectivity and symptoms (N = 220 subjects) using optimized approaches for large-scale statistical hypothesis testing, and we validated methods for improving estimation of latent variables driving brain-behavior correlations. Having confirmed this necessary condition, we reviewed recent advances in optogenetic functional magnetic resonance imaging and illustrated one approach to formulating hypotheses regarding latent subtype-specific circuit mechanisms and testing them in animal models. RESULTS: Correlations between connectivity features and clinical symptoms were robustly significant, and canonical correlation analysis solutions tested repeatedly on held-out data generalized. However, they were sensitive to data quality, preprocessing, and clinical heterogeneity, which can reduce effect sizes. Generalization could be markedly improved by adding L2 regularization, which decreased estimator variance, increased canonical correlations in left-out data, and stabilized feature selection. These improvements were useful for identifying candidate circuits for optogenetic interrogation in animal models. CONCLUSIONS: Multiview, latent-variable approaches such as canonical correlation analysis offer a conceptually useful framework for discovering stable patient subtypes by synthesizing multiple clinical and functional measures. Optogenetic functional magnetic resonance imaging holds promise for testing hypotheses regarding latent, subtype-specific mechanisms driving depressive symptoms and behaviors.
BACKGROUND: Previously, we identified four depression subtypes defined by distinct functional connectivity alterations in depression-related brain networks, which in turn predicted clinical symptoms and treatment response. Optogenetic functional magnetic resonance imaging offers a promising approach for testing how dysfunction in specific circuits gives rise to subtype-specific, depression-related behaviors. However, this approach assumes that there are robust, reproducible correlations between functional connectivity and depressive symptoms-an assumption that was not extensively tested in previous work. METHODS: First, we comprehensively reevaluated the stability of canonical correlations between functional connectivity and symptoms (N = 220 subjects) using optimized approaches for large-scale statistical hypothesis testing, and we validated methods for improving estimation of latent variables driving brain-behavior correlations. Having confirmed this necessary condition, we reviewed recent advances in optogenetic functional magnetic resonance imaging and illustrated one approach to formulating hypotheses regarding latent subtype-specific circuit mechanisms and testing them in animal models. RESULTS: Correlations between connectivity features and clinical symptoms were robustly significant, and canonical correlation analysis solutions tested repeatedly on held-out data generalized. However, they were sensitive to data quality, preprocessing, and clinical heterogeneity, which can reduce effect sizes. Generalization could be markedly improved by adding L2 regularization, which decreased estimator variance, increased canonical correlations in left-out data, and stabilized feature selection. These improvements were useful for identifying candidate circuits for optogenetic interrogation in animal models. CONCLUSIONS: Multiview, latent-variable approaches such as canonical correlation analysis offer a conceptually useful framework for discovering stable patient subtypes by synthesizing multiple clinical and functional measures. Optogenetic functional magnetic resonance imaging holds promise for testing hypotheses regarding latent, subtype-specific mechanisms driving depressive symptoms and behaviors.
Authors: Hanbing Lu; Yantao Zuo; Hong Gu; James A Waltz; Wang Zhan; Clara A Scholl; William Rea; Yihong Yang; Elliot A Stein Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2007-11-08 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: A F Schatzberg; J A Posener; C DeBattista; B M Kalehzan; A J Rothschild; P K Shear Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: M L Wong; M A Kling; P J Munson; S Listwak; J Licinio; P Prolo; B Karp; I E McCutcheon; T D Geracioti; M D DeBellis; K C Rice; D S Goldstein; J D Veldhuis; G P Chrousos; E H Oldfield; S M McCann; P W Gold Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2000-01-04 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Rebecca B Price; Stephanie Lane; Kathleen Gates; Thomas E Kraynak; Michelle S Horner; Michael E Thase; Greg J Siegle Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2016-07-05 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Jonathan Posner; David J Hellerstein; Inbal Gat; Anna Mechling; Kristin Klahr; Zhishun Wang; Patrick J McGrath; Jonathan W Stewart; Bradley S Peterson Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 21.596
Authors: Conor Liston; Ashley C Chen; Benjamin D Zebley; Andrew T Drysdale; Rebecca Gordon; Bruce Leuchter; Henning U Voss; B J Casey; Amit Etkin; Marc J Dubin Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2014-02-05 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Garret D Stuber; Dennis R Sparta; Alice M Stamatakis; Wieke A van Leeuwen; Juanita E Hardjoprajitno; Saemi Cho; Kay M Tye; Kimberly A Kempadoo; Feng Zhang; Karl Deisseroth; Antonello Bonci Journal: Nature Date: 2011-06-29 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Milan Scheidegger; Martin Walter; Mick Lehmann; Coraline Metzger; Simone Grimm; Heinz Boeker; Peter Boesiger; Anke Henning; Erich Seifritz Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-09-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Zhi-De Deng; Bruce Luber; Nicholas L Balderston; Melbaliz Velez Afanador; Michelle M Noh; Jeena Thomas; William C Altekruse; Shannon L Exley; Shriya Awasthi; Sarah H Lisanby Journal: Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol Date: 2020-01-06 Impact factor: 13.820
Authors: Aleksandr Talishinsky; Jonathan Downar; Petra E Vértes; Jakob Seidlitz; Katharine Dunlop; Charles J Lynch; Heather Whalley; Andrew McIntosh; Fidel Vila-Rodriguez; Zafiris J Daskalakis; Daniel M Blumberger; Conor Liston Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2022-09-28 Impact factor: 17.694