Samantha K Jenks1, Sheng Zhang2, Chiang-Shan R Li3, Sien Hu4. 1. Department of Psychology, State University of New York at Oswego, Oswego, NY, 13126, USA. 2. Department of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, 06519, USA. 3. Department of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, 06519, USA; Department of Neuroscience, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, 06520, USA; Interdepartmental Neuroscience Program, Yale University, New Haven, CT, 06520, USA. 4. Department of Psychology, State University of New York at Oswego, Oswego, NY, 13126, USA. Electronic address: sien.hu@oswego.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous research has distinguished the activations of the amygdala and bed nucleus of stria terminalis (BNST) during threat-related contingencies. However, how intrinsic connectivities of the amygdala and BNST relate to threat bias remains unclear. Here, we investigated how resting state functional connectivity (rsFC) of the amygdala and BNST in healthy controls (HC) and patients with anxiety-related disorders (PAD) associate with threat bias in a dot-probe task. METHODS: Imaging and behavioral data of 30 PAD and 83 HC were obtained from the Nathan Kline Institute - Rockland sample and processed according to published routines. All imaging results were evaluated at voxel p < 0.001 and cluster p < 0.05, FWE corrected in SPM. RESULTS: PAD and HC did not show differences in whole brain rsFC with either the amygdala or BNST. In linear regressions threat bias was positively correlated with amygdala-thalamus/anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) rsFC in HC but not PAD, and with BNST-caudate rsFC in PAD but not HC. Slope tests confirmed group differences in the correlations between threat bias and amygdala-thalamus/ACC as well as BNST-caudate rsFC. LIMITATIONS: As only half of the patients included were diagnosed with comorbid anxiety, the current findings need to be considered with the clinical heterogeneity and require replication in populations specifically with anxiety disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Together, these results suggest amygdala and BNST connectivities as new neural markers of anxiety disorders. Whereas amygdala-thalamus/ACC rsFC support adaptive regulation of threat response in the HC, BNST-caudate rsFC may reflect maladaptive neural processes that are dominated by anticipatory anxiety.
BACKGROUND: Previous research has distinguished the activations of the amygdala and bed nucleus of stria terminalis (BNST) during threat-related contingencies. However, how intrinsic connectivities of the amygdala and BNST relate to threat bias remains unclear. Here, we investigated how resting state functional connectivity (rsFC) of the amygdala and BNST in healthy controls (HC) and patients with anxiety-related disorders (PAD) associate with threat bias in a dot-probe task. METHODS: Imaging and behavioral data of 30 PAD and 83 HC were obtained from the Nathan Kline Institute - Rockland sample and processed according to published routines. All imaging results were evaluated at voxel p < 0.001 and cluster p < 0.05, FWE corrected in SPM. RESULTS:PAD and HC did not show differences in whole brain rsFC with either the amygdala or BNST. In linear regressions threat bias was positively correlated with amygdala-thalamus/anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) rsFC in HC but not PAD, and with BNST-caudate rsFC in PAD but not HC. Slope tests confirmed group differences in the correlations between threat bias and amygdala-thalamus/ACC as well as BNST-caudate rsFC. LIMITATIONS: As only half of the patients included were diagnosed with comorbid anxiety, the current findings need to be considered with the clinical heterogeneity and require replication in populations specifically with anxiety disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Together, these results suggest amygdala and BNST connectivities as new neural markers of anxiety disorders. Whereas amygdala-thalamus/ACC rsFC support adaptive regulation of threat response in the HC, BNST-caudate rsFC may reflect maladaptive neural processes that are dominated by anticipatory anxiety.
Authors: Salvatore Torrisi; Katherine O'Connell; Andrew Davis; Richard Reynolds; Nicholas Balderston; Julie L Fudge; Christian Grillon; Monique Ernst Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2015-07-14 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Sien Hu; Jaime S Ide; Herta H Chao; Brittney Castagna; Kimberly A Fischer; Sheng Zhang; Chiang-Shan R Li Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2018-08-16 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Carolyn D Davies; Katherine Young; Jared B Torre; Lisa J Burklund; Philippe R Goldin; Lily A Brown; Andrea N Niles; Matthew D Lieberman; Michelle G Craske Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2016-11-16 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: T Butler; H Pan; O Tuescher; A Engelien; M Goldstein; J Epstein; D Weisholtz; J C Root; X Protopopescu; A C Cunningham-Bussel; L Chang; X-H Xie; Q Chen; E A Phelps; J E Ledoux; E Stern; D A Silbersweig Journal: Neuroscience Date: 2007-09-26 Impact factor: 3.590
Authors: Amy Krain Roy; Zarrar Shehzad; Daniel S Margulies; A M Clare Kelly; Lucina Q Uddin; Kristin Gotimer; Bharat B Biswal; F Xavier Castellanos; Michael P Milham Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2008-12-09 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: E Kate Webb; Claire M Bird; Terri A deRoon-Cassini; Carissa N Weis; Ashley A Huggins; Jacklynn M Fitzgerald; Tara Miskovich; Kenneth Bennett; Jessica Krukowski; Lucas Torres; Christine L Larson Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-01-04
Authors: Waylin Yu; Christina M Caira; Natalia Del R Rivera Sanchez; Garrett A Moseley; Thomas L Kash Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-06-14 Impact factor: 4.379