| Literature DB >> 32471036 |
Liqun Kuang1, Yan Gao1, Zhongyu Chen1, Jiacheng Xing2, Fengguang Xiong1, And Xie Han1.
Abstract
Despite the severe social burden caused by Alzheimer's disease (AD), no drug than can change the disease progression has been identified yet. The structural brain network research provides an opportunity to understand physiological deterioration caused by AD and its precursor, mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Recently, persistent homology has been used to study brain network dynamics and characterize the global network organization. However, it is unclear how these parameters reflect changes in structural brain networks of patients with AD or MCI. In this study, our previously proposed persistent features and various traditional graph-theoretical measures are used to quantify the topological property of white matter (WM) network in 150 subjects with diffusion tensor imaging (DTI). We found significant differences in these measures among AD, MCI, and normal controls (NC) under different brain parcellation schemes. The decreased network integration and increased network segregation are presented in AD and MCI. Moreover, the persistent homology-based measures demonstrated stronger statistical capability and robustness than traditional graph-theoretic measures, suggesting that they represent a more sensitive approach to detect altered brain structures and to better understand AD symptomology at the network level. These findings contribute to an increased understanding of structural connectome in AD and provide a novel approach to potentially track the progression of AD.Entities:
Keywords: Alzheimer’s disease (AD); brain network; diffusion tensor imaging; graph theory; persistent homology
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32471036 PMCID: PMC7321261 DOI: 10.3390/molecules25112472
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Demographic information of the subjects.
| AD ( | MCI ( | NC ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male/Female | 22/18 | 42/35 | 18/15 | 0.999 |
| Age | 72.45 ± 5.60 | 74.22 ± 6.73 | 74.18 ± 8.28 | 0.388 |
| Education | 16.1 ± 2.72 | 15.57 ± 2.67 | 15.45 ± 2.81 | 0.443 |
| CDR | ≥1 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 |
(1) Keys: AD—Alzheimer’s disease; MCI—mild cognitive impairment; NC—normal control; and CDR—Clinical Dementia Rating. (2) Data is presented as means ± standard deviations. Statistical group significance was obtained using Kruskal–Wallis test [28].
Figure 1The original weighted white matter (WM) networks of the three groups, AD (a), MCI (b), and NC (c), where color bar shows the weights between any pair of region-of-interests (ROIs).
Figure 2Multiscale WM networks of the three groups, AD (a), MCI (b), and NC (c), at some filtrations where color bar shows the ROI index. The AD group shows more sparse connections (i.e., more segregated connected components) comparing to controls when the filtration values are smaller (λ ≤ 0.8).
Figure 3The persistent features plots of Betti number β (a) and IPF (b) for three groups of mean networks.
Figure 4Box plots of network indices for 150 subjects across the three groups. Here, 1, 2, and 3 represent AD, MCI, and NC, respectively. Network indices: (a) IPF—integrated persistent feature; (b) BNP—Betti number plot; (c) CPL—characteristic path length; (d) GE—global efficiency; (e) NS—nodal strength; (f) Mod—modularity; (g) CC—clustering coefficient; and (h) EC—eigenvector centrality.
Resulting p-values of differences across three groups evaluated by different measures on DK68 parcellation.
| IPF | BNP | CPL | GE | NS | Mod | CC | EC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AD vs. MCI | 0.084 | 0.095 | 0.355 | 0.235 | 0.372 | 0.322 | 0.308 | 0.234 |
| AD vs. NC | 0.0003 | 0.001 | 0.011 | 0.007 | 0.011 | 0.016 | 0.007 | 0.049 |
| MCI vs. NC | 0.007 | 0.015 | 0.014 | 0.021 | 0.012 | 0.024 | 0.011 | 0.113 |
| AD vs. MCI vs. NC | 0.002 | 0.003 | 0.020 | 0.016 | 0.020 | 0.046 | 0.014 | 0.470 |
Keys: AD—Alzheimer’s disease; MCI—mild cognitive impairment; NC—normal controls; IPF—integrated persistent feature; BNP—Betti number plot; CPL—characteristic path length; GE—global efficiency; NS—nodal strength; Mod—modularity; CC—clustering coefficient; and EC—eigenvector centrality.
Resulting p-values of differences across three groups validated by three parcellations.
| Parcellation | IPF | BNP | CPL | GE | NS | Mod | CC | EC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Differences on DK84 Atlas | ||||||||
| AD vs. MCI | ↑ | ↑ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| AD vs. NC | ↑ | ↑ | ↑ | ↓ | ↓ | ↑ | ↑ | ↑ |
| MCI vs. NC | ↑ | ↑ | ↑ | ↓a | ↓ | ↑ | ↑ | ↑ |
| Differences on AAL90 Atlas | ||||||||
| AD vs. MCI | ↑ | ↑ |
|
| ↓ | ↑ |
|
|
| AD vs. NC | ↑ | ↑ | ↑ | ↓ | ↓ | ↑ | ↓ | ↑ |
| MCI vs. NC | ↑ | ↑ | ↑ | ↓ | ↓ | ↑ | ↓ | ↑ |
| Differences on DK272 Atlas | ||||||||
| AD vs. MCI | ↑ | ↑ | ↑ | ↓ |
|
|
|
|
| AD vs. NC | ↑ | ↑ | ↑ | ↓ | ↓ | ↑ | ↑ | ↑ |
| MCI vs. NC | ↑ | ↑ | ↑ | ↓ | ↓ | ↑ | ↑ | ↑ |
(1) Parcellations: DK84, Desikan-Killiany atlas with 84 regions [31]; AAL90, automated anatomical labeling atlas with 90 regions [38]; DK272, subdivision Desikan-Killiany atlas with 272 regions [40]. (2) Keys: AD, Alzheimer’s disease; MCI, mild cognitive impairment; NC, normal controls; IPF, integrated persistent feature; BNP, Betti number plot; CPL, characteristic path length; GE, global efficiency; NS, nodal strength; Mod, modularity; CC, clustering coefficient; EC, eigenvector centrality. (3) Significances: a, p < 0.01; b, 0.01 ≤ p < 0.05; c, 0.05 ≤ p < 0.1; ns, p ≥ 0.1. (4) Trends: ↑, AD > NC or MCI > NC or AD > MCI; ↓, AD ≤ NC or MCI ≤ NC or AD ≤ MCI.
Resulting p-values of differences validated by different connectivity definitions.
| Between-Group | IPF | BNP | CPL | GE | NS | Mod | CC | EC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FA-based connectivity | ||||||||
| AD vs. MCI | 0.056 | 0.073 | 0.121 | 0.336 | 0.231 | 0.255 | 0.457 | 0.436 |
| AD vs. NC | 0.009 | 0.013 | 0.032 | 0.016 | 0.028 | 0.021 | 0.047 | 0.058 |
| MCI vs. NC | 0.013 | 0.022 | 0.044 | 0.042 | 0.025 | 0.022 | 0.037 | 0.086 |
| Spearman Correlation | ||||||||
| AD vs. MCI | 0.382 | 0.246 | 0.038 | 0.291 | 0.036 | 0.163 | 0.291 | 0.046 |
| AD vs. NC | 0.048 | 0.460 | 0.005 | 0.225 | 0.004 | 0.054 | 0.307 | 0.009 |
| MCI vs. NC | 0.026 | 0.302 | 0.114 | 0.225 | 0.111 | 0.184 | 0.138 | 0.147 |
| Partial Correlation | ||||||||
| AD vs. MCI | 0.320 | 0.483 | 0.406 | 0.255 | 0.394 | 0.433 | 0.023 | 0.247 |
| AD vs. NC | 0.022 | 0.045 | 0.061 | 0.065 | 0.063 | 0.373 | 0.141 | 0.064 |
| MCI vs. NC | 0.030 | 0.022 | 0.068 | 0.143 | 0.069 | 0.421 | 0.306 | 0.139 |
| Absolute value of Pearson correlation | ||||||||
| AD vs. MCI | 0.072 | 0.083 | 0.376 | 0.287 | 0.387 | 0.058 | 0.321 | 0.090 |
| AD vs. NC | 0.008 | 0.015 | 0.012 | 0.015 | 0.013 | 0.020 | 0.045 | 0.120 |
| MCI vs. NC | 0.012 | 0.024 | 0.013 | 0.043 | 0.012 | 0.388 | 0.071 | 0.235 |
Keys: AD—Alzheimer’s disease; MCI—mild cognitive impairment; NC—normal controls; FA—fractional anisotropy; IPF—integrated persistent feature; BNP—Betti number plot; CPL—characteristic path length; GE—global efficiency; NS—nodal strength; Mod—modularity; CC—clustering coefficient; and EC—eigenvector centrality.
Figure 5The workflow of brain network analysis based on graph theory and persistent homology. Keys: CPL—characteristic path length; GE—global efficiency; NS—nodal strength; Mod—modularity; CC—clustering coefficient; EC—eigenvector centrality; IPF—integrated persistent feature; and BNP—Betti number plot.
Figure 6An example illustrating the persistent feature BNP from a weighted network. (a) An example network G. (b) Two possible minimum spanning trees (MSTs). (c) Multiscale network by graph filtration at all possible scales. (d) The Betti number plot (BNP).