| Literature DB >> 32669346 |
Bhedita J Seewoo1,2,3, Lauren A Hennessy1,2, Kirk W Feindel3,4, Sarah J Etherington5, Paul E Croarkin6, Jennifer Rodger7,2.
Abstract
Prior research suggests that the neurobiological underpinnings of depression include aberrant brain functional connectivity, neurometabolite levels, and hippocampal volume. Chronic restraint stress (CRS) depression model in rats has been shown to elicit behavioral, gene expression, protein, functional connectivity, and hippocampal volume changes similar to those in human depression. However, no study to date has examined the association between behavioral changes and brain changes within the same animals. This study specifically addressed the correlation between the outcomes of behavioral tests and multiple 9.4 T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) modalities in the CRS model using data collected longitudinally in the same animals. CRS involved placing young adult male Sprague Dawley rats in individual transparent tubes for 2.5 h daily over 13 d. Elevated plus maze (EPM) and forced swim tests (FSTs) confirmed the presence of anxiety-like and depression-like behaviors, respectively, postrestraint. Resting-state functional MRI (rs-fMRI) data revealed hypoconnectivity within the salience and interoceptive networks and hyperconnectivity of several brain regions to the cingulate cortex. Proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy revealed decreased sensorimotor cortical glutamate (Glu), glutamine (Gln), and combined Glu-Gln (Glx) levels. Volumetric analysis of T2-weighted images revealed decreased hippocampal volume. Importantly, these changes parallel those found in human depression, suggesting that the CRS rodent model has utility for translational studies and novel intervention development for depression.Entities:
Keywords: animal model; chronic restraint stress; depression; hippocampus; resting-state fMRI; spectroscopy
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32669346 PMCID: PMC7396811 DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0113-20.2020
Source DB: PubMed Journal: eNeuro ISSN: 2373-2822
Weight of animals and size of restraints
| Body weightof animal (g) | Diameter ofrestraint (cm) | Maximum lengthof restraint (cm) |
|---|---|---|
| <255 | 5 | 19 |
| 255–300 | 5 | 23 |
| >300 | 6 | 21 |
Figure 1.Experimental timeline. The experiment consisted of an initial one-week period of habituation on arrival of the animals, after which the rats underwent EPM test (day 1). Following EPM, animals were habituated to single housing and sucrose solution for 8 h and deprived of food and water overnight (days 1–2). SPT was conducted the next day (day 2), followed by a preswim test. FST was conducted on day 3 and MRI on day 4. The animals then underwent CRS for 2.5 h daily for 13 consecutive days. The day after the end of CRS, animals underwent behavioral tests (days 18–20) and MRI (day 21) in the same order without a preswim test.
Figure 2.Voxel position for proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy. The figure shows the position of the voxel of interest (size of 3.5 × 2 × 6 mm) on the left sensorimotor cortex on T2-weighted images for proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy. R denotes right hemisphere.
Statistical table indicating the results of all analyses
| No | Fig. | Description | Statistics | Power | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EPM test | |||||
| aa |
| Open arm # | CRS group ( | Paired median difference= –1.0 | –1.0, –1.0 |
| ab | Healthy group ( | Paired median difference= –1.0 | –1.0, –1.0 | ||
| ac | Open arm time | CRS group ( | Paired median difference= –1.5 | –8.0, 0.0 | |
| ad | Healthy group ( | Paired median difference= –3.0 | –24.0, 0.0 | ||
| ae |
| Closed arm # | CRS group ( | Paired Cohen’s | –0.0122, 0.856 |
| af | Healthy group ( | Paired Cohen’s | –0.647, 0.51 | ||
| ag | Closed arm time | CRS group ( | Paired Cohen’s | –0.415, 0.777 | |
| ah | Healthy group ( | Paired Cohen’s | –0.848, 0.851 | ||
| ai |
| Grooming # | CRS group ( | Paired Cohen’s | –1.41, –0.357 |
| aj | Healthy group ( | Paired Cohen’s | –0.511, 1.17 | ||
| ak | Grooming time | CRS group ( | Paired Cohen’s | –1.09, –0.185 | |
| al | Healthy group ( | Paired Cohen’s | –1.11, 0.352 | ||
| am |
| Rearing # | CRS group ( | Paired Cohen’s | –0.732, 0.327 |
| an | Healthy group ( | Paired Cohen’s | –0.852, 1.13 | ||
| ao | Rearing time | CRS group ( | Paired Cohen’s | –0.364, 0.73 | |
| ap | Healthy group ( | Paired Cohen’s | –0.639, 0.552 | ||
| SPT | |||||
| aq | CRS group ( | Paired Cohen’s | –0.294, 0.889 | ||
| ar | Healthy group ( | Paired Cohen’s | –1.52, 0.831 | ||
| FST | |||||
| as |
| Total | CRS group ( | Paired Cohen’s | –1.19, –0.0902 |
| at | Healthy group ( | Paired Cohen’s | –1.91, 0.489 | ||
| au |
| Swimming | CRS group ( | Paired Cohen’s | –0.526, 0.489 |
| av | Healthy group ( | Paired Cohen’s | –1.54, 1.17 | ||
| aw | Climbing | CRS group ( | Paired Cohen’s | –1.22, –0.202 | |
| ax | Healthy group ( | Paired Cohen’s | –1.92, 0.327 | ||
| ay |
| Immobility | CRS group ( | Paired Cohen’s | 0.0902, 1.19 |
| az | Healthy group ( | Paired Cohen’s | 0.0902, 1.19 | ||
| ba | Latency | CRS group ( | Paired Cohen’s | –2.03, –0.578 | |
| bb | Healthy group ( | Paired Cohen’s | –1.59, 1.21 | ||
| rs-fMRI | |||||
| bc |
| ICA/dual regression | CRS group with all restraint data [baseline: | Dual regression | |
| bd | CRS group with restraint data based on FST findings [baseline: | Dual regression | |||
| be |
| Salience network | Unpaired Cohen’s | –3.2, –1.29 | |
| bf | Salience network | Unpaired Cohen’s | –1.68, 0.93 | ||
| bg |
| Interoceptive network | Unpaired Cohen’s | –2.13, –0.574 | |
| bh | Interoceptive network | Unpaired Cohen’s | –1.47, 0.685 | ||
| bi |
| Seed-based analysis | CRS group with all restraint data [baseline: | Higher-level FEAT | |
| bj |
| CRS group (baseline: | Unpaired Cohen’s | 0.712, 2.18 | |
| bk | Healthy group (baseline: | Unpaired Cohen’s | –0.318, 1.74 | ||
| Proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy | |||||
| bl |
| Gln | CRS group ( | Paired Cohen’s | –1.19, –0.0217 |
| bm | Healthy group ( | Paired Cohen’s | –0.127, 1.95 | ||
| bn |
| Glu | CRS group ( | Paired Cohen’s | –1.46, 0.134 |
| bo | Healthy group ( | Paired Cohen’s | –2.15, –0.122 | ||
| bp |
| Gln + Glu | CRS group ( | Paired Cohen’s | –1.49, –0.115 |
| bq | Healthy group ( | Paired Cohen’s | –1.83, 1.12 | ||
| br | GABA | CRS group ( | Paired Cohen’s | –0.959, 0.632 | |
| bs | Healthy group ( | Paired Cohen’s | –1.82, 0.926 | ||
| bt | Gln/Glu | CRS group ( | Paired Cohen’s | –0.767, 0.275 | |
| bu | Healthy group ( | Paired Cohen’s | 0.45, 2.51 | ||
| Animal weight and whole-brain volume | |||||
| bv |
| Spearman’s rank correlation rho because baseline weights were not normally distributed [ | Mean whole-brain volume to weight ratio = 6.64 ± 0.16 mm3/g | ||
| Hippocampal volume | |||||
| bw |
| CRS group ( | Paired Cohen’s | –1.33, –0.318 | |
| bx | Healthy group ( | Paired Cohen’s | –1.64, 0.467 | ||
| Correlations | |||||
| by |
| Latency and salience network functional connectivity (not normal; Spearman’s rank correlationrho; | |||
| bz |
| Latency and interoceptive network functional connectivity (not normal; Spearman’s rank correlationrho; | |||
| ca |
| Salience and interoceptive network functional connectivity (not normal; Spearman’s rank correlationrho; | |||
| cb |
| Latency and cingulate cortex functional connectivity (not normal; Spearman’s rank correlationrho; | |||
| cc |
| Cingulate cortex and salience network functional connectivity (not normal; Spearman’s rankcorrelation rho; | |||
| cd |
| Cingulate cortex and interoceptive network functional connectivity (not normal; Spearman’srank correlation rho; | |||
| ce |
| Latency and Glx/tCr (latency not normal; Spearman’s rank correlation rho; | |||
| cf |
| Latency and hippocampal volume (latency not normal; Spearman’s rank correlation rho; | |||
| cg |
| Postrestraint latency and baseline hippocampal volume of CRS group (normal; Pearson’s product-moment correlation; | –0.116, 0.641 | ||
| ch |
| Hippocampal volume and salience network functional connectivity (salience network functionalconnectivity not normal; Spearman’s rank correlation rho; | |||
| ci |
| Hippocampal volume and interoceptive network functional connectivity (interoceptive networkfunctional connectivity not normal; Spearman’s rank correlation rho; | |||
| cj |
| Hippocampal volume and cingulate cortex functional connectivity (cingulate cortex functionalconnectivity not normal; Spearman’s rank correlation rho; | |||
Each analysis includes a letter indicator linking the test in the table to the analysis in the text. The link to the corresponding figure, if any, is indicated under Fig. The estimation statistics, critical value, degrees of freedom, and exact p values are listed for each test under statistics, and the CIs of the tests and mean ± SE are under power.
Number of animals are different between groups and among tests because (1) one animal fell off the open arm during baseline EPM testing and baseline and postrestraint EPM data from this animal was excluded from the analyses; (2) FST trials during which the animals managed to escape more than once or were floating horizontally for the duration of the test (with most of their body being completely dry at the end) were excluded from the analyses; (3) sessions during which the CRLB of a metabolite of interest was greater than 20% in the 1H-MRS data were excluded from the analyses; (4) not all animals were imaged at baseline and following restraint because of limited access to the MRI instrument and time taken to scan each animal (∼1.5 h per animal); and (5) animals with variable physiology (e.g., rapidly increasing/decreasing breathing rates) during rs-fMRI scans were excluded from the analyses.
Figure 3.Effect of CRS on exploration in open () and closed () arms and on stress-response behaviors () displayed during EPM test. Exploration (open and closed arm entries and time spent) and stress-related behaviors (grooming and rearing) were measured for 5 min. , Total number of entries and time spent in open arms. The paired median differences for two comparisons are shown in the Cumming estimation plots. , Total number of entries and time spent in closed arms. , Number of grooming behaviors and time spent grooming. , Number of rearing behaviors and time spent rearing. The Cohen’s d for two comparisons are shown in the Cumming estimation plots. The raw data are plotted on the upper axes; each paired set of observations is connected by a line. On the lower axes, each paired difference is plotted as a bootstrap sampling distribution. Mean differences are depicted as dots; 95% CIs are indicated by the ends of the vertical error bars.
Figure 4.Effect of CRS on behaviors displayed during FST. Active behaviors (climbing and swimming) and immobility were measured for 5 min. , Decrease in active behaviors following 13 d of CRS and no change in the healthy control group. , No change in swimming scores in both groups and decrease in climbing in the CRS group only. , Increase in immobility and a decrease in time to first immobility behavior (known as latency time) following 13 d of CRS and no change in the healthy control group. The Cohen’s d for two comparisons are shown in the Cumming estimation plots. The raw data are plotted on the upper axes; each paired set of observations is connected by a line. On the lower axes, each paired mean difference is plotted as a bootstrap sampling distribution. Mean differences are depicted as dots; 95% CIs are indicated by the ends of the vertical error bars.
Figure 5.Decreased functional connectivity within the salience and interoceptive networks following CRS as detected by dual regression (, ) and corresponding Cumming estimation plots (, ). The figure illustrates coronal and corresponding axial slices of spatial statistical color-coded maps overlaid on the rat brain atlas (down-sampled by a factor of eight). , , Two RSNs (, salience network; , interoceptive network) identified in the baseline rs-fMRI scans of six- to seven-week-old male Sprague Dawley rats under isoflurane-medetomidine anesthesia. The RSN maps are represented as z scores (n = 33, thresholded at z > 3), with a higher z score (yellow) representing a greater correlation between the time course of that voxel and the mean time course of the component. The changes in the functional connectivity within the two RSNs following 13 d of CRS are represented as p values (thresholded at p < 0.05; baseline, n = 33; restraint, n = 15; restraint based on FST result, n = 9). R denotes right hemisphere. Significant clusters include various brain regions: 1, motor cortex; 2, somatosensory cortex; 3, frontal association cortex; 4, striatum/caudate putamen; 5, auditory cortex; 6, insular cortex; 7, retrosplenial cortex. The Cohen’s d for two comparisons are shown in the Cumming estimation plots below the associated statistical map (, ). The raw data are plotted on the upper axes; each mean difference is plotted on the lower axes as a bootstrap sampling distribution. Mean differences are depicted as dots; 95% CIs are indicated by the ends of the vertical error bars.
Summary of changes in functional connectivity within the interoceptive and salience networks when using all rs-fMRI data from postrestraint timepoint versus using a subset of animals showing greatest behavioral changes in FST
| RSN | Contrast | Minimum | Total number of significant voxels |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interoceptive network | Baseline > Restraint | 0.005 | 32 |
| Baseline > RestraintFST | 0.012 | 60 | |
| Salience network | Baseline > Restraint | 0.029 | 11 |
| Baseline > RestraintFST | 0.002 | 127 |
Figure 6.Increased functional connectivity to the cingulate cortex following CRS as detected by seed-based analysis () and corresponding Cumming estimation plots (). The figure illustrates coronal and corresponding axial slices of spatial statistical color-coded maps overlaid on the rat brain atlas (down-sampled by a factor of eight). , Changes in the functional connectivity of the cingulate cortex between baseline and following 13 d of CRS as spatial color-coded Z (Gaussianized T/F) statistic images corrected for multiple comparisons at cluster level (thresholded at p < 0.05; baseline, n = 33; restraint, n = 15). R denotes right hemisphere. Significant clusters include various brain regions: 8, visual cortex; 9, inferior colliculus; 10, thalamus; 11, superior colliculus; 12, dentate gyrus; 13, CA3. The Cohen’s d for two comparisons are shown in the Cumming estimation plots below the associated statistical map (). The raw data are plotted on the upper axes; each mean difference is plotted on the lower axes as a bootstrap sampling distribution. Mean differences are depicted as dots; 95% CIs are indicated by the ends of the vertical error bars.
Figure 7.Representative spectra obtained from LCModel for proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy data at baseline () and restraint timepoints () for the CRS group and effect of restraint on Gln (), Glu (), and Glx (). The figure shows spectra from a representative animal at baseline () and after 13 d of CRS () depicting longitudinally reproducible peaks of various metabolites quantified using the LCModel. , Cumming estimation plots showing paired Cohen’s d for two comparisons each. The raw data are plotted on the upper axes; each paired set of observations is connected by a line. On the lower axes, each paired mean difference is plotted as a bootstrap sampling distribution. Mean differences are depicted as dots; 95% CIs are indicated by the ends of the vertical error bars.
Figure 8.Correlation between weight of animals and whole-brain volume at baseline () and percentage hippocampal volume before and after CRS (). , Whole-brain volumes (mm3) plotted against the animal’s weight at baseline (n = 74). Correlation was determined using Spearman’s rank correlation method. In , hippocampal volumes were calculated as a percentage of whole-brain volume. , Decrease in percentage hippocampal volume following 13 d of CRS and no change in the healthy control group. The Cohen’s d for two comparisons are shown in the Cumming estimation plots. The raw data are plotted on the upper axes; each paired set of observations is connected by a line. On the lower axes, each paired mean difference is plotted as a bootstrap sampling distribution. Mean differences are depicted as dots; 95% CIs are indicated by the ends of the vertical error bars.
Figure 9.Correlations between behavioral tests and MRI measures. In , Comparisons of the following parameters from both CRS and healthy control groups at both timepoints were made by Spearman correlations: latency time from FST data; connectivity (average parameter estimates) of the salience network, interoceptive network and cingulate cortex from the rs-fMRI data; and Glx/tCr ratio from 1H-MRS data (no multiple comparison correction). In , hippocampal volumes were calculated as a percentage of whole-brain volume and compared to latency time from FST data (, ), and functional brain connectivity () (no multiple comparison correction). In , Pearson’s correlation was performed between baseline percentage hippocampal volume of CRS group and postrestraint latency to first immobility behavior during FST of the same animals (baseline, n = 23; restraint, n = 23). Data points with triangular shape represent the nine animals, which were used for FST-based ICA/dual regression analysis.