| Literature DB >> 33395965 |
Angeliki Zarkali1, Peter McColgan2, Mina Ryten3, Regina H Reynolds3, Louise-Ann Leyland4, Andrew J Lees5, Geraint Rees6, Rimona S Weil7.
Abstract
Parkinson's dementia is a common and devastating part of Parkinson's disease. Whilst timing and severity vary, dementia in Parkinson's is often preceded by visual dysfunction. White matter changes, representing axonal loss, occur early in the disease process. Clarifying which white matter connections are affected in Parkinson's with visual dysfunction and why specific connections are vulnerable will provide important mechanistic insights. Here, we use diffusion tractography in 100 Parkinson's patients (33 low visual performers) and 34 controls to identify patterns of connectivity loss in Parkinson's with visual dysfunction. We examine the relationship between regional transcription and connectivity loss, using the Allen Institute for Brain Science transcriptome atlas. We show that interhemispheric connections are preferentially affected in Parkinson's low visual performers. Interhemispheric connection loss was associated with downweighted genes related to the smoothened signalling pathway (enriched in glutamatergic neurons) and upweighted metabolic genes. Risk genes for Parkinson's but not Alzheimer's or Dementia with Lewy bodies were over-represented in upweighted genes associated with interhemispheric connection loss. Our findings suggest selective vulnerability in Parkinson's patients at highest risk of dementia (those with visual dysfunction), where differences in gene expression and metabolic dysfunction, affecting longer connections with higher metabolic burden, drive connectivity loss.Entities:
Keywords: Connectomics; Diffusion weighted imaging; Parkinson’s disease; Parkinson’s disease dementia; Regional gene expression; White matter
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33395965 PMCID: PMC7581968 DOI: 10.1016/j.nicl.2020.102470
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neuroimage Clin ISSN: 2213-1582 Impact factor: 4.881
Demographics and clinical characteristics in controls, PD high visual performers and PD low visual performers.
| Characteristic | Controls | PD high visual performers | PD low visual performers | Statistic |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demographics | ||||
| Age (years) | 66.4 (9.3) | |||
| Male (%) | 16 (45.7) | 32 (47.8) | 21 (63.6) | x2 = 2.26 |
| Total intracranial volume (ml) | 1397.3 (106.4) | 1462.6 (124.8) | 1469.4 (139.1) | t = 0.25 |
| Mood | ||||
| HADS anxiety | 3.8 (3.5) | 5.9 (3.8) | 6.2 (4.7) | U = 1139.5 |
| HADS depression | 1.7 (2.0) | |||
| Vision | ||||
| Contrast sensitivity (Pelli Robson) | 1.8 (0.2) | |||
| Acuity (LogMar) | −0.08 (0.2) | −0.09 (0.2) | −0.06 (0.1) | U = 1349 |
| Colour (D15) | 1.3 (1.2) | 1.2 (0.9) | 1.6 (1.7) | U = 1227 |
| Cognition | ||||
| MOCA | 28.8 (1.3) | |||
| MMSE | 29.0 (1.0) | 29.0 (1.1) | 28.8 (1.4) | U = 942.5 |
| Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) | – | 11 (16.4) | 15 (45.5) | x2 = 8.239 |
| Disease Specific | ||||
| Years from diagnosis | – | 3.9 (2.6) | 4.7 (2.8) | t = 1.51 |
| UPDRS total score | – | 43.1 (18.7) | 49.2 (26.0) | U = 1221 |
| UPDRS motor score | – | 23 (10.1) | 23.5 (14.3) | U = 1134 |
| Hallucinations (within the last week) | 9 (13.4) | 10 (30.3) | x2 = 3.07 | |
| LEDD | – | 427.7 (270.5) | 491.0 (213.9) | t = 825 |
| RBDSQ | – | 4.4 (2.7) | 4.2 (2.2) | U = 1118 |
| Smell (Sniffin sticks) | – | 7.9 (3.2) | 6.7 (3.2) | U = 868 |
| Image Quality metrics | ||||
| Coefficient of joint variation | 0.7 (0.2) | 0.7 (0.2) | 0.7 (0.3) | t = -1.14 |
| Entropy focus criterion | 0.7 (0.04) | 0.7 (0.03) | 0.7 (0.03) | t = -1.01 |
| Total Signal to noise ratio | 7.7 (0.8) | 8.2 (1.1) | 8.0 (1.0) | t = 1.00 |
All data shown are mean (SD) except gender, MCI, and hallucinations. p values reported for the comparison between PD low visual performers and PD high visual performers. In bold significant results. HADS: Hospital anxiety and depression scale; MMSE: Mini-mental state examination; MOCA: Montreal cognitive assessment; UPDRS: Unified Parkinson’s disease rating scale; LEDD: Total Levodopa equivalent dose; RBDSQ: REM sleep behaviour disorder screening questionnaire.
Best binocular score used; LogMAR: lower score implies better performance, Pelli Robson: higher score implies better performance.
Higher values imply worse image quality,
Higher values imply better image quality.
Fig. 1Overview of the study methodology. A1. Anatomically constrained tractography was used to determine white matter streamlines from diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) data for each participant. A2. DWI data were combined with anatomical parcellation of 379 brain regions using the Glasser atlas to generate a connectivity matrix for each participant. A3. Connection types were classified into interhemispheric (between hemispheres), intrahemispheric (within a hemisphere), intramodular (within a cortical module) and subcortial-cortical (between the subcortical regions and a cortical module). A4. Connection strength in different connection types was compared between PD low visual performers and PD high visual performers. B1. Gene expression data were extracted from the Allen Brain atlas and genes passing threshold expression were chosen. B2. Allen atlas samples were mapped into the 180 cortical regions from the left hemisphere according to the anatomical parcellation and an average cortical regional gene expression was calculated for each gene. B3. Partial least squares regression was performed for interhemispheric and basal ganglia-cortical connections in PD low visual performers. The regional gene expression in PD low visual performers associated with interhemispheric and subcortical-cortical white matter loss was calculated based on normalised gene weightings of the second PLS component. B4. Enrichment analysis was performed for the downweighted and upweighted genes that were significantly associated with connection loss for both connection types. Enrichment analysis included Gene Ontology (GO) biological processes, Expression-weighted Cell-type Enrichment analysis (EWCE) and enrichment for specific gene lists for PD, Alzheimer’s, Dementia with Lewy Bodies.
Fig. 2Module assignment and connection types A. Left: Module assignment derived using the Louvain community detection algorithm on the group average control network. This resulted in 8 cortical modules: frontal, left motor, right motor-parietal, left temporal-parietal, right temporal, left occipital and right occipital-temporal. Right: Connections were divided into Interhemispheric: defined as the sum of streamline weights (connection strength) between modules in different hemispheres, Intrahemispheric: sum of streamline weights (connection strength) between modules in the same hemisphere, Intramodular: sum of streamline weights (connection strength) within the same cortical module, and Subcortical-cortical: the sum of streamline weights (connection strength) from subcortical regions to a cortical module. B. Hierarchy of connection vulnerability. Mixed linear model results for connectome analysis: patients with Parkinson’s (PD) low visual performers vs. PD high visual performers. Interhemispheric connections are most affected, followed by subcortical-cortical connections, with intrahemispheric and intramodular connections showing preserved connectivity strength. Figure illustrates the individual connections showing changes in connectivity strength in PD low visual performers. The thickness of the line represents absolute effect size (difference in connectivity strength in PD low visual performers). Red: Reduced connectivity strength, Green: Increased connectivity strength, Grey: No significant difference in conncectivity strength. F: frontal, T: temporal; M: motor-parietal; V: occipital, B: Subcortical. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Differences in connection strength in patients with Parkinson’s disease and low visual performance for different connection types.
| Left occipital to right occipital-temporal | |||||
| Left occipital to right motor-parietal | −2.074 | −811.5 | −1578.5, −44.6 | 0.038 | 0.095 |
| Left occipital to right temporal | −1.779 | −6026.4 | −12666.9, 614.1 | 0.075 | 0.150 |
| Left occipital to right frontal | −1.209 | −13397.5 | −35111.2, 8316.1 | 0.227 | 0.322 |
| Left temporoparietal to right occipital-temporal | −1.733 | −357.3 | −761.5, 46.8 | 0.083 | 0.159 |
| Left temporoparietal to right motor-parietal | |||||
| Left temporoparietal to right temporal | −0.687 | −408.2 | −1572.8, 756.4 | 0.492 | 0.610 |
| Left temporoparietal to right frontal | −2.287 | −2607.4 | −4842.2, −372.6 | 0.022 | 0.065 |
| Left motor to right occipital-temporal | −2.19 | −596.8 | −1130.8, −62.8 | 0.029 | 0.080 |
| Left motor to right motor-parietal | |||||
| Left motor to right temporal | −1.404 | −788.8 | −1890.4, 312.7 | 0.16 | 0.282 |
| Left motor to right frontal | |||||
| Left frontal to right occipital-temporal | −2.398 | −5578 | −10137.8, −1018.3 | 0.016 | 0.058 |
| Left frontal to right motor-parietal | |||||
| Left frontal to right temporal | −2.378 | −13754.1 | −25090.6, 2417.5 | 0.017 | 0.058 |
| Left frontal to right frontal | |||||
| Left subcortical to occipital | −2.339 | −330.1 | −606.8, −53.4 | 0.019 | 0.060 |
| Left subcortical to temporoparietal | −2.447 | −92.5 | −166.6, −18.4 | 0.014 | 0.058 |
| Left subcortical to motor | −1.284 | −28.1 | −70.9, 14.8 | 0.199 | 0.302 |
| Left subcortical to frontal | −2.058 | −46.7 | −91.2, −2.2 | 0.04 | 0.095 |
| Right subcortical to occipital-temporal | |||||
| Right subcortical to motor-parietal | −1.857 | −36.7 | −75.5, 2.0 | 0.063 | 0.132 |
| Right subcortical to temporal | −1.298 | −178.3 | −447.6, 90.9 | 0.194 | 0.302 |
| Right subcortical to frontal | −2.042 | −42.2 | −82.7, −1.7 | 0.041 | 0.095 |
| Left occipital to temporoparietal | −0.334 | −14.1 | −96.9, 68.7 | 0.738 | 0.833 |
| Left occipital to motor | 0.218 | 25.5 | −203.7, 254.7 | 0.827 | 0.859 |
| Left occipital to frontal | −1.882 | −1383 | −2823.5, 57.5 | 0.06 | 0.132 |
| Left temporoparietal to motor | 1.361 | 50.6 | –22.3, 123.4 | 0.174 | 0.294 |
| Left temporoparietal to frontal | −0.943 | −68.5 | −210.9, 73.9 | 0.346 | 0.461 |
| Left motor to frontal | 2.473 | 110.2 | 22.8, 197.6 | 0.013 | 0.058 |
| Right occipital-temporal to motor-parietal | 0.264 | 10.1 | −65.1, 85.4 | 0.792 | 0.859 |
| Right occipital-temporal to temporal | −0.203 | −15.2 | −161.7, 131.3 | 0.839 | 0.859 |
| Right occipital-temporal to frontal | −0.451 | −32.1 | −230.4, 144.2 | 0.652 | 0.755 |
| Right motor-parietal to temporal | −0.896 | −71.9 | −229.1, 85.4 | 0.37 | 0.479 |
| Right motor-parietal to frontal | 1.313 | 46.5 | −22.9, 115.9 | 0.189 | 0.302 |
| Right temporal to frontal | −0.676 | −182.8 | −713.2, 347.5 | 0.499 | 0.610 |
| Left occipital | 0.245 | 1 | −7.2, 9.3 | 0.806 | 0.859 |
| Left temporoparietal | 1.58 | 5.3 | −1.3, 11.9 | 0.114 | 0.209 |
| Left motor | |||||
| Left frontal | 0.944 | 5.4 | −5.8, 16.6 | 0.345 | 0.461 |
| Right occipital-temporal | −0.005 | −0.1 | −4.9, 4.9 | 0.996 | 0.996 |
| Right motor-parietal | 2.383 | 11.9 | 2.1, 21.8 | 0.017 | 0.058 |
| Right temporal | 0.641 | 7.6 | −15.6, 30.8 | 0.522 | 0.621 |
| Right frontal | 1.231 | 6.8 | −4.0, 17.5 | 0.218 | 0.320 |
t: t value for the specific intercept on the mixed linear model (covariates: age and gender); q value: FDR corrected p value;
* negative value indicates lower connection strength in PD low visual performance compared with PD high visual performance. In bold values that are statistically significant (corrected for multiple comparisons)
Fig. 3Correlation between connection length and white matter connectivity loss in PD low visual performers. A. Distribution of connection length for different connection types. Average connection length was calculated for each connection in control participants. B. Correlation between connection length and white matter loss in PD low visual performers. Connection strength was normalised against control participants using Z-scores, then transformed into positive connectivity loss measures using a tanh transform. Average transformed connection strength score for PD low visual performers is plotted against connection-weighted path length for average control, and Spearman rank correlations were performed. Connections are color-coded according to type. C. Correlation between connection length and white matter loss in PD low visual performers for individual connection types.
Fig. 4Enrichment analyses results for down- and up-weighted genes associated with interhemispheric connection loss in PD low visual performers. A. Significant gene ontology (GO) terms for biological processes associated with the second component of the partial least squares analysis plotted in semantic space, where similar terms are clustered together (Left panel: downweighted genes; Right panel: upweighted genes). The top five most significant GO terms are labelled for each analysis. Redundant GO terms have been excluded. Markers are scaled based on the log10 q value for the significance of each GO term. Larger and darker circles are highly significant, while smaller and lighter circles are less significant (see colour bar). B. Expression-weighted cell-type enrichment analysis (EWCE) using the AIBS dataset. EWCE uses single cell transcriptomes to generate the probability distribution associated with a gene list having an average level of expression within a cell type. Data are presented as standard deviations from the mean. Standard deviations from the mean indicate the distance of the mean expression of the target gene lists from the mean expression of the bootstrap replicates. Marked with * are statistically significant (FDR corrected) results. C. Region of interest weights for partial least squares regression analyses. Brain regions displayed on brain mesh. Size of region indicates size of region of interest weight. Figure plotted using BrainNet Viewer [45].
Gene Ontology (GO) terms for biological processes associated with significantly Downweighted and Upweighted genes from the second component of partial least squares regression (PLS2).
| Interhemispheric connections | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Downweighted Genes | |||||
| GO term | Description | q value | B | N | b |
| GO:0007224 | smoothened signaling pathway | 1.89E-02 | 146 | 734 | 19 |
| Upweighted Genes | |||||
| GO term | Description | q value | B | N | b |
| GO:1901615 | organic hydroxy compound metabolic process | 1.87E-07 | 557 | 239 | 30 |
| GO:0006066 | alcohol metabolic process | 1.67E-06 | 377 | 192 | 21 |
| GO:1902644 | tertiary alcohol metabolic process | 9.84E-06 | 20 | 19 | 4 |
| GO:1901617 | organic hydroxy compound biosynthetic process | 3.14E-05 | 268 | 134 | 14 |
| GO:0006695 | cholesterol biosynthetic process | 7.50E-05 | 71 | 125 | 8 |
| Subcortical-cortical connections | |||||
| Downweighted Genes | |||||
| GO term | Description | q value | B | N | b |
| GO:0042552 | myelination | 2.90E-06 | 140 | 146 | 12 |
| GO:0007272 | ensheathment of neurons | 3.70E-06 | 143 | 146 | 12 |
| GO:0008366 | axon ensheathment | 3.70E-06 | 143 | 146 | 12 |
| GO:0019375 | galactolipid biosynthetic process | 2.60E-03 | 6 | 76 | 3 |
| GO:0006682 | galactosylceramide biosynthetic process | 2.60E-03 | 6 | 76 | 3 |
| Upweighted Genes | |||||
| GO term | Description | q value | B | N | b |
| GO:0035249 | synaptic transmission, glutamatergic | 2.07E-04 | 105 | 762 | 19 |
| GO:0022008 | neurogenesis | 2.31E-04 | 1683 | 1378 | 187 |
| GO:0050804 | modulation of chemical synaptic transmission | 3.77E-04 | 457 | 762 | 45 |
| GO:0099177 | regulation of | 4.01E-04 | 458 | 762 | 45 |
| GO:0060078 | regulation of postsynaptic membrane potential | 8.56E-04 | 149 | 762 | 22 |
The top five most significant GO terms are displayed for each connection type. Full GO terms are presented in Supplementary Table S5.
q value: log10 of the FDR adjusted p value; B: Total number of genes associated with a specific GO term;
b:Number of genes in the intersection ; N: Number of genes in the target set (query size).
Fig. 5Enrichment analyses results for down- and up-weighted genes associated with subcortical-cortical connection loss in PD low visual performers. A. Significant gene ontology (GO) terms for biological processes associated with the second component of the partial least squares analysis plotted in semantic space, where similar terms are clustered together (Left panel: downweighted genes; Right panel: upweighted genes). The top five most significant GO terms are labelled for each analysis. Redundant GO terms have been excluded. Markers are scaled based on the log10 q value for the significance of each GO term. Larger and darker circles are highly significant, while smaller and lighter circles are less significant (see colour bar). B. Expression-weighted cell-type enrichment analysis (EWCE) using the AIBS dataset. EWCE uses single cell transcriptomes to generate the probability distribution associated with a gene list having an average level of expression within a cell type. Data are presented as standard deviations from the mean. Standard deviations from the mean indicate the distance of the mean expression of the target gene lists from the mean expression of the bootstrap replicates. Marked with * are statistically significant (FDR corrected) results. C. Region of interest weights for partial least squares regression analyses. Brain regions displayed on brain mesh. Size of region indicates size of region of interest weight. Figure plotted using BrainNet Viewer [45].