| Literature DB >> 35069281 |
Lei Zhao1,2,3, Donglin Wang1,2,3, Shao-Wei Xue1,2,3, Zhonglin Tan4, Hong Luo1,2,3, Yan Wang1,2,3, Hanxiaoran Li1,2,3, Chenyuan Pan1,2,3, Sufen Fu1,2,3, Xiwen Hu4, Zhihui Lan1,2,3, Yang Xiao1,2,3, Changxiao Kuai1,2,3.
Abstract
Deficits in emotion regulation are the main clinical features, common risk factors, and treatment-related targets for major depressive disorder (MDD). The neural bases of emotion regulation are moving beyond specific functions and emphasizing instead the integrative functions of spatially distributed brain areas that work together as large-scale brain networks, but it is still unclear whether the dynamic interactions among these emotion networks would be the target of clinical intervention for MDD. Data were collected from 70 MDD patients and 43 sex- and age-matched healthy controls. The dynamic functional connectivity (dFC) between emotion regions was estimated via a sliding-window method based on resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (R-fMRI). A k-means clustering method was applied to classify all time windows across all participants into several dFC states reflecting recurring functional interaction patterns among emotion regions over time. The results showed that four dFC states were identified in the emotion networks. Their alterations of state-related occurrence proportion were found in MDD and subsequently normalized following 12-week antidepressant treatment. Baseline strong dFC could predict the reduction rate of Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) scores. These findings highlighted the state-dependent reconfiguration of emotion regulation networks in MDD patients owing to antidepressant treatment.Entities:
Keywords: antidepressants; dynamic functional connectivity; emotion regulation; major depressive disorder; recurring functional interaction patterns
Year: 2022 PMID: 35069281 PMCID: PMC8770425 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.771147
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychiatry ISSN: 1664-0640 Impact factor: 4.157
The MNI coordinates of the ROIs within four large-scale brain networks enrolled in emotion regulation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| 1 | Superior Frontal Gyrus (L) | 0 | 24 | 50 |
| 2 | Middle Frontal Gyrus (R) | 40 | 24 | 42 |
| 3 | Inferior Parietal Lobule (R) | 58 | −52 | 38 |
| 4 | Inferior Parietal Lobule (L) | −58 | −50 | 44 |
| 5 | Middle Frontal Gyrus (L) | −36 | 52 | −2 |
| 6 | Middle Frontal Gyrus (L) | −42 | 14 | 48 |
| 7 | Middle Frontal Gyrus (R) | 42 | 46 | −8 |
| 8 | Insula (R) | 36 | 16 | 6 |
| 9 | Cingulate Gyrus (R) | 2 | −22 | 30 |
| 10 | Precuneus (R) | 10 | −64 | 36 |
|
| ||||
| 11 | Inferior Frontal Gyrus (L) | −46 | 24 | −8 |
| 12 | Superior Frontal Gyrus (L) | −4 | 10 | 62 |
| 13 | Inferior Frontal Gyrus (R) | 50 | 28 | −8 |
| 14 | Superior Temporal Gyrus (L) | −46 | −52 | 28 |
| 15 | Middle Temporal Gyrus (L) | −54 | −34 | −2 |
| 16 | Middle Frontal Gyrus (L) | −44 | 6 | 50 |
| 17 | Superior Frontal Gyrus (L) | −30 | 48 | 26 |
| 18 | Caudate (L) | −16 | 10 | 12 |
| 19 | Tuber (R) | 36 | −60 | −30 |
|
| ||||
| 20 | Amygdala (L) | −22 | −4 | −16 |
| 21 | Amygdala (R) | 24 | −4 | −18 |
| 22 | Fusiform Gyrus (R) | 40 | −46 | −18 |
| 23 | Thalamus (R) | 6 | −26 | 0 |
| 24 | Fusiform Gyrus (L) | −38 | −54 | −14 |
| 25 | Parahippocampal Gyrus (L) | −22 | −28 | −4 |
| 26 | Medial Frontal Gyrus (B) | 0 | 54 | −10 |
| 27 | Inferior Occipital Gyrus (L) | −42 | −76 | −6 |
|
| ||||
| 28 | Postcentral Gyrus (L) | −58 | −22 | 32 |
| 29 | Insula (L) | −44 | −4 | 10 |
| 30 | Superior Parietal Lobule (L) | −28 | −52 | 56 |
| 31 | Postcentral Gyrus (R) | 62 | −22 | 30 |
| 32 | Cuneus (L) | −10 | −76 | 22 |
| 33 | Middle Occipital Gyrus (L) | −48 | −74 | 2 |
| 34 | Thalamus (R) | 10 | −26 | −4 |
| 35 | Precuneus (R) | 28 | −60 | 38 |
| 36 | Posterior Cingulate (R) | 16 | −56 | 16 |
B, bilateral; L, left; R, right; LBN, large-scale brain network.
Figure 1The schematic diagram of dFC analysis. dFC, dynamic functional connectivity; FC, functional connectivity; HAMD, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale; ROI, region of interest; RR, reduction rate.
Demographic and clinical data.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex (male/female) | 70 (21/49) | 43 (16/27) | 0.428 | 0.629 |
| Age (years) | 26.93 ± 9.14 | 29.42 ± 12.55 | 0.226 | −1.217 |
| Mean FD | 0.11 ± 0.05 | 0.12 ± 0.06 | 0.300 | −1.041 |
| HAMD | 28.06 ± 6.67 | 1.35 ± 1.38 | <0.001 | 25.647 |
| Duration of illness (months) | 7.37 ± 12.60 | |||
| Episodes | ||||
| First | 43 | |||
| Recurrence | 27 | |||
| Medication history | 29 |
The data were presented as the mean ± standard deviation. HC, healthy controls; MDD, major depressive disorder; HAMD, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale; FD, framewise-displacement.
The p-value was obtained by a chi-square test.
The p-value was obtained by a two-tailed two-sample t-test.
Figure 2Intra- and between-group comparisons in dynamic measures. (A) Functional interaction patterns are represented by four states. The mean occurrence proportion of each state across all subjects was listed above each matrix. (B) The differences of occurrence proportion between MDD and HC, and between post-treatment and paired baseline responsive depression group. (C) The differences of occurrence proportion between MDD and HC, and between post-treatment and paired baseline non-responsive depression group. (D) The differences of average local efficiency between MDD and HC. LBN, large-scale brain network; win, window; HC, healthy controls; Mpre, major depressive disorder patients at baseline; Rpre, responsive depression group at baseline; Rpost, responsive depression group after treatment. Npre, non-responsive depression group at baseline; Npost, non-responsive depression group after treatment. *p < 0.05 after FDR corrected.
Figure 3Average local efficiency of dFC states across all subjects. *p < 0.05 after FDR corrected.
Figure 4The between-group difference of dFC strength in state 2. L, left; R, right.
Figure 5The results of dFC strength and sFC as features to predict the RR of HAMD scores. dFC, dynamic functional connectivity; HAMD, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale; RR, reduction rate; sFC, static functional connectivity.