Department of Psychiatry & Neuropsychology, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, EURON, Maastricht University Medical Centre, PO Box 616, Maastricht 6200, MD, the Netherlands.
Department of Psychiatry & Neuropsychology, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, EURON, Maastricht University Medical Centre, PO Box 616, Maastricht 6200, MD, the Netherlands.
Neuroimage Clin. 2019;23:101931. doi: 10.1016/j.nicl.2019.101931. Epub 2019 Jul 11.
Altered structural network-connectivity has been reported in psychotic disorder but whether these alterations are associated with genetic vulnerability, and/or with phenotypic variation, has been less well examined. This study examined i) whether differences in network-connectivity exist between patients with psychotic disorder, siblings of patients with psychotic disorder and controls, and ii) whether network-connectivity alterations vary with (subclinical) symptomatology.
Network-connectivity measures (global efficiency (GE), density, local efficiency (LE), clustering coefficient (CC)) were derived from diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) and were compared between 85 patients with psychotic disorder, 93 siblings without psychotic disorder and 80 healthy comparison subjects using multilevel regression models. In patients, associations between Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) symptoms and topological measures were examined. In addition, interactions between subclinical psychopathology and sibling/healthy comparison subject status were examined in models of topological measures.
While there was no main effect of group with respect to GE, density, LE and CC, siblings had a significantly higher CC compared to patients (B = 0.0039, p = .002). In patients, none of the PANSS symptom domains were significantly associated with any of the four network-connectivity measures. The two-way interaction between group and SIR-r positive score in the model of LE was significant (χ = 6.24, p = .01, df = 1). In the model of CC, the interactions between group and respectively SIS-r positive (χ = 5.59, p = .02, df = 1) and negative symptom scores (χ = 4.71, p = .03, df = 1) were significant. Stratified analysis showed that, in siblings, decreased LE and CC was significantly associated with increased SIS-r positive scores (LE: B = -0.0049, p = .003, CC: B = -0.0066, p = .01) and that decreased CC was significantly associated with increased SIS-r negative scores (B = -0.012, p = .003). There were no significant interactions between group and SIS-r scores in the models of GE and density.
The findings indicate absence of structural network-connectivity alterations in individuals with psychotic disorder and in individuals at higher than average genetic risk for psychotic disorder, in comparison with healthy subjects. The differential subclinical symptom-network connectivity associations in siblings with respect to controls may be a sign of psychosis vulnerability in the siblings.
精神障碍患者的结构网络连接已经发生了改变,但这些改变是否与遗传易感性和/或表型变异有关,还研究得不够充分。本研究考察了 i)精神障碍患者、患者的兄弟姐妹和对照组之间是否存在网络连接的差异,ii)网络连接的改变是否与(亚临床)症状有关。
从扩散加权成像(DWI)中得出网络连接测量值(全局效率(GE)、密度、局部效率(LE)、聚类系数(CC)),并使用多层回归模型对 85 名精神障碍患者、93 名无精神障碍的兄弟姐妹和 80 名健康对照组进行比较。在患者中,研究了阳性和阴性症状量表(PANSS)症状与拓扑测量值之间的关系。此外,在拓扑测量模型中,还研究了亚临床心理病理学与兄弟姐妹/健康对照组状态之间的相互作用。
虽然在 GE、密度、LE 和 CC 方面,组间没有主效应,但兄弟姐妹的 CC 明显高于患者(B=0.0039,p=0.002)。在患者中,PANSS 症状领域均与四种网络连接测量值均无显著关联。在 LE 模型中,组与 SIR-r 阳性评分的双向交互作用具有显著性(χ=6.24,p=0.01,df=1)。在 CC 模型中,组与 SIS-r 阳性(χ=5.59,p=0.02,df=1)和阴性症状评分(χ=4.71,p=0.03,df=1)之间的相互作用具有显著性。分层分析显示,在兄弟姐妹中,LE 和 CC 的降低与 SIS-r 阳性评分的增加显著相关(LE:B= -0.0049,p=0.003,CC:B= -0.0066,p=0.01),而 CC 的降低与 SIS-r 阴性评分的增加显著相关(B= -0.012,p=0.003)。在 GE 和密度模型中,组与 SIS-r 评分之间没有显著的相互作用。
与健康对照组相比,精神障碍患者和遗传易感性高于平均水平的个体中没有发现结构网络连接的改变。与对照组相比,兄弟姐妹中存在亚临床症状与网络连接的差异,这可能是兄弟姐妹易患精神疾病的迹象。