Altered effective connectivity within default mode network in major depression disorder

Abstract

Understanding the neural basis of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is important for the diagnosis and treatment of this mental disorder. The default mode network (DMN) is considered to be highly involved in the MDD. To find directed interaction between DMN regions associated with the development of MDD, the effective connectivity within the DMN of the MDD patients and matched healthy controls was estimated by using a recently developed spectral dynamic causal modeling. Sixteen patients with MDD and sixteen matched healthy control subjects were included in this study. While the control group underwent the resting state fMRI scan just once, all patients underwent resting state fMRI scans before and after two months' treatment. The spectral dynamic causal modeling was used to estimate directed connections between four DMN nodes. Statistical analysis on connection strengths indicated that efferent connections from the medial frontal cortex (MFC) to posterior cingulate cortex (PCC) and to right parietal cortex (RPC) were significant higher in pretreatment MDD patients than those of the control group. After two-month treatment, the efferent connections from the MFC decreased significantly, while those from the left parietal cortex (LPC) to MFC, PCC and RPC showed a significant increase. These findings suggest that the MFC may play an important role for inhibitory conditioning of the DMN, which was disrupted in MDD patients. It also indicates that disrupted suppressive function of the MFC could be effectively restored after two-month treatment.

Efeitos agudos centrais do canabidiol por meio de neuroimagem funcional e sobre o reconhecimento de emoções faciais em pacientes com transtorno depressivo maior

“…Firstly, results of review confirm previously literature about cerebral functional connectivity of MD patients compared to HC at baseline, generally presents dysfunction in the frontal-limbic circuit with cortical hypo-function and limbic hyperactivity (Davidson et al, 2002;Fitzgerald et al, 2008;Haldane and Frangou, 2006;Konarski et al, 2007;Mayberg, 2003;Murray et al, 2011;. Articles found decreased DLPFC recruitment, as well as, decrease in DLPFC connectivity with other structures in MD adults and TRD patients in resting-state Altinay et al, 2016;Li et al, 2016;Wei et al, 2014;, in adolescents in resting-state , in elderly patients in resting-state and during cognitive task processing . The authors also observed interhemispheric frontal structures connectivity decreased in MD adults (Abdallah et al, 2017).…”

“…It was observed decrease in DMN connectivity in ten to sixteen articles (63%). Decrease of DMN/limbic structures connectivity by SSRI treatment to adolescents , in LLD elderly treated with SSRI or SNRI , TRD patients treated with ezogabine (Tan et al, 2018) and in MD first episode naïve adults treated with SSRI , as well as the decrease intrinsic DMN structures connectivity in adults and LLD elderly (Li et al, 2016;Li et al, 2017;Wang et al, 2014;Karim et al, 2017). In TRD adults the double dose psilocybin treatment increase in DMN structures connectivity (sgACC/PCC) in total patients post 5 weeks, but when there were analyzed separated this pattern was observed only in R-patients .…”

“…There were found 413 articles; 204 articles in Pubmed, 117 articles in Web of Science and 92 articles in SCOPUS. The final selection was 65 articles included, subdivided in: 11 articles that studied functional connectivity only at baseline, three related of the therapeutic response to psychopharmacotherapy (Goldstein-Piekarski et al, 2018;Vai et al, 2016), four to psychotherapy (Sambataro et al, 2018;Dunlop et al, 2017;Walsh et al, 2017) two related to TMS response (Du et al, 2018;Ge et al, 2017) and two related to tVNS response Wang et al, 2018b); and 54 articles that studied functional connectivity before and after antidepressant treatment: including 28 articles with psychopharmacotherapy (Yang et al, 2014;Wang et al, 2014;Li et al, 2016;Li et al, 2017;Karim et al, 2017;Tadayonnejad et al, 2016;Qin et al, 2015;Altinay et al, 2016;Evans et al, 2018;Tan et al, 2018;Admon et al, 2017;Yang et al, 2016;Abdallah et al, 2017;Abdallah et al, 2018), seven articles with psychotherapy Jacobs et al, 2016;Chattopadhyay et al, 2017;Young et al, 2018;Yokoyama et al, 2018), 11 with electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) (Wei et al, 2014;Wang et al, 2018;Perrin et al, 2012;Abbot et al, 2014;Mulders et al, 2016;, four with transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) Kang et al, 2016;Taylor et al, 2018;Baeken et al, 2017) and two with vagus nerve stimulation (Fang et al, 2016;, and two with acu...…”

“…In (Yang et al, 2014;Li et al, 2017;Karim et al, 2017;Tadayonnejad et al, 2016;Altinay et al, 2016;Evans et al, 2018;Tan et al, 2018; and two articles related the baseline connectivity with treatment response (predictors) (Goldstein-Piekarski et al, 2018;. The information of articles and , and * Li et al (2016) and Li et al (2017) were presented together, because they used the same sample (Table 1a) and (Table 2a -supplementary material -S1).…”

“…The results point to increase in cortical-limbic connectivity in seven to sixteen articles (44%) by SSRI (sertraline), SNRI (venlafaxine) or quetiapine treatment in MD adults Altinay et al, 2016), SSRI (sertraline or fluoxetine), in adolescents , and by SSRI (escitalopram) or SNRI (duloxetine or venlafaxine) treatment to late-life depression (LLD) elderly Karim et al, 2017). The use of venlafaxine only or plus rTMS in adults increased the cortical connectivity with DMN structures (mPFC and PCC) (Li et al, 2016;Li et al, 2017) and…”