Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T12:53:15.063Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Altered topology of individual brain structural covariance networks in major depressive disorder

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2023

Liangliang Ping
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Xiamen Xianyue Hospital, Xiamen, China
Shan Sun
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Xiamen Xianyue Hospital, Xiamen, China
Cong Zhou
Affiliation:
School of Mental Health, Jining Medical University, Jining, China
Jianyu Que
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Xiamen Xianyue Hospital, Xiamen, China
Zhiyi You
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Xiamen Xianyue Hospital, Xiamen, China
Xiufeng Xu
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, The First Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming, China
Yuqi Cheng*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, The First Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming, China
*
Corresponding author: Yuqi Cheng; Email: yuqicheng@126.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

The neurobiological pathogenesis of major depression disorder (MDD) remains largely controversial. Previous literatures with limited sample size utilizing group-level structural covariance networks (SCN) commonly generated mixed findings regarding the topology of brain networks.

Methods

We analyzed T1 images from a high-powered multisite sample including 1173 patients with MDD and 1019 healthy controls (HCs). We used regional gray matter volume to construct individual SCN by utilizing a novel approach based on the interregional effect size difference. We further investigated MDD-related structural connectivity alterations using topological metrics.

Results

Compared to HCs, the MDD patients showed a shift toward randomization characterized by increased integration. Further subgroup analysis of patients in different stages revealed this randomization pattern was also observed in patients with recurrent MDD, while the first-episode drug naïve patients exhibited decreased segregation. Altered nodal properties in several brain regions which have a key role in both emotion regulation and executive control were also found in MDD patients compared with HCs. The abnormalities in inferior temporal gyrus were not influenced by any specific site. Moreover, antidepressants increased nodal efficiency in the anterior ventromedial prefrontal cortex.

Conclusions

The MDD patients at different stages exhibit distinct patterns of randomization in their brain networks, with increased integration during illness progression. These findings provide valuable insights into the disruption in structural brain networks that occurs in patients with MDD and might be useful to guide future therapeutic interventions.

Information

Type
Original Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Table 1. Sample characteristics of 1173 depressive patients and 1019 healthy controls for each site in the present study

Figure 1

Figure 1. Schematic workflow of the current study. We first constructed intra-individual brain structural covariance networks in each dataset using regional gray matter volumes data. Then, for each individual, we computed graph theory metrics at the global and nodal levels using the intra-individual brain structural covariance networks. MDD, major depressive disorder; HC, healthy control; L, left; M, mean; SD, standard deviation; SCN, structural covariance networks.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Group differences in network topological properties between major depressive disorder (MDD) patients and health controls (HCs). (a) Violin plots illustrating the area under the curve (AUC) parameters of the global topological metrics for MDD patients and HCs. Means and standard deviations are depicted. (b) Group differences in the nodal topological metrics between MDD patients and HCs. Insignificant nodes are shown as green spheres, whereas blue (MDD < HC) and red (MDD > HC) spheres denote significant differences after FDR correction. The size of the significant nodes reflects the effect sizes of group differences. Green spheres that are outside the brain indicate the nodes of cerebellum. *p < 0.05, ***p < 0.001.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Violin figures depicting the results of global topological metrics in subgroup analysis of MDD patients in different stages. Distributions of areas under curve (AUCs) are depicted. (a) First-episode drug naïve (FEDN) major depressive disorder (MDD) patients v. health controls (HCs). (b) Recurrent patients with MDD v. HCs. *p < 0.05.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Subgroup differences in the nodal topological metrics, uncorrected at p < 0.01. Nonsignificant nodes are shown as green spheres. Blue (a: FEDN < HC; b: recurrent MDD < HC; c: recurrent MDD < FEDN) and red (a: FEDN > HC; b: recurrent MDD > HC; c: recurrent MDD > FEDN) spheres denote significant differences. The sizes of the significant nodes reflect the effect sizes of group differences. Green spheres that are outside the brain indicate the nodes of cerebellum. HC, health control; FEDN, first-episode drug naïve.

Figure 5

Figure 5. The effects of medication status and illness duration in MDD patients on the nodal topological metrics, uncorrected at p < 0.01. Nonsignificant nodes are shown as green spheres. Blue and red spheres indicate significant differences in decrease and increase, respectively. The sizes of the significant nodes reflect the effect sizes of group differences. Green spheres that are outside the brain indicate the nodes of cerebellum. (a) For first-episode MDD patients with v. without medication usage. (b) For FEDN MDD patients with long v. short illness duration. (c) For all MDD patients with long v. short illness duration. FEDN, first-episode drug naïve.

Figure 6

Figure 6. Forest plots of effect size of each site generated by the meta-model in reproducibility analysis of global topological metrics. (a) MDD group v. HC group. (b) First-episode drug naïve (FEDN) MDD group v. HC group. (c) Recurrent MDD group v. HC group. Of note, for each comparison, only sites with sample size larger than 10 in each group were included.

Supplementary material: File

Ping et al. supplementary material

Ping et al. supplementary material

Download Ping et al. supplementary material(File)
File 1.5 MB