Reduced clustering co-efficient in structural connectivity of schizophrenia patients analyzed using diffusion tensor imaging
Merry Mani1, Nancy Andreasen1, and Vincent Magnotta1

1University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, United States

Synopsis

Schizophrenia is a psychiatric illness characterized by failure of functional integration. To shed light on the underlying pathophysiology, the complex networks of the brain have to be studied comprehensively. This study used network analysis tools to study the topological features of the brain in schizophrenia. Using diffusion tensor imaging, we generated the graph network of schizophrenia patients and controls. We defined 68 cortical regions as nodes and used streamlines derived from deterministic fiber tracking to define the edges of the graph. A permutation testing was used to test differences between topological measures derived from the graphs of schizophrenia patients and controls.

Purpose

To report the structural connectivity results obtained from graph network analysis in schizophrenia patients.

Methods

Schizophrenia is a psychiatric illness characterized by a “dysmetric cognitive state”. Several disconnectivity theories have been suggested to explain the pathophysiological mechanism underlying schizophrenia1. Recently graph theory was introduced to study the brain as a complex network to help map the diverse topological properties of the brain network2. These analyses can provide insight about the altered brain connectivity and function seen in schizophrenia.

We analyzed 48 participants with schizophrenia and 46 control participants using a graph theory approach to study the structural connectivity assessed using diffusion weighted imaging. MR images were collected on 3T Siemens Tim Trio equipped with 12-channel head coil. T1-weighted anatomical images were collected using a coronal 3D MP-RAGE sequence: TE=2.8 ms, TR = 2530 ms, TI=909 ms, NEX=1, Flip angle=10°, Field of View=25.6x25.6x25.6 cm2 Matrix=256x256×256. Diffusion-weighted images were gathered with the following parameters from 70 slices: TE = 82ms, TR = 8700ms, Flip angle = 90°, b-value = 1000, gradient directions = 30, Field of View = 25.6cm2, Matrix = 128×128, bandwidth = 1395Hz, slice thickness/gap=2.0/0.0mm. The T1-weighted images were AC-PC aligned and intensity normalized before performing tissue classification and anatomical labeling using fully automated BRAINS software3. Following this, the anatomical data was parcellated into 68 cortical regions using Freesurfer4, which were later used for defining the nodes in the diffusion data for the graph-based network analysis. Diffusion data were first processed using DTIprep software5 to perform adequate quality control including eddy-current correction, head motion correction, bed vibration and pulsation, venetian blind artifacts, as well as slice-wise and gradient-wise intensity inconsistencies. DTI scalar maps including FA and MD were computed and whole brain fiber tracking was performed using deterministic fiber tracking, based on the FACT (fiber assignment by continuous tracking) algorithm as implemented in DSIStudio software package6. Streamlines were started from 8 randomly placed seeds from each of the white matter voxels and tracking proceeded by connecting the primary diffusion direction from one voxel to the next voxel. This procedure reconstructed all possible fiber tracts within the brain. Fiber tracking along a streamline was terminated when a voxel was reached with a FA < 0.1, when the streamline exited the brain or when the fiber tract made a sharp turn > 45°. Following whole brain tracking, the fiber tracts interconnecting pairs of regions in the 68 cortical regions were identified for all possible pairs of cortical regions and a 68 x 68 weighted connectivity matrix was created with streamline counts as the weights. Using the connectivity matrix, basic topological metrics of the network including strength, modularity, clustering co-efficient and global efficiency were computed. The above measures were normalized using 1000 random networks that were generated using similar connectivity distribution using the Brain Connectivity Toolbox7. The metrics were generated for each subject and then used to test group differences between the patient and control groups using permutation testing.

Results

As reported previously in literature8, the most highly connected regions in the schizophrenia as well as control population were bilateral precuneus, superior frontal cortex, superior parietal cortex and superior temporal cortex and insula, which formed the so-called rich-club hubs in the network. However, contrary to previously reported findings, we did not find reduced rich-club connectivity in the participants with schizophrenia as compared to controls in this dataset. Instead, we find that the feeder connections as well as the local connections are reduced in strength in our data (see figure 1). The results of permutation testing on the topological measures of the graph are shown in figure 2. We observed that the participants with schizophrenia had a reduced strength of connectivity, clustering coefficient and modularity compared to the control participants. However, only the reduction in clustering co-efficient was statistically significant (p=0.047 corrected after correcting for multiple comparisons).

Conclusion

Disruption in small-world networks in structural connectivity data has been suggested in many previous reports in schizophrenia. However, in our analysis, the only indication of disruption of this network is the significant reduction in clustering co-efficient in the structural connectivity data, while the characteristic path length remains almost the same. This suggests the need for more test-retest reliability studies on these network measures.

Acknowledgements

No acknowledgement found.

References

1. Friston J K, Dysfunctional connectivity in schizophrenia, World Psychiatry. 2002 Jun; 1(2): 66–71, 2. Bullmore E, Sporns O. Complex brain networks: graph theoretical analysis of structural and functional systems. Nat Rev Neurosc. 2009;10(3):186–198, 3. Pierson R1, Johnson H, Harris G, Keefe H, Paulsen JS, Andreasen NC, Magnotta VA. Fully automated analysis using BRAINS: autoworkup. Neuroimage. 2011 Jan 1;54(1):328-36, 4. Fischl B. Freesurfer. Neuroimage. 2012 Aug 15;62(2):774-81, 5. Oguz I, Farzinfar M, Matsui J, Budin F, Liu Z, Gerig G, Johnson HJ, Styner M. Dtiprep: quality control of diffusion-weighted images. Front Neuroinform. 2014 Jan 30;8:4, 6. http://dsi-studio.labsolver.org, 7. Rubinov M, Sporns O. Complex network measures of brain connectivity: Uses and interpretations. Neuroimage 2010, 52:1059-69, 8. Van den Heuvel MP, Sporns O, Collin G, Scheewe T, Mandl RC, Cahn W, Goñi J, Hulshoff Pol HE, Kahn RS. Abnormal rich club organization and functional brain dynamics in schizophrenia. JAMA Psychiatry. 2013 Aug;70(8):783-92.

Figures

Figure 1: Group averaged connectivity between rich club regions (left), feeder regions (middle) and local regions (right) compared between controls and patients.

Figure 2: Graph topological measures compared between patients and controls.



Proc. Intl. Soc. Mag. Reson. Med. 24 (2016)
4139