Head Motion and Inattention/Hyperactivity Share Common Genetic Influences: Implications for fMRI Studies of ADHD.
Head Motion and Inattention/Hyperactivity Share Common Genetic Influences: Implications for fMRI Studies of ADHD.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0146271
复制
发表时间：
2016
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Wright MJ
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Couvy-Duchesne B;Ebejer JL;Gillespie NA;Duffy DL;Hickie IB;Thompson PM;Martin NG;de Zubicaray GI;McMahon KL;Medland SE;Wright MJ
头部运动 (HM) 是功能性 MRI (fMRI) 数据分析中众所周知的混杂因素。因此，神经影像学研究人员通常将 HM 作为分析中的一个令人讨厌的协变量。即便如此，HM 可能与感兴趣的性状具有共同的遗传影响。在这里，我们使用从静息态功能磁共振成像中提取的 HM 以及根据 ADHD 症状和正常行为 (SWAN) 量表的优点和缺点对注意力不集中和多动-冲动进行的母亲和自我报告测量，研究了这种关系在多大程度上归因于共同的遗传因素。我们的样本由健康的年轻成年双胞胎组成（N = 627（63% 女性），包括 95 对同卵双胞胎和 144 对异卵双胞胎，平均年龄 22 岁，有母亲报告的 SWAN；N = 725（58% 女性），包括 101 对同卵双胞胎和 156 对异卵双胞胎，平均年龄 25 岁，有自我报告的 SWAN）。这种设计使我们能够区分头部运动和多动症量表之间的遗传因素和环境因素。 HM 与母亲报告的注意力不集中（r = 0.17，p 值 = 7.4E-5）和多动冲动（r = 0.16，p 值 = 2.9E-4）呈中度相关，这些关联主要是由于多效性遗传因素，遗传相关性 [95% CI] 为 rg = 0.24 [0.02, 0.43] 和 rg = 0.23 [0.07，0.39]。自我报告和 HM 之间的相关性并不显着，这主要是由于测量误差增加。这些结果表明，将 HM 作为 ADHD 神经影像学研究中的一个令人讨厌的协变量可能会降低检测组间效应的能力，因为 HM 与注意力不集中或多动冲动之间的独立性隐含假设是没有保证的。这一发现对于 ADHD 的功能磁共振成像研究来说是有问题的，因为众所周知，不应用 HM 校正会增加误报的可能性。我们讨论了两种方法来规避这个问题：审查 RS-fMRI 扫描的运动污染帧或明确建模 HM 与注意力不集中或多动冲动之间的关系。
Head motion (HM) is a well known confound in analyses of functional MRI (fMRI) data. Neuroimaging researchers therefore typically treat HM as a nuisance covariate in their analyses. Even so, it is possible that HM shares a common genetic influence with the trait of interest. Here we investigate the extent to which this relationship is due to shared genetic factors, using HM extracted from resting-state fMRI and maternal and self report measures of Inattention and Hyperactivity-Impulsivity from the Strengths and Weaknesses of ADHD Symptoms and Normal Behaviour (SWAN) scales. Our sample consisted of healthy young adult twins (N = 627 (63% females) including 95 MZ and 144 DZ twin pairs, mean age 22, who had mother-reported SWAN; N = 725 (58% females) including 101 MZ and 156 DZ pairs, mean age 25, with self reported SWAN). This design enabled us to distinguish genetic from environmental factors in the association between head movement and ADHD scales. HM was moderately correlated with maternal reports of Inattention (r = 0.17, p-value = 7.4E-5) and Hyperactivity-Impulsivity (r = 0.16, p-value = 2.9E-4), and these associations were mainly due to pleiotropic genetic factors with genetic correlations [95% CIs] of rg = 0.24 [0.02, 0.43] and rg = 0.23 [0.07, 0.39]. Correlations between self-reports and HM were not significant, due largely to increased measurement error. These results indicate that treating HM as a nuisance covariate in neuroimaging studies of ADHD will likely reduce power to detect between-group effects, as the implicit assumption of independence between HM and Inattention or Hyperactivity-Impulsivity is not warranted. The implications of this finding are problematic for fMRI studies of ADHD, as failing to apply HM correction is known to increase the likelihood of false positives. We discuss two ways to circumvent this problem: censoring the motion contaminated frames of the RS-fMRI scan or explicitly modeling the relationship between HM and Inattention or Hyperactivity-Impulsivity.