4.5 Article

Levodopa response differs in Parkinson's motor subtypes: A task-based effective connectivity study

期刊

JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE NEUROLOGY
卷 525, 期 9, 页码 2192-2201

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cne.24197

关键词

functional MRI; Parkinson's disease; postural instability/gait difficulty; psychophysiological interaction; tremor dominant; RRID: SCR_007037; RRID: SCR_009489

资金

  1. NIH/NCATS Colorado CTSA [KL2 TR001080]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Parkinson's disease (PD) is a circuit-level disorder with clinically-determined motor subtypes. Despite evidence suggesting each subtype may have different pathophysiology, few neuroimaging studies have examined levodopa-induced differences in neural activation between tremor dominant (TD) and postural instability/ gait difficulty (PIGD) subtype patients during a motor task. The goal of this functional MRI (fMRI) study was to examine task-induced activation and connectivity in the cortico-striatal-thalamo-cortical motor circuit in healthy controls, TD patients, and PIGD patients before and after levodopa administration. Fourteen TD and 12 PIGD cognitively-intact patients and 21 age-and sex-matched healthy controls completed a right-hand, paced tapping fMRI paradigm. Collectively, PD patients off medication (OFF) showed hypoactivation of the motor cortex relative to healthy controls, even when controlling for performance. After levodopa intake, the PIGD patients had significantly increased activation in the left putamen compared with TD patients and healthy controls. Psychophysiological interaction analysis revealed that levodopa increased effective connectivity between the posterior putamen and other areas of the motor circuit during tapping in TD patients, but not in PIGD patients. This novel, levodopa-induced difference in the neural responses between PD motor subtypes may have significant implications for elucidating the mechanisms underlying the distinct phenotypic manifestations and enabling the classification of motor subtypes objectively using fMRI.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据