Specific amygdala and hippocampal subfield volumes in social anxiety disorder and their relation to clinical characteristics – an international mega-analysis

Ziphozihle Ntwatwa,Jule M. Spreckelmeyer,Janna Marie Bas-Hoogendam,Jack van Honk,Mary M. Mufford,Carl-Johan Boraxbekk,Jean-Paul Fouche,Andreas Frick,Tomas Furmark,Heide Klumpp,Christine Lochner,K Luan Phan,Kristoffer N.T. Månsson,J. Nienke Pannekoek,Jutta Peterburs,Karin Roelofs,Annerine Roos,Thomas Straube,Henk van Steenbergen,Marie-José Van Tol,Dick J. Veltman,Nic J.A. van der Wee,Dan J. Stein,Jonathan C. Ipser,Nynke A. Groenewold

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.01.29.576056

2024-02-02

Abstract:Social anxiety disorder (SAD) has been associated with alterations in amygdala and hippocampal volume but there is mixed evidence for the direction of volumetric alterations. Additionally, little is known about the involvement of the distinct subfields in the pathophysiology of SAD. Volumetric data from a large multi-centre sample of 107 adult individuals with SAD and 140 healthy controls (HCs) was segmented using FreeSurfer to produce 9 amygdala and 12 hippocampal subfield volumes. Volumes were compared between groups using linear mixed-effects models adjusted for age, age-squared, sex, site and whole amygdala and hippocampal volumes. Subgroup analyses examined subfield volumes in relation to comorbid anxiety disorder, and comorbid major depressive disorder (MDD), psychotropic medication status, and symptom severity. In the full sample, SAD was associated with smaller amygdala volumes in the basal ( 0.32, p =0.022), accessory basal ( 0.42, p =0.005) and corticoamygdaloid transition area ( 0.37, p =0.014), and larger hippocampal volume in the CA3 ( 0.34, p =0.024), CA4 ( 0.44, p =0.007), dentate gyrus ( 0.35, p =0.022) and molecular layer ( 0.28, p = 0.033), compared to HCs. SAD without comorbid anxiety, in addition, demonstrated smaller lateral amygdala ( 0.30, p =0.037) and hippocampal amygdala transition area ( 0.33, p =0.027) relative to HCs. In SAD without comorbid MDD, only the smaller accessory basal amygdala remained significant ( 0.41, p =0.017). No association was found between subfield volume and medication status or symptom severity. In conclusion, we observed distinct patterns of volumetric differences across specific amygdala and hippocampal subfields, regions that are associated with sensory information processing, threat evaluation and fear generalization. These findings suggest a possible disruption in information flow between the amygdala and hippocampal formation for fear processing in SAD.

Neuroscience

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

This paper mainly discusses the relationship between social anxiety disorder (SAD) and the volume of specific subregions of the amygdala and hippocampus, as well as how these differences are associated with clinical features. The study analyzed a large multicenter sample (107 SAD patients and 140 healthy controls) and used FreeSurfer software to segment MRI data and measure the volume of nine amygdala subregions and twelve hippocampal subregions.

The study found that compared to the healthy control group, SAD patients had smaller volumes in the basal (BA), accessory basal (AB), and cortical amygdala transition area (CAT) of the amygdala, and larger volumes in CA3, CA4, dentate gyrus (DG), and molecular layer of the hippocampus. In SAD patients without comorbid anxiety disorders, in addition to the above differences, there was also a decrease in volume of the lateral amygdala and amygdala transition area. In SAD patients without comorbid major depressive disorder (MDD), only the volume of the accessory basal amygdala was significantly reduced. No significant volume differences were found to be associated with the use of psychotropic drugs. There was also no significant correlation between symptom severity and substructure volumes.

The paper points out that the volume changes associated with SAD may reflect the disruption of the connection between the amygdala and the hippocampus in information processing and fear processing. The study highlights the impact of different clinical features on substructure volume differences and suggests that future research should focus on specific subregions to reveal differential changes in different mental disorders.

In conclusion, this study provides new insights into the differences in amygdala and hippocampal substructures in SAD through large multinational cooperation, which may be related to the pathophysiology of the disease, especially in regions involved in sensory information processing, threat assessment, and fear generalization.