Modeling the Impact of Lesions in the Human Brain

Lesions of anatomical brain networks result in functional disturbances of brain systems and behavior which depend sensitively, often unpredictably, on the lesion site. The availability of whole-brain maps of structural connections within the human cerebrum and our increased understanding of the physiology and large-scale dynamics of cortical networks allow us to investigate the functional consequences of focal brain lesions in a computational model. We simulate the dynamic effects of lesions placed in different regions of the cerebral cortex by recording changes in the pattern of endogenous (“resting-state”) neural activity. We find that lesions produce specific patterns of altered functional connectivity among distant regions of cortex, often affecting both cortical hemispheres. The magnitude of these dynamic effects depends on the lesion location and is partly predicted by structural network properties of the lesion site. In the model, lesions along the cortical midline and in the vicinity of the temporo-parietal junction result in large and widely distributed changes in functional connectivity, while lesions of primary sensory or motor regions remain more localized. The model suggests that dynamic lesion effects can be predicted on the basis of specific network measures of structural brain networks and that these effects may be related to known behavioral and cognitive consequences of brain lesions

Symbiotic relationship between brain structure and dynamics

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licens

Neurexin-1 and Frontal Lobe White Matter: An Overlapping Intermediate Phenotype for Schizophrenia and Autism Spectrum Disorders

Background: Structural variation in the neurexin-1 (NRXN1) gene increases risk for both autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and schizophrenia. However, the manner in which NRXN1 gene variation may be related to brain morphology to confer risk for ASD or schizophrenia is unknown. Method/Principal Findings: 53 healthy individuals between 18–59 years of age were genotyped at 11 single nucleotide polymorphisms of the NRXN1 gene. All subjects received structural MRI scans, which were processed to determine cortical gray and white matter lobar volumes, and volumes of striatal and thalamic structures. Each subject’s sensorimotor function was also assessed. The general linear model was used to calculate the influence of genetic variation on neural and cognitive phenotypes. Finally, in silico analysis was conducted to assess potential functional relevance of any polymorphisms associated with brain measures. A polymorphism located in the 39 untranslated region of NRXN1 significantly influenced white matter volumes in whole brain and frontal lobes after correcting for total brain volume, age and multiple comparisons. Follow-up in silico analysis revealed that this SNP is a putative microRNA binding site that may be of functional significance in regulating NRXN1 expression. This variant also influenced sensorimotor performance, a neurocognitive function impaired in both ASD and schizophrenia. Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate that the NRXN1 gene, a vulnerability gene for SCZ and ASD, influences brai

Learning faces: Similar comparator faces do not improve performance

Recent evidence indicates that comparison of two similar faces can aid subsequent discrimination between them. However, the fact that discrimination between two faces is facilitated by comparing them directly does not demonstrate that comparison produces a general improvement in the processing of faces. It remains an open question whether the opportunity to compare a "target" face to similar faces can facilitate the discrimination of the exposed target face from other nonexposed faces. In Experiment 1, selection of a target face from an array of novel foils was not facilitated by intermixed exposure to the target and comparators of the same sex. Experiment 2 also found no advantage for similar comparators (morphed towards the target) over unmorphed same sex comparators, or over repeated target exposure alone. But all repeated exposure conditions produced better performance than a single brief presentation of the target. Experiment 3 again demonstrated that repeated exposure produced equivalent learning in same sex and different sex comparator conditions, and also showed that increasing the number of same sex or different sex comparators failed to improve identification. In all three experiments, exposure to a target alongside similar comparators failed to support selection of the target from novel test stimuli to a greater degree than exposure alongside dissimilar comparators or repeated target exposure alone. The current results suggest that the facilitatory effects of comparison during exposure may be limited to improving discrimination between exposed stimuli, and thus our results do not support the idea that providing the opportunity for comparison is a practical means for improving face identification

The past, present, and future of the Brain Imaging Data Structure (BIDS)

The Brain Imaging Data Structure (BIDS) is a community-driven standard for the organization of data and metadata from a growing range of neuroscience modalities. This paper is meant as a history of how the standard has developed and grown over time. We outline the principles behind the project, the mechanisms by which it has been extended, and some of the challenges being addressed as it evolves. We also discuss the lessons learned through the project, with the aim of enabling researchers in other domains to learn from the success of BIDS

Safety, immunogenicity, and reactogenicity of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines given as fourth-dose boosters following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 and a third dose of BNT162b2 (COV-BOOST): a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised trial

Background Some high-income countries have deployed fourth doses of COVID-19 vaccines, but the clinical need, effectiveness, timing, and dose of a fourth dose remain uncertain. We aimed to investigate the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of fourth-dose boosters against COVID-19.Methods The COV-BOOST trial is a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised controlled trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines given as third-dose boosters at 18 sites in the UK. This sub-study enrolled participants who had received BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) as their third dose in COV-BOOST and randomly assigned them (1:1) to receive a fourth dose of either BNT162b2 (30 µg in 0·30 mL; full dose) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna; 50 µg in 0·25 mL; half dose) via intramuscular injection into the upper arm. The computer-generated randomisation list was created by the study statisticians with random block sizes of two or four. Participants and all study staff not delivering the vaccines were masked to treatment allocation. The coprimary outcomes were safety and reactogenicity, and immunogenicity (antispike protein IgG titres by ELISA and cellular immune response by ELISpot). We compared immunogenicity at 28 days after the third dose versus 14 days after the fourth dose and at day 0 versus day 14 relative to the fourth dose. Safety and reactogenicity were assessed in the per-protocol population, which comprised all participants who received a fourth-dose booster regardless of their SARS-CoV-2 serostatus. Immunogenicity was primarily analysed in a modified intention-to-treat population comprising seronegative participants who had received a fourth-dose booster and had available endpoint data. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, 73765130, and is ongoing.Findings Between Jan 11 and Jan 25, 2022, 166 participants were screened, randomly assigned, and received either full-dose BNT162b2 (n=83) or half-dose mRNA-1273 (n=83) as a fourth dose. The median age of these participants was 70·1 years (IQR 51·6–77·5) and 86 (52%) of 166 participants were female and 80 (48%) were male. The median interval between the third and fourth doses was 208·5 days (IQR 203·3–214·8). Pain was the most common local solicited adverse event and fatigue was the most common systemic solicited adverse event after BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 booster doses. None of three serious adverse events reported after a fourth dose with BNT162b2 were related to the study vaccine. In the BNT162b2 group, geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration at day 28 after the third dose was 23 325 ELISA laboratory units (ELU)/mL (95% CI 20 030–27 162), which increased to 37 460 ELU/mL (31 996–43 857) at day 14 after the fourth dose, representing a significant fold change (geometric mean 1·59, 95% CI 1·41–1·78). There was a significant increase in geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration from 28 days after the third dose (25 317 ELU/mL, 95% CI 20 996–30 528) to 14 days after a fourth dose of mRNA-1273 (54 936 ELU/mL, 46 826–64 452), with a geometric mean fold change of 2·19 (1·90–2·52). The fold changes in anti-spike protein IgG titres from before (day 0) to after (day 14) the fourth dose were 12·19 (95% CI 10·37–14·32) and 15·90 (12·92–19·58) in the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 groups, respectively. T-cell responses were also boosted after the fourth dose (eg, the fold changes for the wild-type variant from before to after the fourth dose were 7·32 [95% CI 3·24–16·54] in the BNT162b2 group and 6·22 [3·90–9·92] in the mRNA-1273 group).Interpretation Fourth-dose COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccines are well tolerated and boost cellular and humoral immunity. Peak responses after the fourth dose were similar to, and possibly better than, peak responses after the third dose

Deep brain stimulation versus motor cortex stimulation for neuropathic pain: A minireview of the literature and proposal for future research

The treatment of neuropathic pain remains a public health concern. A growing cohort of patients is plagued by medically refractory, unrelenting severe neuropathic pain that ruins their quality of life and productivity. For this group, neurosurgery can offer two different kinds of neuromodulation that may help: deep brain simulation (DBS) and motor cortex stimulation (MCS). Unfortunately, there is no consensus on how to perform these procedures, which stimulation parameters to select, how to measure success, and which patients may benefit. This brief review highlights the literature supporting each technique and attempts to provide some comparisons and contrasts between DBS and MCS for the treatment of neuropathic pain. Finally, we highlight the current unanswered questions in the field and suggest future research strategies that may advance the care of our patients with neuropathic pain