Altered brain connectivity in Long Covid during cognitive exertion: a pilot study, 2023, Barnden et al.

Jaybee00

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2023.1182607/full

Introduction: Debilitating Long-Covid symptoms occur frequently after SARS-COVID-19 infection.

Methods: Functional MRI was acquired in 10 Long Covid (LCov) and 13 healthy controls (HC) with a 7 Tesla scanner during a cognitive (Stroop color-word) task. BOLD time series were computed for 7 salience and 4 default-mode network hubs, 2 hippocampus and 7 brainstem regions (ROIs). Connectivity was characterized by the correlation coefficient between each pair of ROI BOLD time series. We tested for HC versus LCov differences in connectivity between each pair of the 20 regions (ROI-to-ROI) and between each ROI and the rest of the brain (ROI-to-voxel). For LCov, we also performed regressions of ROI-to-ROI connectivity with clinical scores.

Results: Two ROI-to-ROI connectivities differed between HC and LCov. Both involved the brainstem rostral medulla, one connection to the midbrain, another to a DM network hub. Both were stronger in LCov than HC. ROI-to-voxel analysis detected multiple other regions where LCov connectivity differed from HC located in all major lobes. Most, but not all connections, were weaker in LCov than HC. LCov, but not HC connectivity, was correlated with clinical scores for disability and autonomic function and involved brainstem ROI.

Discussion: Multiple connectivity differences and clinical correlations involved brainstem ROIs. Stronger connectivity in LCov between the medulla and midbrain may reflect a compensatory response. This brainstem circuit regulates cortical arousal, autonomic function and the sleep–wake cycle. In contrast, this circuit exhibited weaker connectivity in ME/CFS. LCov connectivity regressions with disability and autonomic scores were consistent with altered brainstem connectivity in LCov.
 
In contrast, this circuit exhibited weaker connectivity in ME/CFS.
If anyone has read the whole paper, were they able to compare long vs short duration illness, both LC and ME? Given the small numbers I suspect not. But would be interesting to know if opposite results are due to differences between LC and ME, or due to length of illness
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If anyone has read the whole paper, were they able to compare long vs short duration illness, both LC and ME? Given the small numbers I suspect not. But would be interesting to know if opposite results are due to differences between LC and ME, or due to length of illness

@Jaybee00, there's a typo in the title, should read Barnden

They didn't but it's what they're wondering as well:

An ME/CFS fMRI study optimized for the brainstem (Barnden et al., 2019) reported weaker connectivity between the medulla and midbrain during a Stroop task. Here in LCov during the same task, medulla to midbrain connectivity was stronger. Thus, increased brainstem connectivity in LCov discriminates LCov from ME/CFS, although brainstem involvement is important in both. Larger sample sizes are required to clarify this. Duration of illness may be an important determinant for connectivity. The relatively acute (<2 years) symptoms of LCov compared to several years or decades for ME/CFS may be relevant. Longitudinal studies of LCov are needed to test for an evolution of brain pathology that may yield a pattern more like ME/CFS.
 
Stronger connectivity in LCov between the medulla and midbrain may reflect a compensatory response.
This general angle has serious potential for LC/ME studies, and needs more consideration and investigation by researchers.

I think most of the findings so far for both conditions are just the downstream consequences and compensatory physiological and behavioural responses, the attempts to deal with whatever is going wrong underneath.
 
This general angle has serious potential for LC/ME studies, and needs more consideration and investigation by researchers.

I think most of the findings so far for both conditions are just the downstream consequences and compensatory physiological and behavioural responses, the attempts to deal with whatever is going wrong underneath.

Yes, we definitely need the what's going on underneath issue(s).

It would be good to see a wrap up of studies showing similar findings in the various areas.
Although, bomedical research has been blocked for so long that replication numbers are few to zero.
 
Back
Top Bottom