NeuroImage : Clinical

Neuroimage Clin. 24: 102029

Association of NPSR1 gene variation and neural activity in patients with panic disorder and agoraphobia and healthy controls

Johanna Gechtera⁎, Carolin Liebschera, Maximilian J. Geigerb, André Wittmanna, Florian Schlagenhaufa, Ulrike Luekenc, Hans-Ulrich Wittchend, Bettina Pfleiderere, Volker Aroltf, Tilo Kircherg, Benjamin Straubeg, Jürgen Deckerth, Heike Weberhi, Martin J. Herrmannh, Andreas Reifi, Katharina Domschkej, Andreas Ströhlea

a. Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Germany

b. Epilepsy Center, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

c. Department of Psychology, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany

d. Institute of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany

e. Department of Clinical Radiology, Medical Faculty - University of Muenster, and University Hospital Muenster, Muenster, Germany

f. Department of Psychiatry, University of Münster, Münster, Germany

g. Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy & Center for Mind, Brain and Behavior - MCMBB, Philipps-University Marburg, Marburg, Germany

h. Center of Mental Health, Department of Psychiatry, Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, University Hospital of Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany

i. Department of Psychiatry, Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University of Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany

j. Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

⁎. Corresponding author at: Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Campus Charité Mitte, Charité – Universitätsmedizin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany. johanna.gechter@charite.de

© 2019 The Author(s)

DOI: 10.1016/j.nicl.2019.102029

Published online: 21 October 2019

Highlights

•. Higher amygdala activation in T risk allele carriers during the perception of agoraphobia-specific stimuli

•. Amygdala activation correlated negatively trendwise with the trait neuroticism in healthy controls carrying A/A genotype

•. A diagnosis x genotype interaction as a trend in the inferior orbitofrontal cortex during the perception of agoraphobia-specific stimuli

Abstract

Introduction

The neurobiological mechanisms behind panic disorder with agoraphobia (PD/AG) are not completely explored. The functional A/T single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rs324981 in the neuropeptide S receptor gene (NPSR1) has repeatedly been associated with panic disorder and might partly drive function respectively dysfunction of the neural “fear network”. We aimed to investigate whether the NPSR1 T risk allele was associated with malfunctioning in a fronto-limbic network during the anticipation and perception of agoraphobia-specific stimuli.

Method

121 patients with PD/AG and 77 healthy controls (HC) underwent functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) using the disorder specific “Westphal-Paradigm”. It consists of neutral and agoraphobia-specific pictures, half of the pictures were cued to induce anticipatory anxiety.

Results

Risk allele carriers showed significantly higher amygdala activation during the perception of agoraphobia-specific stimuli than A/A homozygotes. A linear group x genotype interaction during the perception of agoraphobia-specific stimuli showed a strong trend towards significance. Patients with the one or two T alleles displayed the highest and HC with the A/A genotype the lowest activation in the inferior orbitofrontal cortex (iOFC).

Discussion

The study demonstrates an association of the NPSR1rs324981 genotype and the perception of agoraphobia-specific stimuli. These results support the assumption of a fronto-limbic dysfunction as an intermediate phenotype of PD/AG.

1. Introduction

Panic disorder with agoraphobia (PD/AG) is one of the most common anxiety disorders with a 12-month prevalence of 2% (Wittchen et al., 2011). This disorder is characterized by panic attacks, avoidance behavior or anticipatory anxiety in or before situations in which an escape would be impossible or embarrassing. These situations include, among others, public transportation, crowds or using an elevator (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Some brain areas which are involved in the processing of anxiety in PD and PD/AG have been identified. The amygdala plays a pivotal role in the so-called “fear network” and fMRI studies prove increased amygdala activation during the perception of anxiety related stimuli (Etkin and Wager, 2007; Ledoux, 2004). Furthermore, the amygdala is engaged in adaptive and detrimental threat responding and the encoding of affective value of stimuli (Fox et al., 2015; Morrison and Salzman, 2011). Patients with PD/AG exhibited not only altered subcortical, but also altered cortical activation patterns. Aside from the amygdala, there are the brainstem, the hippocampus, the insula, the anterior cingulum and different temporal and prefrontal structures which make up the fear network (Dresler et al., 2013; Gorman et al., 2000). Although there is no agreement on the exact prefrontal structures involved, the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC), the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (dmPFC), the inferior frontal gyrus and the orbito frontal cortex (OFC) are discussed as central structures (Atmaca et al., 2013; Engel et al., 2016; Hettema et al., 2001; Kircher et al., 2013; Klahn et al., 2017; Lueken et al., 2013; Sobanski and Wagner, 2017). It is not certain to what extent these alterations in brain responses are valid for PD/AG, because many studies did not report the possible comorbidity of agoraphobia (Dresler et al., 2013).

Based on the fact of a moderate to high heritability of PD/AG (Hettema et al., 2001), genetic risk factors are assumed to modulate the activation of the neural fear circuit. The neuropeptide S receptor gene (NPSR1) is an often discussed gene in matters of PD/AG. Neuropeptide S is a neurotransmitter, expressed in the brainstem and its m-RNA occurs in some regions of the fear circuit, like the amygdala, hypothalamus and cortex. It operates as a neuromodulator, especially in the onset of anxiety and arousal (Pape et al., 2010). The NPSR1 gene is localized on chromosome 7p14.3 and exhibits an A/T SNP (rs324981) leading to an amino acid exchange on position 107 (Asn¹⁰⁷Ile) (Jüngling et al., 2008; Xu et al., 2004). The more active T allele increases the NPS binding affinity to the receptor about tenfold (Reinscheid et al., 2005). The T allele is associated with panic disorder and elevated heart rate, increased response inhibition and error monitoring (Beste et al., 2013; Domschke et al., 2011; Donner et al., 2010; Okamura et al., 2007). Additionally, this allele is associated with a higher level of anxiety sensitivity in women with panic disorder and healthy T/T homozygotes showed an interaction with childhood maltreatment, leading to a higher anxiety sensitivity score (Domschke et al., 2011; Klauke et al., 2014). Dannlowski et al. (2011) reported a modulation of the amygdala reaction to fear-relevant faces by the NPSR1 SNP. PD patients carrying the T allele showed a disrupted cortico-limbic connectivity with an increased activation of the amygdala, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC), orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) and dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) (Domschke et al., 2011). Healthy A/A homozygotes exhibited a stronger prefrontal activity in an emotional Stroop task and likewise T allele carriers had a higher responsiveness of the dlPFC and medial prefrontal cortex in a working memory task (Guhn et al., 2015; Tupak et al., 2013). In an executive control task, participants with the T/T genotype showed increased activation in the inferior and middle frontal gyrus (Neufang et al., 2015) and different developmental trajectories of fronto-limbic connectivity, dependent on NPSR1 genotype, have been suggested during adolescence (Domschke et al., 2017).

Taken together, there is converging evidence for the NPSR1 T allele being a risk factor for anxiety related behavior, traits or neural activation patterns. To specifically and for the first time study the assumed relationship between genetic variation and a dysfunctional cortico-limbic network in PD with AG, a disorder-specific fMRI task was selected (Wittmann et al., 2011). Healthy volunteers and patients with PD/AG, (grouped by the NPSR1 risk allele), had to differentiate during the anticipation and perception between agoraphobia-specific and neutral pictures. Neuroimaging studies in other anxiety disorders (Brinkmann et al., 2017; Heitmann et al., 2014) reported an increased prefrontal activation during the anticipation of fearful stimuli, whereas in PD/AG higher activation in the ventral striatum and insula were observed, so far (Wittmann et al., 2018, 2014). During the perception of fearful stimuli, changes in the amygdala activation were detected most frequently in different anxiety disorders (Brühl et al., 2014; Liebscher et al., 2016; Lueken et al., 2014; Wittmann et al., 2018). Based on previous evidence, the amygdala and the iOFC were chosen as volumes of interest of the neural fear circuit as an a priori hypothesis (Liebscher et al., 2016; Plag et al., 2018; Wittmann et al., 2018). We expected that a successful fear regulation, in terms of a functional fronto-limbic network, is characterized by a higher frontal activation during the anticipation of agoraphobic pictures and a lower activation of the amygdala during the perception of those pictures.

For the anticipation phase: a) Healthy controls were hypothesized to show greater activity of the iOFC than patients with PD/AG (main effect diagnosis). b) As a main NPSR1 genotype effect, participants with the A/A genotype were assumed to show higher responsiveness than participants with one or two T alleles (A/A > T), due to a supposedly better top-down control. c) An exploratory linear interaction group x NPSR1 genotype (HC A/A > HC T > PD/AG A/A > PD/AG T) was assumed.

In the perception phase, d) Patients were expected to show higher activity in the amygdala than HC as a main effect diagnosis. e) As a main NPSR1 genotype effect, participants with the T risk allele were hypothesized to exhibit a stronger amygdala activity than participants with the A/A genotype (T > A/A). f) An exploratory linear interaction of group x NPSR1 genotype (PD/AG T > PD/AG A > HC T > HC A/A) in the amygdala was assumed.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Participants

This study was part of the multicenter trial “Mechanisms of action in CBT (MAC)” and experimental add-on studies. The participating fMRI-Centers Aachen, Berlin, Dresden and Münster recruited 89 patients in the first funding period, who met the criteria for panic disorder and agoraphobia (DSM-IV-TR) and matched healthy controls (without any mental disorder). Due to quality controls and missing data, 62 patients and 39 healthy controls (HC) were included in the present study. In the second funding period: “Neural correlates of panic disorder” the participating fMRI-Centers Berlin and Dresden recruited 113 patients with panic disorder and agoraphobia and 99 HC. Data from 60 patients and 38 HC met above defined quality criteria and were included. A flowchart (Figs. S1 and S2) with patient and HC numbers and an explanation of the in- and exclusion criteria can be found in the supplemental information. All 121 patients and 77 HC were of Caucasian decent and underwent an extensive psychological and clinical diagnostic process, consisting of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (Wittchen and Pfister, 1997), neuropsychological tests and a short medical examination. More than a third of the patients (45) suffered from one or more comorbid diagnoses, like nicotine dependence, depressive disorders or another anxiety disorder. In addition, clinical tests were completed by patients and the control group. Anxiety sensitivity was measured with the German version of the Anxiety Sensitivity Index (ASI, (Reiss et al., 1986)). A detailed description of the diagnostic procedure is added in the supplementary material. All participants were right-handed and comparable in gender, age, smoking status and education (Table 1). Patients and controls enrolled in this study gave their written informed consent, which conformed to the Declaration of Helsinki. The funding periods were approved by the Ethics Committees of the Medical Faculty of the Technische Universität Dresden (EK 164082006), the Medical Faculty of the Philipps-University Marburg, Germany (Project no. 171/09) and by the ethics committees of all participating sites.

See full tableTable 1. Sociodemographic and clinical data.

2.2. Genotyping

DNA isolations and genotyping for the functional neuropeptide S receptor (NPSR1) A/T variant (rs324981) were conducted at the Department of Psychiatry, Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, at the University Hospital of Würzburg, according to published protocols (Domschke et al., 2012, 2011). Genotypes were determined by investigators blinded for phenotypes and independently by two investigators. In both groups, NPSR1 genotype distribution (PD/AG: AA = =31, 15.7%; AT = 63, 31.8%: TT = =27, 13.6%, p (Exact) = 0.72; HC: AA = 19, 9.6%; AT = 39, 19.7%: TT = 19, 9.6%, p (Exact) = 1.0) did not significantly differ from the expected numbers calculated according to the Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium, using the program DeFinetti provided as an online source (http://ihg.gsf.de/cgi-bin/hw/hwa1.pl; Wienker TF and Strom TM).

2.3. Self-report data and statistical analyses

To assess group differences between patients with PD/AG and healthy controls, as well as differences between the genotype variations, self-report data and clinical data were analyzed with IBM SPSS Statistics 19. To compare patients and HC by demographical data including sex, handedness, smoking status and years of education,  χ²-tests were used. Variances in clinical questionnaires and tests between the PD/AG group and HC and between the different genotype groups were examined with a 2 × 2 ANOVA and post-hoc Bonferroni-corrected t-tests. The picture ratings were analyzed in an analogous manner.

We carried out a post hoc statistical power analysis to calculate the achieved power to detect main or interaction effects using G* Power 3.1.9.4 (Heinrich-Heine-Universität, Düsseldorf, Germany; Faul et al., 2007). Power analysis indicated an 88% chance of detecting a small effect size (f = 0.25) between the four groups as significant at the 5% level (two tailed) and n = 198.

2.4. fMRI: experimental design, data acquisition and analyses

Both groups performed the Westphal-Paradigm (Wittmann et al., 2014, 2011), which is composed of 48 agoraphobia-related (e.g., scenes of subways, crowds) and 48 neutral pictures from the International Affective Picture System (Bradley and Lang, 1994). The pictures were presented randomly to produce reciprocal emotions and anxiety specific brain activation (supplemental material Fig. S3). Half of the pictures were cued by the words “panic” or “neutral” and the other half with a non-specific letter combination “DGHNTFJ”. Each picture was presented 2000 ms and each cue 250 ms. The stimuli were separated by the presentation of a fixation cross (variable period of 2–4 s) with the objective of minimizing eye movements. The duration of the inter-trial intervals varied between 2 and 6 s. The participants were instructed to pay attention to the picture content, to imagine being in the shown situation and to confirm each presentation of a picture with a button press. All pictures were rated related to agoraphobic anxiety after the fMRI scan.

The functional imaging of the MAC study was performed at four sites: Berlin (3-T General Electric Healthcare), Dresden (3-T Siemens Trio), Münster (3-T Philips Achieva) and Aachen (3-T Philips Achieva). In the second trial phase, the participating fMRI sites Berlin and Dresden measured with a 3-T Siemens Trio. A table with the sample sizes per scanner can be found in the supplement (Table S1). The variety of scanners was controlled by using corresponding dummy variables as covariates in the statistical analyses. Functional images were collected using an echoplanar imaging (EPI) pulse (repetition time (TR) = =2 s, echotime (TE) = 30 ms, matrix size = =64 × 64, voxel size = =3.6 × 3.6 × 3.8, flip angle = =90°) to reduce data loss and artifacts at all sites. 446 volumes were acquired with thirty slices positioned parallel to the anterior commissure–posterior commissure (AC–PC).

Statistical Parametric Mapping (SPM 8, http://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm) was used for the data analysis. All functional images were slice-time corrected, realigned to the individual mean EPI, spatially normalized to the standard EPI template and spatially smoothed with 8 mm full width at half-maximum during the preprocessing. On the first level, a single-subject statistic was conducted and two contrast images were computed and taken to the second level. For the anticipation phase the contrast: “panic cue minus neutral cue” and for the picture perception phase the contrast: “all panic pictures minus all neutral pictures“ were created. On the group level, for each of the two contrasts (anticipation and perception) separate full factorial design ANOVAs with the factors group (PD/AG vs. HC) and grouped NPSR1 genotype (AT/TT vs. A/A) and the covariate site were used. We tested NPSR1 genotype effects using an F-contrast comparing the risk allele carriers and non-risk allele carriers in PD/AG and HC. Furthermore, the diagnosis by genotype interaction was tested in order to assess differences in genotype effects between both groups. Significant results were followed up with appropriate Bonferroni-corrected t-tests. In an explorative analysis, a linear effect over both groups was tested and corrected for multiple comparisons using small volume correction. Specifically, we assumed that existence of the T risk allele would lead to higher activation in both groups and that this effect would be higher in patients than in controls using the contrast [2 1 -1 -2].

With regard to the a priori hypotheses, the amygdala and the inferior orbitofrontal cortex were defined as volumes of interest (VOI) in the anticipation and the perception phase. A small volume correction (SVC) was applied to the amygdala and iOFC VOIs, which was generated using the AAL- Atlas (Tzourio-Mazoyer et al., 2002) within the WFU Pick Atlas software toolbox (Maldjian et al., 2003) voxel-level threshold of pFWE-corrected < 0.05. Outside these VOIs we applied a whole brain threshold of pFWE-uncorrected < 0.001. Associations between the neural activation (using mean parameter estimates extracted from the VOIs) and ASI respectively NEO-FFI scores were computed for each of the four groups using Bonferroni-corrected Pearson's correlations within SPSS.

3. Results

3.1. Self-report data

The patient group differed significantly from healthy controls in all disorder-specific questionnaires and tests (see Table 1). There was a significant main effect of NPSR1 genotype regarding in the ASI scores, with T allele carriers displaying higher scores than A/A homozygotes (F1,198 = 4.17, p = .043). The genotype x group interaction showed a tendency towards significance (F1,198 = 3.50, p = .063). The PD/AG group showed significantly higher scores than the HC group in the neuroticism subscale of the NEO-FFI (F1,127= = 19.005, p = <.001). There was a main effect of NPSR1 regarding the conscientiousness subscale (F1,127= = 6.058, p = .015), with T allele carriers displaying higher means than A/A homozygotes. A significant genotype x group interaction was found regarding the neuroticism scale of the NEO-FFI (F1,127 = 5.111, p = .026). This interaction showed that PD/AG patients with one or two T alleles had higher neuroticism scores than PD/AG patients homozygous for the A allele. In contrast, HC with the A/A genotype had higher scores on that scale than healthy risk allele carriers. The anxiety rating of the agoraphobic-specific and neutral pictures revealed a significant group and picture difference. Over all groups, the panic pictures were rated as more anxiety-inducing than the neutral pictures. However, the patients evaluated the agoraphobic-specific and the neutral pictures as more alarming than the HC (panic pictures: F1,198 = 86.306, p < .001, neutral pictures: F1,198 = 8.457, p = .004). No influence of NPSR1 genotype on these ratings was detected.

3.2. fMRI

3.2.1. Anticipation phase

In the anticipation phase neither significant main effects nor a diagnosis by genotype interaction were observed in the a priori defined ROIs. In the exploratory whole brain analysis, we detected a main effect genotype in the medial superior frontal gyrus (F = 18.29). This area is part of the anterior or medial PFC (BA10). The whole brain results are reported in the supplement (Table S2).

3.2.2. Perception phase

During the perception of agoraphobic pictures, we observed a significant main effect of NPSR1 genotype on the bilateral amygdala (F = 15.65, x = 27, y = 2, z = -29, pFWE Amygdala= = .006;Table 2). Across groups, participants with two A alleles displayed a significantly reduced activation in the bilateral amygdala compared to T carriers (T = 3.95, x = 27, y = 2, z = −29, pFWE Amygdala = .006, see Fig. 1). Areas in the left lingual gyrus and in the right amygdala survived the exploratory whole-brain correction (Table S1). The NEO-FFI trait neuroticism was trendwise negatively correlated with the amygdala activity (r = −0.488, p = .068) in healthy controls carrying A/A genotype. In an exploratory approach, we tested the assumed linear interaction in the ROIs with the highest activation in the PD/AG group with one or two risk alleles and the lowest activation in HC homozygous for the A allele. This effect showed a strong trend towards significance in the bilateral iOFC (T = 3.54, x = −51, y = 23, z = −14, pFWE iOFC = .054).

See full tableTable 2. Brain activation in fMRI 2 × 3 Design Westphal-Paradigm. Brain activation during perception phase (agoraphobia-specific pictures vs. neutral pictures) depending on NPSR1 rs324981 genotype (T > A/A) in HC compared to PD/AG.

Fig 1View larger versionFig. 1. BOLD responses during perception phase: (a) main effect of NPSR1 rs324981 in the right amygdala (b) interaction: group x NPSR1 genotype in the left iOFC. Abbreviations: PT: patients with panic disorder and agoraphobia; HC: healthy controls T: T/T and A/T carriers; A/A: A/A homozygotes; iOFC: inferior orbitofrontal cortex

Contrary to our expectations, no significant differences between patients and HC were found in the perception phase.

4. Discussion

This study aimed to explore the interaction between risk allele status of the NPSR1rs324981 variant and a disrupted cortico-limbic dysfunction in PD/AG. Using a disorder-specific task, the neural activation patterns of anticipation and perception of agoraphobia-specific stimuli were examined in patients with PD/AG and HC, as a function of NPSR1 genotype. The main findings are a higher amygdala activation in risk allele carriers and a trendwise diagnosis x genotype interaction in the iOFC during the perception of agoraphobia-specific stimuli. Unlike initial expectations, no effects of genotype or diagnosis were obtained in the a priori defined ROIs of the fear network during the anticipation phase. Though, we detected a NPSR1 genotype effect on the activation on a part of the medial PFC in the exploratory whole brain analyses.

As a first main result, during the perception of agoraphobia-specific pictures, participants with one or two risk alleles were observed to show increased bilateral amygdala activation, while A/A homozygotes displayed a reduced activation. The amygdala is an important interface in the neural fear circuit and is associated with the processing and transition of emotional information regarding its valence and affects related behavior (Janak and Tye, 2015; Ledoux, 2004; Morrison and Salzman, 2011). In line with the present results, the amygdala has been proposed to be significantly more involved in the perception than in the anticipation of fear related objects (Etkin and Wager, 2007; Gorman et al., 2000). Also, the NPSR1 T allele has previously been linked to a stronger amygdala activity, partly to a stronger amygdala activity in a gene x environment interaction (Dannlowski et al., 2011; Streit et al., 2014). The reported results are thus in accordance with the current state of research and imply an association of the NPSR1 risk allele on amygdala activation during the perception of agoraphobia-specific pictures. Furthermore, in HC homozygous for the A allele amygdala activation correlated trendwise negatively with the trait ‘neuroticism’. This result points to a possibly protective, i.e. resilience-increasing function of the A/A genotype, as described by Domschke et al. (2011).

As a second main result, we detected a borderline significant diagnosis x NPSR1 risk allele interaction during the perception phase in the iOFC. Patients with PD/AG showed a significantly higher activation than HC and within these groups, the activation decreased dependent on the genotype (T > A/A). We assumed, that the frontal activation would primarily be higher during the anticipation phase, not during the perception of agoraphobia-specific stimuli. It appears that the interaction of prefrontal and limbic areas could not be strictly be separated into anticipation and perception. Plag et al. (2018) reported similar findings with activation alterations in the amygdala, insula, ACC and iOFC in a subgroup of patients with PD/AG before and after SS(N)RI treatment during the perception phase of the Westphal Paradigm. Furthermore, the trend in the group x NPSR1 genotype interaction is in line with the findings by Domschke et al. (2011), who showed a higher activation of the dlPFC and OFC during the processing of fearful faces in patients with at least one T allele. Such activations in prefrontal regions as the OFC have been linked to emotion regulation processes (Buhle et al., 2014; Kohn et al., 2014) and aforesaid activation patterns in the neural fear circuit could therefore be interpreted as attempts of a compensatory top-down control. However, in participants carrying the T risk allele, in particular patients with PD/AG, the down-regulation of the amygdala possibly might be insufficient or fail because of a disrupted connectivity between cortical and limbic areas. This latter hypothesis is supported by findings of a reduced effective fronto-limbic connectivity in healthy children and adolescents, with a higher risk of adolescent subjects with T/T genotype (Domschke et al., 2017). Furthermore, there is evidence for impaired emotion regulation in patients with PD or PD/AG associated with prefrontal activity (Dresler et al., 2013; Reinecke et al., 2015), also specifically in a panic disorder-specific paradigm, similar to the Westphal-Paradigm (Engel et al., 2016). Altogether, the scope of this finding is limited due to its exploratory nature and the less conservative correction for multiple comparisons.

The third main result is that, against our hypotheses, no main or interaction effects were observed in the anticipation phase in the a priori defined ROIs. However, as an exploratory result, we detected a main effect of genotype in the whole brain analysis in the medial superior frontal gyrus, which is part of the anterior or medial PFC (BA10). This region is associated with emotion regulation and emotion action control and down-regulation of the amygdala (Neubert et al., 2014; Tyborowska et al., 2016; Volman et al., 2011). More precisely, the medial PFC is associated with different neural activation patterns in patients with PD/AG respectively PD (Dresler et al., 2013; Feldker et al., 2016) and is linked to the NPSR1 polymorphism (Guhn et al., 2015; Tupak et al., 2013).

Despite the accordance of the present findings with the hypotheses deduced from the available literature, several limitations have to be considered. Sample size, especially the subgroup of A/A homozygous HC (n = 19), were small to medium sized, therefore the degree to which these results can be generalized is limited. Also, the fact that the presently applied “Westphal-Paradigm” has to date uniquely been used in a patient sample recruited within two funding periods of a large German multi-site consortium does not allow for replication at this point, which limits the current candidate gene approach. Future studies could develop designs. Neither main results nor interaction effects were found during the anticipation phase. Expanded examination of the prefrontal areas might be helpful in further elucidating underlying mechanisms of this phase. More research is needed to examine the influence of the NPSR1 polymorphism on prefrontal areas and top-down regulation. Opposite to the hypotheses, no group differences between patients with PD/AG and HC were detected in the examined ROIs. However, there was a group difference on the behavioral level in the rating of the agoraphobia-specific pictures. This inconsistency between neural and behavioral data could be due to the presentation duration of the stimuli. 2000 ms is, compared to other studies, a longer presentation duration, in which up- or down regulation processes could take place, which were not detected. Recent studies presented disorder-specific stimuli for a duration of 800 ms and showed stronger group main effects (Feldker et al., 2017; Heitmann et al., 2017). For future research, a reduction of the demonstration time could be useful. Also a connectivity analysis to examine the supposed top-down regulation process while considering the NPSR1 risk allele status would be helpful to understand the interaction of the different parts of the neural fear circuit.

4.1. Conclusions

In sum, the present results for the first time indicate a link between NPSR1rs324981 genotype and neural processing of agoraphobia-related stimuli underlying PD/AG psychopathology. The reported results and previous research suggest that a fronto-limbic dysfunction might constitute an intermediate phenotype of PD/AG and thus a valid marker for disease risk. The understanding of the influence of genetic risk alleles on fear processing in patients with PD/AG and HC can be enhanced by our findings. It may help to form the basis of a more personalized treatment of PD/AG, in terms of personalized medicine.

Funding

This study was supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF grant to AS 01GV0612; BMBF grant to KD and JD, project P5, 01EE1402A, PROTECT-AD) as part of the BMBF Psychotherapy Research Funding Initiative and by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) – project number 44541416 – TRR 58 “Fear, Anxiety, Anxiety Disorders”, within projects C02 (to KD and JD), Z02 (to KD, JD, UL and AR), C07 (to MJH) and project number DFG CRC 1193 within project Z03 to AR. J. Gechter was funded by the “Elsa-Neumann” scholarship. The foundation had no influence on the study design, the collection, analysis and interpretation of data, the writing of the report or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Supplementary Material

Open In Web Browser

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgments

This work is part of the German multicenter trial “Mechanisms of Action in CBT (MAC)”. The study was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF; project no. 01GV0615) as part of the BMBF Psychotherapy Research Funding Initiative. Principal investigators (PI) with respective areas of responsibility in the MAC study are V. Arolt (Münster: Overall MAC Program Coordination), H.U. Wittchen (Dresden: Principal. Investigator (PI) for the Randomized Clinical Trial and Manual Development), A. Hamm (Greifswald: PI for Psychophysiology), A.L. Gerlach (Münster: PI for Psychophysiology and Panic subtypes), A. Ströhle (Berlin: PI for Experimental Pharmacology), T. Kircher (Marburg: PI for functional neuroimaging), and J. Deckert (Würzburg: PI for Genetics). Additional site directors in the RCT component of the program are G.W. Alpers (Würzburg), T. Fydrich and L. Fehm (Berlin-Adlershof), and T. Lang (Bremen). Acknowledgements and staff members by site: Greifswald (coordinating site for Psychophysiology): Christiane Pané-Farré, Jan Richter, Susan Richter, Matthias von Rad; Berlin-Charité (coordinating Center for Experimental Pharmacology): Harald Bruhn, Anja Siegmund, Meline Stoy, André Wittmann; Berlin-Adlershof: Irene Schulz; Münster (Overall MAC Program Coordination, Genetics and Functional Neuroimaging): Andreas Behnken, Katharina Domschke, Adrianna Ewert, Carsten Konrad, Bettina Pfleiderer, Christina Uhlmann, Peter Zwanzger; Münster (coordinating site for psychophysiology and subtyping): Judith Eidecker, Swantje Koller, Fred Rist, Anna Vossbeck-Elsebusch; Marburg/Aachen (coordinating center for functional neuroimaging): Barbara Drüke, Sonja Eskens, Thomas Forkmann, Siegfried Gauggel, Susan Gruber, Andreas Jansen, Thilo Kellermann, Isabelle Reinhardt, Nina Vercamer-Fabri; Dresden (coordinating site for data collection, analysis, and the RCT): Franziska Einsle, Christine Froehlich, Andrew T. Gloster, Christina Hauke, Simone Heinze, Michael Hoefler, Ulrike Lueken, Peter Neudeck, Stephanie Preiß, Dorte Westphal; Würzburg Psychiatry Department (coordinating center for genetics): Andreas Reif, Caro Gagel; Würzburg Psychology Department: Julia Duerner, Hedwig Eisenbarth, Antje B. M. Gerdes, Harald Krebs, Paul Pauli, Silvia Schad, Nina Steinhäuser; Bremen: Veronika Bamann, Sylvia Helbig-Lang, Anne Kordt, Pia Ley, Franz Petermann, Eva-Maria Schroeder. Additional support was provided by the coordinating center for clinical studies in Dresden (KKS Dresden): Xina Graehlert and Marko Käppler. This work is also part of the German multicenter trial: Mechanisms of CBT treatment effects in patients with panic disorder and panic disorder with AG: The role of interoceptive exposure and fear augmentation (MCBT-PDAS). The study is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF, 01GV0614) as part of the larger BMBF Psychotherapy Research Funding Initiative Improving the Treatment of Panic Disorder. Principal investigators (PI) with respective areas of concentration of the MCBT-PDAS are Alfons Hamm (Greifswald: PI Psychophysiology); Thomas Lang (Bremen: Study Director for the Randomized Clinical Trial (RCT) and Manual Development); Alexander L. Gerlach (Münster: PI Panic subtypes); Georg W. Alpers (Mannheim: PI Ambulatory assessment); Christiane Pané-Farré (Greifswald: PI Psychophysiology and Panic Disorder); Tilo Kircher (Marburg: PI for functional neuroimaging), and Jürgen Deckert (Würzburg: PI for Genetics). Additional site directors in the RCT component of the program are Winfried Rief (Marburg), and Paul Pauli (Würzburg). Centers of the Research Network: Volker Arolt (Münster: Overall Network Coordination), Hans-Ulrich Wittchen (Dresden), Andreas Ströhle (Berlin). Acknowledgements and staff members by site: Bremen (coordinating center for the multicenter trial): Veronika Bamann, Sandra Cammin, Sarah Czilwik, Kira Geisler, Sylvia Helbig-Lang, Kirsten Helmes, Anne Kordt, Tanja Leonhard, Mila Plett-Perelshteyn, Christian Soltau, Juliane Sülz, Maxie von Auer; Greifswald (coordinating site for psychophysiology): Anett Hoffmann, Jan Richter; Mannheim (coordinating center for ambulatory assessment): Christoph Biwer, Elisabeth Borgmann, Antje Gerdes, Otto Martin, Kristina Steinbach, Bettina Stemmler, Andrew White; Marburg (coordinating center for functional neuroimaging): Tobias Fehlinger, Andreas Jansen, Nikita Jegan, Carsten Konrad, Marion Mickeler, Silke Rusch, Katrin Schlötterer, Benjamin Straube, Mareike Stumpenhorst, Katrin Wambach, Yunbo Yang; Münster (coordinating site for panic subtypes): Susanne Kettler, Anna Vossbeck-Elsebusch; Würzburg Psychiatry Department (coordinating center for genetics): Carola Gagel, Andreas Reif, Heike Weber; Würzburg Psychology Department: Almut Friedl-Huber, Harald Krebs, Caroline Ott, Nina Steinhäuser; Additional support was provided by the coordinating center for clinical studies in Dresden (KKS Dresden): Marko Käppler. The study was registered with the NCT01323556.

Acknowledgments

We thank Andrea Hassenpflug and Carola Gagel for their skilful technical support and Claudia Ebrahimi and Isabel Alt for their assistance with data collection. We gratefully acknowledge Patrick Ugol for his support as a native speaker.

Footnotes

Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2019.102029.

Articles from NeuroImage : Clinical are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

PMC Copyright Notice

The articles available from the PMC site are protected by copyright, even though access is free. Copyright is held by the respective authors or publishers who provide these articles to PMC. Users of PMC are responsible for complying with the terms and conditions defined by the copyright holder.

Users should assume that standard copyright protection applies to articles in PMC, unless an article contains an explicit license statement that gives a user additional reuse or redistribution rights. PMC does not allow automated/bulk downloading of articles that have standard copyright protection.

See the copyright notice on the PMC site, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/about/copyright/, for further details and specific exceptions.

References

American Psychiatric Association, author. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders5th ed. 2013. American Psychiatric Press; Washington, DC:

Atmaca M.; Yildirim H.; Gurkan Gurok M.; Akyol M., authors. Orbito-frontal cortex volumes in panic disorder. Psychiatry Investig. 10:2013;408–412. [CrossRef]

Beste C.; Konrad C.; Uhlmann C.; Arolt V.; Zwanzger P.; Domschke K., authors. Neuropeptide S receptor (NPSR1) gene variation modulates response inhibition and error monitoring. Neuroimage. 71:2013;1–9. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Bradley M.; Lang P.J., authors. Measuring emotion: the self-assessment Manikin and the semantic differential. J. Behav. Ther. Exp. Psychiatry. 25:1994;49–59. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Brinkmann L.; Poller H.; Herrmann M.J.; Miltner W.; Straube T., authors. Initial and sustained brain responses to threat anticipation in blood-injection-injury phobia. NeuroImage Clin. 13:2017;320–329. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Brühl A.B.; Delsignore A.; Komossa K.; Weidt S., authors. Neuroimaging in social anxiety disorder-a meta-analytic review resulting in a new neurofunctional model. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 47:2014;260–280. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Buhle J.T.; Silvers J.A.; Wage T.D.; Lopez R.; Onyemekwu C.; Kober H.; Webe J.; Ochsner K.N., authors. Cognitive reappraisal of emotion: a meta-analysis of human neuroimaging studies. Cereb. Cortex. 24:2014;2981–2990. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Dannlowski U.; Kugel H.; Franke F.; Stuhrmann A.; Hohoff C.; Zwanzger P.; Lenzen T.; Grotegerd D.; Suslow T.; Arolt V.; Heindel W.; Domschke K., authors. Neuropeptide-S (NPS) receptor genotype modulates basolateral amygdala responsiveness to aversive stimuli. Neuropsychopharmacology. 36:2011;1879–1885. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Domschke K.; Akhrif A.; Romanos M.; Bajer C.; Mainusch M.; Winkelmann J.; Zimmer C.; Neufang S., authors. Neuropeptide S receptor gene variation differentially modulates fronto-limbic effective connectivity in childhood and adolescence. Cereb. Cortex. 27:2017;554–566. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Domschke K.; Klauke B.; Winter B.; Gajewska A.; Herrmann M.J.; Warrings B.; Mühlberger A.; Wosnitza K.; Dlugos A.; Naunin S.; Nienhaus K.; Fobker M.; Jacob C.; Arolt V.; Pauli P.; Reif A.; Zwanzger P.; Deckert J., authors. Modification of caffeine effects on the affect-modulated startle by neuropeptide S receptor gene variation. Psychopharmacology. 222:2012;533–541. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Domschke K.; Reif A.; Weber H.; Richter J.; Hohoff C.; Ohrmann P.; Pedersen A.; Bauer J.; Suslow T.; Kugel H.; Heindel W.; Baumann C.; Klauke B.; Jacob C.; Maier W.; Fritze J.; Bandelow B.; Krakowitzky P.; Rothermundt M.; Erhardt A.; Binder E.B.; Holsboer F.; Gerlach A.L.; Kircher T.; Lang T.; Alpers G.W.; Ströhle A.; Fehm L.; Gloster A.T.; Wittchen H.-U.; Arolt V.; Pauli P.; Hamm A.; Deckert J., authors. Neuropeptide S receptor gene — converging evidence for a role in panic disorder. Mol. Psychiatry. 16:2011;938–948. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Donner J.; Haapakoski R.; Ezer S.; Meln E.; Pirkola S.; Gratacs M.; Zucchelli M.; Anedda F.; Johansson L.E.; Sderhll C.; Orsmark-Pietras C.; Suvisaari J.; Martn-Santos R.; Torrens M.; Silander K.; Terwilliger J.D.; Wickman M.; Pershagen G.; Lnnqvist J.; Peltonen L.; Estivill X.; D'Amato M.; Kere J.; Alenius H.; Hovatta I., authors. Assessment of the neuropeptide S system in anxiety disorders. Biol. Psychiatry. 68:2010;474–483. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Dresler T.; Guhn A.; Tupak S.V, Ehlis A.-C.; Herrmann M.J.; Fallgatter A.J.; Deckert J.; Domschke K., authors. Revise the revised? New dimensions of the neuroanatomical hypothesis of panic disorder. J. Neural Transm. 120:2013;3–29. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Engel K.R.; Obst K.; Bandelow B.; Dechent P.; Gruber O.; Zerr I.; Ulrich K.; Wedekind D., authors. Functional MRI activation in response to panic-specific, non-panic aversive, and neutral pictures in patients with panic disorder and healthy controls. Eur. Arch. Psychiatry Clin. Neurosci. 266:2016;557–566. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Etkin A.; Wager T.D., authors. Functional neuroimaging of anxiety: a meta-analysis of emotional processing in PTSD, social anxiety disorder, and specific phobia. Am. J. Psychiatry. 164:2007;1476–1488. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Faul F.; Erdfelder E.; Lang A.-G.; Buchner A., authors. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav. Res. Methods. 39:2007;175–191. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Feldker K.; Heitmann C.Y.; Neumeister P.; Bruchmann M.; Vibrans L.; Zwitserlood P.; Straube T., authors. Brain responses to disorder-related visual threat in panic disorder. Hum. Brain Mapp. 37:2016;4439–4453. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Feldker K.; Heitmann C.Y.; Neumeister P.; Tupak S.V, Schrammen E.; Moeck R.; Zwitserlood P.; Bruchmann M.; Straube T., authors. Transdiagnostic brain responses to disorder-related threat across four psychiatric disorders. Psychol. Med. 47:2017;730–743. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Fox A.S.; Oler J.A.; Tromp D.P.M.; Fudge J.L.; Kalin N.H., authors. Extending the amygdala in theories of threat processing. Trends Neurosci. 38:2015;319–329. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Gorman J.M.; Kent J.M.; Sullivan G.M.; Coplan J.D., authors. Neuroanatomical hypothesis of panic disorder, revised. Am. J. Psychiatry. 157:2000;493–505. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Guhn A.; Domschke K.; Mu L.D.; Dresler T.; Eff F.; Kopf J.; Reif A.; Herrmann M.J., authors. Neuropeptide S receptor gene variation and neural correlates of cognitive emotion regulation. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 10:2015;1730–1737. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Heitmann C.Y.; Feldker K.; Neumeister P.; Brinkmann L.; Schrammen E.; Zwitserlood P.; Straube T., authors. Brain activation to task-irrelevant disorder-related threat in social anxiety disorder: the impact of symptom severity. NeuroImage Clin. 14:2017;323–333. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Heitmann C.Y.; Peterburs J.; Mothes-Lasch M.; Hallfarth M.C.; Bohme S.; Miltner W.H.R.; Straube T., authors. Neural correlates of anticipation and processing of performance feedback in social anxiety. Hum. Brain Mapp. 35:2014;6023–6031. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Hettema J.M.; Neale M.C.; Kendler K.S., authors. A review and meta-analysis of the genetic epidemiology of anxiety disorders. Am. J. Psychiatry. 2001;1568–1578. [PubMed]

Janak P.H.; Tye K.M., authors. From circuits to behaviour in the amygdala. Nature. 517:2015;284–292. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Jüngling K.; Seidenbecher T.; Sosulina L.; Lesting J.; Clark S.D.; Okamura N.; Duangdao D.M.; Xu Y.; K R., authors. Neuropetide S-mediated control of fear expression and extinction: role of intercalated GABAergic neurons in the amygdala. Neuron. 59:2008;298–310. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Kircher T.; Arolt V.; Jansen A.; Pyka M.; Reinhardt I.; Kellermann T.; Konrad C.; Lueken U.; Gloster A.T.; Gerlach A.L.; Strohle A.; Wittmann A.; Pfleiderer B.; Wittchen H.-U.; Straube B., authors. Effect of cognitive-behavioral therapy on neural correlates of fear conditioning in panic disorder. Biol. Psychiatry. 73:2013;93–101. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Klahn A.L.; Klinkenberg I.A.; Lueken U.; Notzon S.; Arolt V.; Pantev C.; Zwanzger P.; Junghoefer M., authors. Commonalities and differences in the neural substrates of threat predictability in panic disorder and specific phobia. NeuroImage Clin. 14:2017;530–537. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Klauke B.; Deckert J.; Zwanzger P.; Baumann C.; Arolt V.; Pauli P.; Reif A.; Domschke K., authors. Neuropeptide S receptor gene (NPSR) and life events: G x E effects on anxiety sensitivity and its subdimensions. World J. Biol. Psychiatry. 15:2014;17–25. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Kohn N.; Eickhoff S.B.; Scheller M.; Laird A.R.; Fox P.T.; Habel U., authors. Neural network of cognitive emotion regulation — an ALE meta- analysis and MACM analysis. Neuroimage. 87:2014;345–355. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Ledoux J., author. The amygdala. Curr. Biol. 17:2004;868–874. [CrossRef]

Liebscher C.; Wittmann A.; Gechter J.; Schlagenhauf F.; Lueken U.; Plag J.; Straube B.; Pfleiderer B.; Fehm L.; Gerlach A.L.; Kircher T.; Fydrich T.; Deckert J.; Wittchen H.-U.; Heinz A.; Arolt V.; Strohle A., authors. Facing the fear - clinical and neural effects of cognitive behavioural and pharmacotherapy in panic disorder with agoraphobia. Eur. Neuropsychopharmacol. 26:2016;431–444. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Lueken U.; Hilbert K.; Stolyar V.; Maslowski N.I.; Beesdo-Baum K.; Wittchen H.-U., authors. Neural substrates of defensive reactivity in two subtypes of specific phobia. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 9:2014;1668–1675. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Lueken U.; Straube B.; Konrad C.; Wittchen H.-U.; Ströhle A.; Wittmann A.; Pfleiderer B.; Uhlmann C.; Arolt V.; Jansen A.; Kircher T., authors. Neural substrates of treatment response to cognitive-behavioral therapy in panic disorder with agoraphobia. Am. J. Psychiatry. 2013;1345–1355.. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Maldjian J.A.; Laurienti P.J.; Kraft R.A.; Burdette J.H., authors. An automated method for neuroanatomic and cytoarchitectonic atlas-based interrogation of fMRI data sets. Neuroimage. 19:2003;1233–1239. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Morrison S.E.; Salzman D.C., authors. Re-valuing the amygdala. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 20:2011;221–230. [CrossRef]

Neubert F.-X.; Mars R.B.; Thomas A.G.; Sallet J.; Rushworth M.F.S., authors. Comparison of human ventral frontal cortex areas for cognitive control and language with areas in monkey frontal cortex. Neuron. 81:2014;700–713. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Neufang S.; Geiger M.J.; Homola G.A.; Mahr M.; Akhrif A.; Nowak J.; Reif A.; Romanos M.; Deckert J.; Solymosi L.; Domschke K., authors. Modulation of prefrontal functioning in attention systems by NPSR1 gene variation. Neuroimage. 114:2015;199–206. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Okamura N.; Hashimoto K.; Iyo M.; Shimizu E.; Dempfle A.; Friedel S.; Reinscheid R.K., authors. Gender-specific association of a functional coding polymorphism in the Neuropeptide S receptor gene with panic disorder but not with schizophrenia or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Prog. Neuropsychopharmacol. Biol. Psychiatry. 31:2007;1444–1448. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Pape H.; Jüngling K.; Seidenbecher T.; Lesting J.; Reinscheid K., authors. Neuropeptide S: a transmitter system in the brain regulating fear and anxiety. Neuropsychopharmacology. 58:2010;29–34. [CrossRef]

Plag J.; Petzold M.B.; Gechter J.; Liebscher C.; Ströhle A., authors. Patients’ characteristics and their influence on course of fear during agoraphobic symptom provocation: may SS(N)RI treatment compensate unfavorable individual preconditions? Nord. J. Psychiatry. 72:2018;325–335. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Reinecke A.; Filippini N.; Berna C.; Western D.G.; Hanson B.; Cooper M.J.; Taggart P.; Harmer C.J., authors. Effective emotion regulation strategies improve fMRI and ECG markers of psychopathology in panic disorder: implications for psychological treatment action. Transl. Psychiatry. 5:2015;. e673-10. [CrossRef]

Reinscheid R.K.; Xu Y.-L.; Okamura N.; Zeng J.; Chung S.; Pai R.; Wang Z.; Civelli O., authors. Pharmacological characterization of human and murine neuropeptide s receptor variants. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 315:2005;1338–1345. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Reiss S.; Peterson R.A.; Gursky D.M.; McNally R.J., authors. Anxiety sensitivity, anxiety frequency and the predictions of fearfulness. Behav. Res. Ther. 24:1986;1–8. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Sobanski T.; Wagner G., authors. Functional neuroanatomy in panic disorder: status quo of the research. World J. Psychiatry. 7:2017;12 [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Streit F.; Haddad L.; Paul T.; Frank J.; Schäfer A.; Nikitopoulos J.; Akdeniz C.; Lederbogen F.; Treutlein J.; Witt S.; Meyer-Lindenberg A.; Rietschel M.; Kirsch P.; Wüst S., authors. A functional variant in the neuropeptide S receptor 1 gene moderates the influence of urban upbringing on stress processing in the amygdala. Stress. 17:2014;352–361. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Tupak S.V.; Reif A.; Pauli P.; Dresler T.; Herrmann M.J.; Domschke K.; Jochum C.; Haas E.; Baumann C.; Weber H.; Fallgatter A.J.; Deckert J.; Ehlis A.C., authors. Neuropeptide S receptor gene: fear-specific modulations of prefrontal activation. Neuroimage. 66:2013;353–360. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Tyborowska A.; Volman I.; Smeekens S.; Toni I.; Roelofs K., authors. Testosterone during puberty shifts emotional control from pulvinar to anterior prefrontal cortex. J. Neurosci. 36:2016;6156–6164. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Tzourio-Mazoyer N.; Landeau B.; Papathanassiou D.; Crivello F.; Etard O.; Delcroix N.; Mazoyer B.; Joliot M., authors. Automated anatomical labeling of activations in SPM using a macroscopic anatomical parcellation of the MNI MRI single-subject brain. Neuroimage. 15:2002;273–289. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Volman I.; Roelofs K.; Koch S.; Verhagen L.; Toni I., authors. Anterior prefrontal cortex inhibition impairs control over social emotional actions. Curr. Biol. 21:2011;1766–1770. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Wittchen H.U.; Jacobi F.; Rehm J.; Gustavsson A.; Svensson M.; Jonsson B.; Olesen J.; Allgulander C.; Alonso J.; Faravelli C.; Fratiglioni L.; Jennum P.; Lieb R.; Maercker A.; van Os J.; Preisig M.; Salvador-Carulla L.; Simon R.; Steinhausen H.-C., authors. The size and burden of mental disorders and other disorders of the brain in Europe 2010. Eur. Neuropsychopharmacol. 21:2011;655–679. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Wittchen H.U.; Pfister H., authors. DIA-X Interview. Instruction Manual for the DIA-X Interview1997. Zwets and Zeitlinger; Frankfurt:

Wittmann A.; Schlagenhauf F.; Guhn A.; Lueken U.; Elle M.; Stoy M.; Liebscher C.; Bermpohl F.; Fydrich T.; Pfleiderer B.; Bruhn H.; Gerlach A.L.; Straube B.; Wittchen H.U.; Arolt V.; Heinz A.; Kircher T.; Ströhle A., authors. Effects of cognitive behavioral therapy on neural processing of agoraphobia-specific stimuli in panic disorder and agoraphobia. Psychother. Psychosom. 87:2018;350–365. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Wittmann A.; Schlagenhauf F.; Guhn A.; Lueken U.; Gaehlsdorf C.; Stoy M.; Bermpohl F.; Fydrich T.; Pfleiderer B.; Bruhn H.; Gerlach A.L.; Kircher T.; Straube B.; Wittchen H.-U.; Arolt V.; Heinz A.; Strohle A., authors. Anticipating agoraphobic situations: the neural correlates of panic disorder with agoraphobia. Psychol. Med. 44:2014;2385–2396. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Wittmann A.; Schlagenhauf F.; John T.; Guhn A.; Rehbein H.; Siegmund A.; Stoy M.; Held D.; Schulz I.; Fehm L.; Fydrich T.; Heinz A.; Bruhn H.; Strohle A., authors. A new paradigm (Westphal-Paradigm) to study the neural correlates of panic disorder with agoraphobia. Eur. Arch. Psychiatry Clin. Neurosci. 261:2011;185–194. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Xu Y.L.; Reinscheid R.K.; Huitron-Resendiz S.; Clark S.D.; Wang Z.; Lin S.H.; Brucher F.A.; Zeng J.; Ly N.K.; Henriksen S.J.; De Lecea L.; Civelli O., authors. Neuropeptide S: a neuropeptide promoting arousal and anxiolytic-like effects. Neuron. 43:2004;487–497. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

[Back]

Table 1.

Sociodemographic and clinical data.

Characteristics |  | PD/AG T n = =90 (45.4%) | PD/AG A/A n = =31 (15.7%) | HC T n = =58 (29.3%) | HC A/A n = =19 (9.6%) | total n = =198 |  | chi²/F |  | p |
Sex | Male [n (%)] | 33 (16.7) | 11 (5.7) | 21 (10.6) | 10 (5.0) | 75 (37.9) |  | 1.958 |  | .581 |
Female [n (%)] | 57 (28.8) | 20 (10.1) | 37 (18.7) | 9 (4.6) | 123 (62.1) |  |  |  |  |
Years of school education | 8 [n (%)] | 9 (4.6) | 3 (1.5) | 2 (1.0) | 2 (1.0) | 16 (8.0) |  | 6.503 |  | .369 |
10 [n (%)] | 39 (19.7) | 9 (4.6) | 20 (10.1) | 5 (2.5) | 73 (36.7) |  |  |  |  |
13 [n (%)] | 42 (21.2) | 19 (9.6) | 36 (18.1) | 12 (6.6) | 109 (55.0) |  |  |  |  |
Smoking status | Non-smoker [n (%)] | 46 (23.2) | 17 (8.6) | 39 (19.7) | 10 (5.0) | 112 (56.6) |  | 5.529 |  | .478 |
Smoker [n (%)] | 34 (17.1) | 14 (7.0) | 19 (9.6) | 9 (4.6) | 86 (43.4) |  |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  | main effect diagnosis |  | main effect NPSR1 |  | interaction group x NPSR1 |
|  |  |  |  | F | p | F | p | F | p
Age | M (SD) | 35.19 (10.04) | 38.32 (11.69) | 35.67 (10.45) | 33.16 (12.55) | 1.627 | .204 | 0.021 | .885 | 2.386 | .124
Clinical characteristics
SIGH-A | M (SD) | 22.03 (7.69) | 20.1 (6.56) | 1.48 (2.29) | 2.11(2.03) | 378.112 | <.001 | 0.469 | .494 | 1.719 | .191
BSI | M (SD) | 1.06 (0.57) | 0.96 (0.54) | 0.98 (0.11) | 0.95 (0.12) | 148.963 | <.001 | 0.574 | .45 | 0.509 | .476
BDI | M (SD) | 15.23(8.61) | 12.48 (10.61) | 1.37(2.0) | 1.21 (2.1) | 150.535 | <.001 | 1.403 | .238 | 1.118 | .292
ASI | M (SD) | 30.21(10.59) | 23.97(10.53) | 8.90 (7.3) | 8.63 (7.29) | 132.054 | <.001 | 4.171 | .43 | 3.503 | .063
MI alone | M (SD) | 2.60 (1.07) | 2.61 (0.79) | 1.06 (0.14) | 1.02 (0.04) | 53.705 | <.001 | 0.002 | .964 | 0.018 | .893
MI accompanied | M (SD) | 2.05 (0.87) | 2.08 (0.72) | 1.02 (0.05) | 1.02 (0.03) | 35.509 | <.001 | 0.005 | .947 | 0.004 | .951
NEO-FFI neuroticisma | M (SD) | 2.0 (0.31) | 1.8 (0.31) | 1.34 (0.52) | 1.6 (0.36) | 19.005 | <.001 | 0.125 | .724 | 5.111 | .026
NEO-FFI extraversiona | M (SD) | 2.01 (0.3) | 2.05 (0.25) | 2.41 (0.45) | 2.32 (0.33) | 15.803 | <.001 | 0.082 | .775 | 0.553 | .459
NEO-FFI openness-to-experiencea | M (SD) | 2.1 (0.34) | 2.12 (0.16) | 2.31 (0.39) | 2.21 (0.44) | 3.367 | .069 | 0.306 | .581 | 0.6 | .44
NEO-FFI agreeablenessa | M (SD) | 2.05 (0.3) | 1.87 (0.97) | 2.4 (0.45) | 2.3 (0.46) | 12.087 | .001 | 1.616 | .206 | 0.139 | .71
NEO-FFI conscientiousnessa | M (SD) | 2.3 (0.24) | 2.12 (0.34) | 2.68 (0.46) | 2.44 (0.5) | 15.126 | <.001 | 6.058 | .015 | 0.09 | .765
Rating neutral pictures | M (SD) | 1.36 (0.70) | 1.39 (0.75) | 1.13 (0.39) | 1.03 (0.83) | 8.457 | .004 | 0.087 | .768 | 0.463 | .497
Rating panic pictures | M (SD) | 2.62 (0.98) | 2.59 (0.97) | 1.34 (0.52) | 1.25 (0.48) | 86.306 | <.001 | 0.153 | .696 | 0.042 | .838

Abbreviations: PD/AG, patients with panic disorder and agoraphobia; HC, healthy controls; T: T/T & A/T carrier; M, mean; SD, standard deviation; SIGH-A, Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale; BSI, Brief Symptom Inventory, BDI II, Becks Depression Inventory-II, ASI, Anxiety Sensitivity Index, MI, Mobility Inventory; NEO-FFI, Revised NEO Personality Inventory.

a. Due to study design changes between the both funding periods and missing data, NEO-FFI data was only available in 50 patients (40 TT, AT carriers and 10 A/A carriers).

[Back]

[Back]

Table 2.

Brain activation in fMRI 2 × 3 Design Westphal-Paradigm. Brain activation during perception phase (agoraphobia-specific pictures vs. neutral pictures) depending on NPSR1 rs324981 genotype (T > A/A) in HC compared to PD/AG.

Contrast | ROI | Voxels | x | y | z | t | pFWE
Main effect diagnosis: PD/AG > HC
| Amygdala bilateral |  |  |  |  |  | n.s.
| iOFC bilateral |  |  |  |  |  | n.s.
Main effect NPSR1: T > AA
| Amygdala bilateral | 47 | 27 | 2 | −29 | 3.95 | 0.006a
| iOFC bilateral |  |  |  |  |  | n.s.
Linear Interaction: PD/AG > HC, T > AA
| Amygdala bilateral |  |  |  |  |  | n.s.
| iOFC bilateral | 100 | −51 | 23 | −14 | 3.48 | 0.054

Abbreviations: x, y, z, MINI-Coordinates; n.s., not significant; PD/AG, patients with panic disorder and agoraphobia; HC, healthy controls; iOFC, inferior orbitofrontal cortex.

a. Bonferroni-corrected.

[Back]

[Back]

Fig. 1.

BOLD responses during perception phase: (a) main effect of NPSR1 rs324981 in the right amygdala (b) interaction: group x NPSR1 genotype in the left iOFC. Abbreviations: PT: patients with panic disorder and agoraphobia; HC: healthy controls T: T/T and A/T carriers; A/A: A/A homozygotes; iOFC: inferior orbitofrontal cortex

[Back]