Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-blhq5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-26T09:58:55.644Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Corpus callosum changes in euthymic bipolar affectivedisorder

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Adrian J. Lloyd*
Affiliation:
Psychobiology Research Group, Institute of Neuroscience, Newcastle University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
Heba E. Ali
Affiliation:
Psychobiology Research Group, Institute of Neuroscience, Newcastle University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
David Nesbitt
Affiliation:
Psychobiology Research Group, Institute of Neuroscience, Newcastle University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
P. Brian Moore
Affiliation:
Psychobiology Research Group, Institute of Neuroscience, Newcastle University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
Allan H. Young
Affiliation:
Psychobiology Research Group, Institute of Neuroscience, Newcastle University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
I. Nicol Ferrier
Affiliation:
Psychobiology Research Group, Institute of Neuroscience, Newcastle University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
*
Adrian J. Lloyd, Wolfson Research Centre, Campus for Ageingand Vitality, Newcastle University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne NE4 5PL, UK. Email: a.j.lloyd@ncl.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Changes in corpus callosum area and thickness have been reported in bipolar disorder. Imaging and limited neuropathological data suggest possible abnormalities in myelination and/or glial function.

Aims

To compare corpus callosum area, thickness and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) T 1 signal intensity in patients with bipolar disorder and healthy controls.

Method

A total of 48 patients with euthymic bipolar disorder and 46 healthy controls underwent MRI analysis of callosal midsagittal area, callosal thickness and T 1 signal intensity.

Results

The bipolar group had smaller overall and subregional callosal areas and correspondingly reduced callosal width than the control group. Age correlated negatively with callosal area in the control group but not in the bipolar group. Signal intensity was higher in women than in men in both groups. Signal intensity was reduced in women, but not in men, in the bipolar group.

Conclusions

Observed differences probably relate to diagnosis rather than mood state and bipolar disorder appears to result in morphometric change that overrides changes seen in normal ageing. Intensity changes are consistent with possible altered myelination or glial function. A gender-dependent factor appears to operate and to interact with diagnosis.

Information

Type
Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2014 
Figure 0

Fig. 1 Callosal subregions illustrating geometric callosal divisions (after Witelson, 1989)22 and central region of each area used for image intensity measurement.ACC, anterior-most point of corpus callosum; PCC, posterior-most point of corpus callosum; G, point of anterior-most division defined by apex of inner curve of genu. Witelson areas: 1, rostrum; 2, genu; 3, rostral body; 4, anterior midbody; 5, posterior midbody; 6, isthmus; 7, spelnium.

Figure 1

Table 1 Demographic and clinical detailsa

Figure 2

Table 2 Total midsagittal intracranial area and callosal area measurements

Figure 3

Table 3 Analysis of callosal areas covarying for midsagittal intracranial areaa

Figure 4

Fig. 2 Profile of averaged corpus callosum and measured callosal widths in the control and bipolar groups.(a) Averaged callosal profile illustrating position of widths (control group); (b) superimposed profiles of averaged callosa of bipolar and control groups; (c) plots of callosal widths 1-99 for bipolar and control groups. NS, non-significant difference between widths in range specified; Sig, significant difference between widths in range specified. Vertical lines on chart indicate boundaries of significant/non-significant width ranges.

Figure 5

Table 4 Group mean values for signal intensity

Figure 6

Table 5 Simple main effect comparisons for signal intensitya

Supplementary material: PDF

Lloyd et al. supplementary material

Supplementary Table S1

Download Lloyd et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 51.9 KB

This journal is not currently accepting new eletters.

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.