Skip to main content
eLife logoLink to eLife
. 2023 Oct 20;12:e85175. doi: 10.7554/eLife.85175

Two human brain systems micro-structurally associated with obesity

Manfred G Kitzbichler 1, Daniel Martins 2, Richard AI Bethlehem 1, Richard Dear 1, Rafael Romero-Garcia 1,3, Varun Warrier 1,4, Jakob Seidlitz 5,6,7, Ottavia Dipasquale 2, Federico Turkheimer 2, Mara Cercignani 8, Edward T Bullmore 1,, Neil A Harrison 8,†,
Editors: Susie Y Huang9, Ma-Li Wong10
PMCID: PMC10688972  PMID: 37861301

Abstract

The relationship between obesity and human brain structure is incompletely understood. Using diffusion-weighted MRI from ∼30,000 UK Biobank participants, we test the hypothesis that obesity (waist-to-hip ratio, WHR) is associated with regional differences in two micro-structural MRI metrics: isotropic volume fraction (ISOVF), an index of free water, and intra-cellular volume fraction (ICVF), an index of neurite density. We observed significant associations with obesity in two coupled but distinct brain systems: a prefrontal/temporal/striatal system associated with ISOVF and a medial temporal/occipital/striatal system associated with ICVF. The ISOVF~WHR system colocated with expression of genes enriched for innate immune functions, decreased glial density, and high mu opioid (MOR) and other neurotransmitter receptor density. Conversely, the ICVF~WHR system co-located with expression of genes enriched for G-protein coupled receptors and decreased density of MOR and other receptors. To test whether these distinct brain phenotypes might differ in terms of their underlying shared genetics or relationship to maps of the inflammatory marker C-reactive Protein (CRP), we estimated the genetic correlations between WHR and ISOVF (rg = 0.026, P = 0.36) and ICVF (rg = 0.112, P < 9×10−4) as well as comparing correlations between WHR maps and equivalent CRP maps for ISOVF and ICVF (P<0.05). These correlational results are consistent with a two-way mechanistic model whereby genetically determined differences in neurite density in the medial temporal system may contribute to obesity, whereas water content in the prefrontal system could reflect a consequence of obesity mediated by innate immune system activation.

Research organism: Human

eLife digest

People with obesity are at greater risk of cardiovascular diseases and metabolic conditions such as type 2 diabetes. More recently obesity has also been linked to changes in the brain that are associated with age-related dementia and cognitive decline. This includes a thinner cortex (the brain’s outer layer) and lower volume of grey matter which is where cognitive processes, such as learning, take place.

However, questions remain about how obesity and grey matter are connected. For instance, it is unclear whether the change in volume is due to there being fewer cells (and thus more water between them) or fewer connections between cells in these brain areas. It is also unknown whether the reduced volume of grey matter is a cause or consequence of obesity.

To address these questions, Kitzbichler et al. analysed 30,000 MRI scans of the human brain which are stored in the UK Biobank. This revealed two characteristics in grey matter that were linked to obesity: higher amounts of water between cells in some areas, and a lower density of connections between neurons in others.

The areas with higher levels of free water are known to have more glial cells which provide support to neurons. They also have more receptors that bind to fatty acids (which are often raised in people with obesity) and more receptors for molecules and cells involved in the immune response. In contrast, the areas with a lower density of connections between neurons usually were more closely associated with genetic risk factors associated with obesity, and fewer receptors involved in feeding, appetite and energy use.

The findings of Kitzblicher et al. suggest that differences in the density of connections between neurons may contribute to obesity. High water content in grey matter, on the other hand, may be a consequence of obesity that occurs as a result of immune receptors becoming activated. This provides new insights in to how obesity and grey matter in the brain are connected.

Introduction

Obesity has long been recognised as a preventable risk factor for cardiovascular and metabolic disorders such as heart disease and type-2 diabetes. More recently, it has also emerged as an important risk factor for neurodegenerative disorders, linked to both an increased risk of dementia and accelerated age-associated cognitive decline (Sellbom and Gunstad, 2012). Defined as the excessive accumulation of adipose tissue in the body (González-Muniesa et al., 2017), the worldwide prevalence of obesity has more than doubled in the last thirty years, making it one of the most important global public health challenges (Yatsuya et al., 2014).

To date, cross-sectional and longitudinal studies investigating effects of obesity on the brain have focused almost exclusively on macroscopic aspects of brain structure such as total grey matter volume and cortical thickness. Results in this field were often contradictory: although studies tended to report lower gray matter volume in relation to obesity, some have also observed null or positive associations as described in a meta-analysis by García-García et al., 2019, who noted that the likely reasons for this were heterogeneities in brain and obesity metrics, a wide variation in sample size, and poor statistical methodology.

However, the emerging consensus indicates that typically studies are reporting negative associations between obesity (particularly visceral obesity indexed by waist to hip ratio: WHR) and (smaller) total grey matter volume (Cox et al., 2019) and (thinner) cortical thickness (Caunca et al., 2019). Notably, this negative association between body mass index (BMI) and global grey matter volume has been substantiated in a recent large-scale study conducted in the UK Biobank involving 9652 participants (Hamer and Batty, 2019). Recent meta-analysis of voxel-based morphometry studies, including data from 5882 participants and a mega-analysis of 6,420 participants from the ENIGMA MDD working group, have also identified a consistent association of obesity with reductions in grey matter volume and cortical thickness in the medial prefrontal and orbitofrontal cortex and the temporal pole (García-García et al., 2022; Opel et al., 2021).

These associations between obesity and macroscopic features of grey matter structure have also been supported by longitudinal studies. For example, Franz et al. showed that by the age of 64 years, participants whose BMI steadily increased over forty years had thinner cortex in several frontal and temporal brain regions compared to those whose BMI was stable (Franz et al., 2019). Other longitudinal studies have shown associations between age-associated increases in BMI and grey matter reductions in the medial temporal lobe (entorhinal cortex and hippocampus) and cingulate cortex (Arnoldussen et al., 2019; Bobb et al., 2014). Together with the finding (Opel et al., 2021) of a significant age-by-obesity interaction on cortical thickness driven by lower thickness in older participants, this suggests that the negative impact of obesity on the brain accumulates over time.

Together, these studies provide robust evidence for an association between obesity and macro-structural features of brain anatomy such as grey matter volume and cortical thickness. However, changes in grey matter volume and cortical thickness can be driven by multiple different underlying processes and our understanding of the microstructural features that underpin this relationship remain largely unknown (Westwater et al., 2022). For example, it is currently not known whether obesity-associated differences in grey matter volume relate to changes in the size, shape or number of neurons e.g. neurite density or orientation dispersion within that region or alternately to differences in tissue water content. To date, the only studies to have investigated associations of obesity with brain microstructure have focused on white matter. Interestingly, these have identified obesity-associated differences in a number of different microstructural features of white matter including (1) obesity-related increases in white matter water content, (2) reduced myelination, and (3) lower fractional anisotropy (Zhang et al., 2018; Kullmann et al., 2016). However, whether comparable differences in cortical and subcortical grey matter micro-structure can be observed with obesity are yet to be reported.

We hypothesized that obesity would be associated with diffusion-MRI measures of grey matter tissue microstructure at 180 cortical regions and 8 subcortical structures (bilaterally) produced using neurite orientation dispersion and density imaging (NODDI) modelling of data from ∼30,000 participants in the UK Biobank MRI cohort. Unlike conventional diffusion MRI which models data acquired at a single diffusion weighting (shell), NODDI requires data collected at multiple different diffusion weightings (shells) then exploits the diffusion characteristics that can be observed in different tissue compartments to quantify their respective volume fractions. In this model, diffusion is modelled as isotropic in free water, restricted within neurites, and hindered in the extracellular space resulting in three microstructural metrics: Intracellular Volume Fraction (ICVF), which captures the volume fraction occupied by neurites (axons and dendrites) but not cell bodies; Orientation Dispersion Index (OD), which captures the spatial distribution of these processes; and isotropic volume fraction (ISOVF), which provides a measure of free water index.

Given previous findings of significant association between macroscopic differences in brain structure and visceral obesity, we elected to report associations with WHR in the main text and report complementary results for BMI as a measure of whole body obesity in the SI. Specifically, we tested each metric at each region for association with waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), and identified two anatomically and functionally distinct brain systems associated with obesity, using prior maps of gene expression, cellular composition and neurotransmitter receptor density to refine functional characterization of each obesity-associated system.

Finally, we then completed two further analyses to explore the potential directionality of the relationship between obesity and brain microstructure. In the first, we we used genome-wide association statistics (GWAS) for brain ISOVF and ICVF (Warrier et al., 2022), and for WHR (Pulit et al., 2019), to estimate the genetic correlations between each MRI metric and WHR, and test the secondary hypothesis that the WHR would have a tighter genetic correlation with ICVF than ISOVF. In the second, we produced brain maps for the association of ISOVF and ICVF with C-reactive protein (CRP), a measure of systemic inflammation. Given the pro-inflammatory properties of adipose (particularly visceral adipose) tissue we predicted tighter correlations between maps of CRP and ISOVF than maps of CRP with ICVF.

Results

Sample data

We used data provided by the UK Biobank, a population-based cohort of >500,000 subjects aged between 39 and 73 years (Sudlow et al., 2015) and focused on a subset of participants for whom complete multi-modal MRI data were available. Excluding participants with incomplete MRI data resulted in N ∼30,000 participants for each dataset. For further details on participant numbers see Appendix 2—table 2.

Association of waist-to-hip ratio with multimodal MRI measures of brain structure

Six MRI metrics of brain structure were used for correlational analysis with two measures of obesity (WHR and BMI) in N∼30,000 participants from UK Biobank. WHR and BMI were strongly positively correlated with each other (r=0.428±0.009, P<2×1016) and we therefore focus here on WHR although similar results are reported for BMI in Supplemental Information (see comparisons in Appendix 2—figures 2 and 3 and Appendix 2—figures 4 and 5 as well as Appendix 2—figure 9). Of the MRI metrics, there was one macro-structural measure (GM, grey matter volume) and five micro-structural measures (MD, mean diffusivity; FA, fractional anisotropy; OD, orientation dispersion; ICVF, intra-cellular volume fraction; and ISOVF, isotropic volume fraction). As illustrated in Figure 1a, some of these metrics were strongly correlated, indicating that they represented similar aspects of the underlying cortical micro-structure or tissue composition. For example, FA, OD, and ICVF metrics of neurite density were more strongly correlated with each other than with ISOVF, which is typically interpreted as a marker of tissue free water rather than cytoarchitectonics (Kamiya et al., 2020).

Figure 1. Micro-structural MRI metrics are associated with waist-to-hip ratio (WHR).

Figure 1.

(a) Correlation matrix for six macro- and micro/structural MRI metrics demonstrating that ISOVF (free-water) is essentially orthogonal to ICVF (neurite density) and OD, which instead form a cluster with FA. (b) Cortical and subcortical t-score map (left lateral and medial hemispheres) of ISOVF~WHR, representing the association of regional ISOVF with WHR, thresholded for significance at FDR = 5%. Circles indicate regions for which scatterplots are shown on the right. (c) Scatterplot of ISOVF in left inferior premotor region 6 r (y-axis) versus WHR (x-axis). (d) Cortical and subcortical t-score map of ICVF~WHR, thresholded at FDR = 5%. (e) Scatterplot of ICVF in the right hippocampus versus WHR. The maps of ISOVF~WHR and ICVF~WHR were negatively correlated (r=0.366, P=2.3×1013). Colors in (b and d) refer to t-scores, colors in (c and e) denote normalised density. GM = Grey Matter; MD = Mean Diffusivity; FA = Fractional Anisotropy; OD = Orientation Dispersion Index; ISOVF = isotropic volume fraction; ICVF = intra-cellular volume fraction.

To address this potential redundancy, we performed a preliminary correlational analysis of all 6 MRI metrics with WHR then focused our subsequent analyses on ICVF and ISOVF, the two complementary MRI metrics that were most strongly associated with WHR. Comparable results for the other 4 metrics are reported in the Supplemental Information Appendix 2—figure 2.

Tissue free water (ISOVF) was significantly positively correlated with WHR (FDR = 5%) in 136 bilateral regions, concentrated in a prefrontal-temporal-striatal system comprising the prefrontal cortex (37 regions), superior temporal (primary auditory) cortex (21 regions), basal ganglia (caudate, putamen, pallidum, accumbens), hypothalamus and thalamus. Referencing a database of prior task-related fMRI studies, this anatomical pattern of fMRI activations has been activated by tasks involving reward, auditory and musical functions (see Appendix 2—figure 3b, c). There were also some areas of significant negative correlation between ISOVF and WHR in the lateral and medial secondary visual cortex (see Figure 1b).

In contrast, neurite density (ICVF) was significantly positively correlated with WHR (FDR = 5%) in 152 bilateral regions concentrated in a medial temporal-occipital-striatal system comprising medial and lateral occipital cortex (26 regions), medial temporal lobe (hippocampus and amygdala), basal ganglia (putamen, pallidum, accumbens), hypothalamus and thalamus (see Figure 1d). This anatomical pattern has previously been activated by fMRI tasks involving episodic memory and navigation (see Appendix 2—figure 3d, e).

Maps of ISOVF~WHR and ICVF~WHR were negatively correlated (r=0.366,P=2.3×1013); see Supplemental Information for correlation matrix of all MRI~WHR maps. This suggests that obesity is associated with coupled but anatomically distinct changes in measures of brain water and neurite density.

Enrichment analysis of genes transcriptionally co-located with brain maps of association between obesity and brain water content, ISOVF–WHR, and between obesity and neurite density, ICVF–WHR

To investigate the basis for these associations of WHR with tissue water content (measured by ISOVF) and neurite density (measured by ICVF), we used human brain gene expression data from the Allen Brain Atlas to identify the individual gene transcripts that were most strongly co-located with each map. To do this, we independently tested 13,561 gene transcripts for significant spatial correlation with each map, that is ISOVF~WHR or ICVF~WHR, controlling for multiple comparisons entailed by whole genome analysis with FDR = 5% (Figure 2). Similar results were obtained by sensitivity analyses of co-location of weighted whole genome expression with maps of the correlations between MRI metrics and BMI instead of WHR; see Appendix 2—figure 7.

Figure 2. Significantly enriched gene ontology categories according to Webgestalt based on the spatial co-location of the MRI~WHR maps and whole brain expression maps for each of ∼13,500 genes.

Figure 2.

(a) Results using the ISOVF~WHR maps (free water vs adiposity). Bar graph of significant gene ontologies showing normalized enrichment score on the x-axis. (b) Results using the ICVF~WHR maps (neurite density vs adiposity). In both cases, p-values for enrichment were tested by permutation taking into account the smoothness of cortical maps (using spin permutation correction; see Appendix 2—figure 6).

The tissue water content map (ISOVF~WHR) was significantly positively co-located with 1,031 gene transcripts and significantly negatively co-located with 1140 transcripts (FDR = 5%; spin permutation corrected). Enrichment analysis of the genes weighted by their spatial co-location with ISOVF~WHR identified 15 biological processes that were significantly under-represented, and 1 class that was positively enriched, with FDR = 5% to control for 29,687 biological processes and 11,110 molecular functions tested for enrichment. The most under-represented process was ‘response to interleukin-6’ and the most enriched process was ‘pattern recognition receptor activity’, both processes linked to the innate immune system. Other under-represented processes involved ‘protein localisation to the Golgi apparatus’, ‘mitochondrial metabolism’, ‘taste receptor activity’, and ‘tau protein kinase activity’.

In contrast, the neurite density map (ICVF~WHR) was significantly positively co-located with 1,242 gene transcripts and significantly negatively co-located with 1354 transcripts (FDR = 5%; spin permutation corrected). Enrichment analysis of the genes weighted by their spatial co-location with ICVF~WHR identified 20 biological processes that were significantly negatively enriched, and 6 classes that were positively enriched, with FDR = 5% to control for 29,687 biological processes and 11,110 molecular functions tested for enrichment. The most negatively enriched process was ‘peptidyl-asparagine modification’ and the most positively enriched process was ‘taste receptor activity’. Other negatively enriched processes included ‘protein kinase C-activating G-protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) signalling pathway’, ‘fatty acid derivative binding’, and ‘glutamate receptor activity’.

The whole genome weights of association (vectors of correlations per gene) with ISOVF~WHR and ICVF~WHR were negatively correlated (r=0.615,P<2.2×1016). Thus, the gene transcripts spatially co-located with ISOVF~WHR and ICVF~WHR maps are coupled but biologically distinct. The prefrontal-temporal-striatal system where ISOVF was positively correlated with WHR was co-located with gene transcripts enriched for innate immune and metabolic processes, whereas the medial temporal-occipital-striatal system where ICVF was positively correlated with WHR was co-located with transcripts enriched fo ‘G-protein coupled receptor signalling’, ‘fatty acid derivative binding’, and ‘glutamate receptor activity’.

Co-location of neurotransmitter and cellular atlases with brain maps of association between obesity and brain water content, ISOVF–WHR, and between obesity and neurite density, ICVF–WHR

To further investigate the brain systems where obesity was strongly associated with brain micro-structure measured by ISOVF or ICVF, we used prior data on human brain distribution of multiple neurotransmitter receptors Hansen et al., 2022. Cortical maps of each of 37 neurotransmitter receptors, for example, mu opioid receptor (MOR), were independently tested for spatial co-location with the ISOVF~WHR and ICVF~WHR maps, controlling for multiple comparisons with FDR = 5%.

The prefrontal-temporal-striatal system (ISOVF~WHR) was significantly (positively) co-located with the atlas distribution of five neurotransmitter receptors/transporters: 5HTT, serotonin transporter; D1, dopamine receptor; H3, histamine receptor; Mu, opioid receptor; and VAChT, acetyl-choline transporter.

In contrast, the medial temporal-occipital-striatal system (ICVF~WHR) was significantly (negatively) co-located with four neurotransmitter receptors/transporters: H3 histamine receptor; Mu opioid receptor; CB1 cannabinoid receptor; and A4B2, α4, β2 nicotinic acetyl-choline receptor.

Interestingly, the mu opioid receptor distribution was the most strongly correlated with both ISOVF~WHR and ICVF~WHR, but with opposite signs of association, meaning that regions where WHR correlated with neurite density typically expressed low mu opioid receptor density, whereas regions showing correlations between WHR and tissue water content typically expressed high mu opioid receptor density.

We likewise identified the cell-type distributions that were most strongly co-located with each of the ISOVF~WHR or ICVF~WHR maps. We independently tested 31 cell distributions atlases, provided by Lake et al., 2018, for significant spatial correlation with each map, controlling for multiple comparisons with FDR = 5%. The ISOVF~WHR map was significantly (positively) co-located with the atlas distribution of three glial cell classes: astrocytes, oligodendrocyte progenitor cells, and microglia. The ICVF~WHR map was not significantly co-located with any specific cell-type distribution.

Genetic correlation analysis of obesity and micro-structural MRI phenotypes

The results reported above (and summarised in Table 1) indicate that obesity is associated with coupled changes in two anatomically, transcriptionally and neurobiologically differentiated brain systems, measured using ISOVF and ICVF micro-structural MRI metrics, respectively. On this basis we tested the hypothesis that genome-wide association statistics (GWAS) for normal variation in ISOVF or ICVF (Warrier et al., 2022) were correlated with prior GWAS results for obesity (Pulit et al., 2019), indexed by WHR (see Shungin et al., 2015). We used linkage disequilibrium score (LDSC) analysis to estimate genetic correlations between WHR and ISOVF or ICVF. We found a modest, statistically significant positive genetic correlation between ICVF and WHR (rg=0.11±0.030,P<9×104), but no genetic correlation between ISOVF and WHR (rg=0.026±0.03,P=0.3); see Appendix 2—table 2 for details. These results indicate shared effects of genetic variation on obesity (WHR) and neurite density (ICVF), but no shared genetic effects on obesity and brain water content (ISOVF).

Table 1. Summary of differences between two obesity-associated micro-structural MRI phenotypes in terms of their associations with other brain phenotypes (gene ontology, receptor expression, and cell types) and their genetic correlations with obesity.

Scaling with obesity (WHR) Gene ontology Neurotransmitter receptors or transporters Cell types Genetic correlation with WHR
ISOVF (free water) Inline graphic prefrontal-temporo-striatal system Inline graphic pattern recognition receptors (PRR)
Inline graphic receptors for fatty acid derivatives
Inline graphic IL-6 responses
Inline graphic H3, Mu, D1 and 5HTT Inline graphic astrocytes, microglia and oligodendrocyte precursor cells (not any class of neurons) Inline graphic not significant
ICVF (neurite density) Inline graphic medial temporal-occipito-striatal system Inline graphic taste receptor activity
Inline graphic fatty acid receptors, glutamate receptor activity and GPCR signalling
Inline graphic H3, Mu, CB1 and A4B2 Inline graphic not significant Inline graphic significant (positive)

Relationship with peripheral inflammation

In the final analysis we compared the effects on microstructure of three variables of interest at the same time, WHR, BMI, and specifically CRP, a measure of systemic inflammation. To this end we looked at the pairwise relationships of the maps ISOVF~CRP vs ISOVF~WHR, ICVF~CRP vs ICVF~WHR, etc. (see Appendix 2—figure 13). Given the pro-inflammatory properties of adipose (particularly visceral adipose) tissue, for CRP we expected tighter correlations between ISOVF maps than ICVF maps. This hypothesis is indeed supported by our findings, the correlation is significantly stronger for the ISOVF maps than the ICVF maps (CRP-BMI: P<1.2×105, CRP-WHR: P<0.024, one-tailed). We also find that the WHR and BMI maps are different (WHR-BMI: P<0.05, two-tailed).

Discussion

Here, we have reported evidence, consistent with our first hypothesis, that obesity is associated with coupled changes in two micro-structural MRI metrics (ISOVF, free water; and ICVF, neurite density) in two anatomically, transcriptionally and neurobiologically differentiated brain systems. We have also reported genetic correlation analysis that was consistent with our secondary hypothesis, that these two distinct brain phenotypes have different genetic relationships with obesity.

Obesity and brain MRI phenotypes

Previous well-powered studies have identified associations between obesity and a pattern of reduced grey matter volume or cortical thickness centred on fronto-temporal cortex and sub-cortical structures. Here, using NODDI modelling of diffusion-weighted MRI data from ∼30,000 participants in the UK Biobank we have extended these findings to demonstrate associations between obesity (WHR) and two measures of grey matter microstucture, ISOVF (an index of tissue water content) and ICVF an index of neurite density (see Table 1 for a summary).

Similar to previously reported associations with brain grey matter macrostructure, positive scaling of WHR and tissue water content (i.e. oedema) was most pronounced within frontal and temporal cortices and subcortical structures. In contrast, we observed a more anterior-posterior pattern of association between WHR and neurite density, with more obese individuals having higher neurite density in posterior compared to anterior brain regions. By relating obesity associated grey matter microstructure maps to gene expression data from the Allen Brain Atlas, we show that regions where WHR was more tightly linked to tissue water content had greater expression of pattern recognition receptors (PRR) and receptors for binding fatty acid derivatives, and reduced expression of genes associated with biological processes linked to interleukin-6 (IL-6) responses. Interestingly, these regions were also richer in astrocytes, microglia and oligodendrocyte precursor cells but not any class of neurons; and had high concentrations of some but not all neurotransmitter receptors or transporters tested, for example, histamine (H3), mu-opioid, D1, and 5HTT.

In contrast, the medial temporal-occipital-striatal system where obesity was associated with increased neurite density was co-located with expression of transcripts positively enriched for taste receptor activity and lower fatty acid binding, glutamate receptor activity and other biological processes linked to protein kinase C-activating G-protein-coupled receptor signalling. Interestingly, this system was not co-located with any specific cell class but it was co-located with specific neurotransmitter receptor maps including H3, Mu, CB1, and A4B2, meaning that regions showing the greatest positive scaling between neurite density and WHR showed relatively low expression of receptors linked to feeding, appetite, and energy expenditure.

What are the potential causal relationships between obesity and brain MRI phenotypes?

ISOVF and ICVF are weakly correlated (i.e. independent) markers of free water and neurite density, respectively. Both are significantly and mostly positively correlated with WHR in brain systems. Obesity-related differences in ISOVF and ICVF were coupled (negatively correlated) but also anatomically, transcriptionally, and neurobiologically differentiated from each other (Table 1). This raises the question: Could these two brain phenotypes have a different causal relationship with obesity?

For example, it is conceivable that the changes in brain water associated with obesity could represent an effect of obesity on the brain, that is WHR→ISOVF, whereas the obesity-related changes in neurite density could represent an effect of the brain on obesity, that is ICVF→WHR. Such a bi-directional mechanistic model of the relationships between obesity and the brain seems somewhat plausible. Obesity is usually caused by changes in eating behaviour and physical activity, which are controlled by brain systems enriched for opioid, dopamine and cannabinoid receptor-mediated signalling. So changes in the brain, indexed by neurite density, could conceivably cause adipogenic eating behaviours and thus obesity. Obesity in turn causes a pro-inflammatory state systemically and blood concentrations of CRP, IL-6 and other cytokines have previously been associated with changed (increased) micro-structural MRI metrics of free water (Kitzbichler et al., 2021). So inflammation could potentially mediate effects of obesity on the brain tissue water content (see also Turkheimer et al., 2022). Our finding that the CRP-WHR map correlation is significantly stronger for the ISOVF maps than the ICVF maps would be consistent with this hypothesis.

Using novel techniques for analysis of spatial co-location of whole genome transcript maps and MRI phenotypes to optimise subsequent enrichment analysis of strongly co-located gene transcripts, we found that transcripts co-located with ISOVF~WHR were enriched for IL6 and pattern recognition receptors (PRRs), both implicated in innate immune signalling; whereas transcripts co-located with ICVF~WHR were enriched for taste receptors. This pattern of results is consistent with the model that changes in neurite density associated with obesity might reflect primary brain changes in taste sensation and reward processing that drive consummatory behaviours leading to obesity; whereas changes in brain free water associated with obesity might reflect effects of pro-inflammatory cytokines produced by adipose tissue that drive extravasation and oedema in some brain regions.

One limitation of this study is that data was collected at multiple centres and even though we used site as a nuisance regressor there might be unaccounted for non-linear effects. However Duff et al., 2022 showed that quantities derived from UK Biobank scans at different sites are reliable.

It should also be mentioned that the age range of the AHBA donors (24-57 years) is only partially overlapping with the participants in the UK Biobank (44-80 years). Future studies will hopefully provide a more comprehensive picture of whole brain gene expression as a function of age so that the powerful strategy for linking transcriptional and imaging data that the AHBA dataset has enabled can be extended to gene expression datasets more closely aligned demographically with the neuroimaging dataset of interest. These and other methodological issues relating to alignment of AHBA gene expression data with MRI phenotypes have been rigorously reviewed in detail (Fornito et al., 2019; Arnatkeviciute et al., 2023).

Concerning the question whether both brain systems are in operation in the same individual at the same time, we are not aware of any currently available tools that would allow us to actually test this assumption, but it could be an interesting avenue for future work. Another limitation of our study is that it is based on a cross-sectional dataset, and it is therefore impossible to disentangle causally directed relationships with certainty from correlations between MRI and transcriptional phenotypes. We also approached this question by using GWAS data on obesity and each of the two MRI metrics to estimate and test genetic correlations between obesity and ISOVF or ICVF. We found that ICVF was genetically correlated with obesity, but not ISOVF. This result is consistent with the bidirectional mechanistic model, whereby changes in neurite density (but not brain water) cause obesity, but it does not prove it. There are many other possible interpretations of a genetic correlation between phenotypes, that is pleiotropic genetic effects on both phenotypes, which do not entail a causal relationship between phenotypes. Further work will be needed to validate this and other causal models of the directional relationships between obesity and the brain, which could be important for future prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of obesity.

Materials and methods

Data available in UK Biobank

Participants

Data were provided by the UK Biobank (application IDs 20904 & 48943), a population-based cohort of >500,000 subjects aged between 39 and 73 years (Sudlow et al., 2015). We focused on a subset of N = 40,680 participants for each of whom complete multimodal MRI data were available for download (February 2020). We excluded participants with incomplete MRI data resulting in the numbers for each dataset shown in Appendix 2—table 2.

Imaging data acquisiton

Minimally processed T1- and T2-FLAIR- weighted MRI data (and DWI data) were downloaded from UK Biobank (https://biobank.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/crystal/crystal/docs/brain_mri.pdf). The acquisition of these MRI data has been described in detail in Alfaro-Almagro et al., 2018, and is summarised here. MRI data at all three sites were collected on a 3T Siemens Skyra scanner (Siemens, Munich, Germany) using a 32-channel receive head coil. T1-weighted images were acquired using a 3D MPRAGE sequence with the following key parameters; voxel size 1mm × 1mm × 1mm, TI/TR = 880/2000 ms, field-of-view = 208 × 256 × 256 matrix, scanning duration = 5 min. The diffusion weighted imaging data were acquired using a monopolar Steejskal-Tanner pulse sequence and multi-shell acquisition (b=0 s/mm2, b=1.000 s/mm2, b=2.000 s/mm2) with the following key parameters; voxel size 2mm × 2mm × 2mm, TE/TR = 92/3600 ms, field-of-view = 104 × 104 × 72 matrix, and scanning duration = 7 minutes (Alfaro-Almagro et al., 2018).

Imaging pre-processing

Structural MRI

Minimal processing for T1-weighted data included defacing, cutting down the field-of-view and gradient distortion correction using Brain Extraction Tool (Smith, 2002) and FLIRT (FMRIB’s Linear Image Registration Tool) (Jenkinson et al., 2002). The data were then nonlinearly warped to MNI152 space using FNIRT (FMRIB’s Nonlinear Image Registration Tool) (Andersson and Sotiropoulos, 2016). Next, tissue-type segmentation was done using FAST (FMRIB’s Automated Segmentation Tool) (Zhang et al., 2001) and a bias-field-corrected version of the T1 was generated (Alfaro-Almagro et al., 2018).

Further processing

We used these data as input to Freesurfer V6.0.1 (Fischl et al., 2004) using the T2-FLAIR weighted images to improve pial surface reconstruction. Following reconstruction, the Human Connectome Project (HCP) parcellation (Glasser et al., 2016) was aligned to each individual image and regional metrics were estimated for 180 bilateral cortical areas and eight bilateral subcortical structures (giving a total of 376 areas).

Diffusion weighted MRI

Minimal processing for diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) data included correction for eddy currents (Andersson and Sotiropoulos, 2015; Andersson and Sotiropoulos, 2016), head motion, outlier-slices removal and gradient distortion correction (Alfaro-Almagro et al., 2018).

Further processing

We then co-registered the DWI data with the T1-aligned parcellation template to estimate fractional anisotropy (FA) and mean diffusivity (MD) at each region using DTIFIT [https://fsl.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/fsl/fslwiki/FDT/UserGuide#DTIFIT]. For each scan, the first B0 image of the diffusion-sensitive sequence was linearly coregistered to the T1 image with FLIRT. The resulting inverse transformation was used to map the parcellation into the DWI space. Neurite orientation dispersion and density imaging (NODDI) reconstruction was done using the AMICO pipeline (Daducci et al., 2015). Documentation and code for these processing pipelines is available on Github (https://github.com/ucam-department-of-psychiatry/UKB, copy archived at Romero-Garcia, 2023).

Imaging quality control

We used T1-weighted and T2-weighted scans for the Freesurfer anatomical image reconstruction, because this approach improves anatomical reconstruction (Glasser et al., 2013). However, subjects without T2 scans had cortical thickness systematically biased towards lower values compared to subjects with both T1 and T2 images. Thus, we excluded participants without T2 scans from all analyses. In order to avoid spurious effects from pathologies causing systemic inflammation, we also excluded subjects with high CRP (>). We repeated the analysis without subjects who had reported an episode of stroke or diagnosis of dementia, producing identical results.

Analysis pipeline

A detailed description of the full processing pipeline can be found in Supplemental Information Appendix 2; briefly, it comprised the following steps: Load and match UKB imaging data with sociodemographic and health data. Regress imaging modalities from NODDI dataset onto waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) with age, sex, scan quality, and scan site as nuisance regressors. This is done for males and females at the same time, but including sex as a covariate (for sensitivity analysis separating by sex see Appendix 2—figure 3). Adopting the pseudo-code format used by the R statistical language, the regression formula was: ISOVF+ICVFWHR+Age+Sex+Quality+Site where Quality is quantified by the Freesurfer Euler number (a higher number means more surface reconstruction errors) and Site was one of three sites encoded as categorical variable.

The terms on the left can be represented as matrices having Nsubjects rows and NROIs columns, whereas the terms on the right are vectors with Nsubjects entries. Then for each term on the left (ie. imaging modality) the result is a matrix of t-statistics or p-values with dimension Ncovariates×NROIs. The relevant row from this matrix is the one relating to the WHR coefficient which can be plotted as a brain map as shown in Figure 1 and Appendix 2—figure 3 for each imaging modality, respectively.

ABAGEN gene expression maps

We then related these maps to anatomically localized gene expression data from the Allen Brain Atlas (Hawrylycz et al., 2012) using the ABAGEN package (Markello et al., 2021) to map gene expression onto the same parcellation as the imaging data (Glasser HCP). The 43 (predominantly small) regions without gene expression data were excluded from analysis and are grayed out on the brain maps. Subsequently, we performed a correlation analysis with the ABAGEN maps (∼13,500 maps, one for each gene) as predictors and the NODDI-WHR maps as responses. We then repeated this step 1000 times for spin-permuted versions of the NODDI-WHR maps to generate a set of 1000 surrogate gene correlations. This was done separately but in parallel for both ISOVF and ICVF. The resulting real and surrogate data loadings were input to the gene enrichment analysis tool Webgestalt (Wang et al., 2017), which was modified to incorporate the spin permutation process instead the default process of random permutations to calculate p-values. This yielded a number of significantly enriched gene ontology categories with FDR corrected PFDR<0.05, as shown in Figure 2. Supplemental Information Appendix 2—figure 6 contains a schematic of the analysis pipeline.

Neurotransmitter maps

Hansen et al., 2022 compiled 37 neurotransmitter receptor atlases from the literature and provided them as 3D volumes in MNI space. These were then parcellated in the same way as the imaging data (using the Glasser HCP template). We independently tested the resulting 37 neurotransmitter maps (Appendix 2—figure 11) for significant spatial correlation with the MRI~WHR maps, controlling for spatial autocorrelation using 10,000 spin permutations and correcting for multiple comparisons with FDR = 5%. Maps for the same receptor from different literature sources were correlated independently but the results were combined, resulting in the 19 separate receptors shown in Figure 3 (see Appendix 2—figure 9 for a sensitivity analysis using the original 37 maps individually).

Figure 3. Co-location of neurotransmitter receptor or transporter distributions with obesity-associated micro-structural MRI systems.

Figure 3.

Left: Correlations of cortical neurotransmitter maps with the ISOVF~WHR and ICVF~WHR maps shown above (same color scale as in Figure 1). Significance is indicated by shading (based on spin permutation and Bonferroni correction). The Mu and H3 receptors show the maximum (absolute) correlation with the ISOVF and ICVF maps of microstructural effect of obesity (top right). Bottom right: scatter plots of raw data.

Cell type maps

Lake et al., 2018 provided 31 brain cell distributions atlases based on single-cell DNA transcription analysis. These were then parcellated in the same way as the imaging data (using the Glasser HCP template). We independently tested the resulting 31 cell-type maps (Appendix 2—figure 12) for significant spatial correlation with the MRI~WHR maps, controlling for spatial autocorrelation using 10,000 spin permutations and for multiple comparisons with FDR = 5%. We concentrated on the seven categories at the highest level (Astro, Endo, Micro, Neuro.Ex, Neuro.In, Oligo, OPC; Figure 4) and did not separately analyse the individual excitatory and inhibitory neuronal sub-types (Ex1-8 and In1-8).

Figure 4. Co-location of brain cell distributions with obesity-associated micro-structural MRI systems.

Figure 4.

Left: Correlations of brain cell type maps for seven cell type categories from Lake et al., 2018 with the ISOVF~WHR map shown above (same color scale as in Figure 1). Significance is indicated by shading (based on spin permutation and Bonferroni correction). The astrocytes, microglia, and OPC cell type maps show the maximum (absolute) correlation with the ISOVF~WHR maps (central panel). Right: scatter plots of raw data. (Results for ICVF were not significant for any category and are only shown in the Supplemental Information.).

Genetic correlation analysis

We used genome-wide association statistics for ICVF and ISOVF (Warrier et al., 2022), and for waist-to-hip ratio (plain and adjusted for BMI; Pulit et al., 2019). Genetic correlations were estimated using linkage disequilibrium (LD) score regression (Bulik-Sullivan et al., 2015) based on LD information from North-West European populations.

Acknowledgements

We are very grateful to Linda Pointon for organisational support. This research has been conducted using the UK Biobank Resource under Application Numbers 20904 and 48943. This study was funded by an award from the Wellcome Trust (grant number: 104025/Z/14/Z) for the Neuroimmunology of Mood Disorders and Alzheimer’s Disease (NIMA) consortium (MGK, FT, MC, ETB, NAH). For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission. Additional support was provided by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (ETB). ETB was also supported by an NIHR Senior Investigator award.

Appendix 1

Imaging data acquisiton

MRI data was collected on a 3T Siemens Skyra scanner (Siemens, Munich, Germany) using a 32-channel receive head coil. T1-weighted images were acquired using a 3D MPRAGE sequence with the following key parameters; voxel size 1mm × 1mm × 1mm, TI/TR = 880/2000 ms, Field-of-view = 208 × 256 × 256 matrix, scanning duration: five minutes. The diffusion weighted imaging data was acquired using a monopolar Steejskal-Tanner pulse sequence and multi-shell acquisition (b=0 s/mm2, b=1.000 s/mm2, b=2.000 s/mm2) with the following key parameters; voxel size 2mm × 2mm × 2mm, TE/TR = 92/3600 ms, Field-of-view = 104 × 104 × 72 matrix and scanning duration = seven minutes (Alfaro-Almagro et al., 2018).

Imaging preprocessing

We obtained T1 and T2-FLAIR weighted data from the UK Biobank after structural minimal processing. Minimal processing for T1 weighted data included defacing, cutting down the field-of-View and gradient distortion correction using Brain Extraction Tool (Smith, 2002) and FLIRT (FMRIB’s Linear Image Registration Tool; Jenkinson et al., 2002). The data was then nonlinearly warped to MNI152 space using FNIRT (FMRIB’s Nonlinear Image Registration Tool; Andersson et al., 2007). Next, tissue-type segmentation is applied using FAST (FMRIB’s Automated Segmentation Tool; Zhang et al., 2001) and a bias-field-corrected version of the T1 is generated (Alfaro-Almagro et al., 2018). Minimal processing for Diffusion MRI data included correction for eddy currents (Andersson and Sotiropoulos, 2015; Andersson and Sotiropoulos, 2016), head motion, outlier-slices removal and gradient distortion correction (Alfaro-Almagro et al., 2018).

Imaging quality control

We used T1-weighted and T2-weighted scans for the freesurfer anatomical image reconstruction, because this approach improves anatomical reconstruction (Glasser et al., 2013). However, subjects without T2 scans had cortical thickness systematically biased towards lower values compared to subjects with both T1 and T2 images. Thus, we excluded participants without T2 scans from all analyses.

Genetic correlation analysis

We conducted genetic correlations using genome-wide summary statistics for ICVF and ISOVF (Warrier et al., 2022) as well as waist-to-hip ratio (plain and adjusted for BMI; Pulit et al., 2019). Genetic correlations were conducted using LD score regression (Bulik-Sullivan et al., 2015) based on LD information from North-West European populations.

Appendix 2

Analysis pipeline

  • load and match UKB imaging data with sociodemographic and health data

  • regress imaging modalities from NODDI dataset onto WHR with age as nuisance regressor and dropping subjects with excessive CRP and no T2. This is done for males and females at the same time with sex as nuisance regressor:

    • ISOVF+ICVFWHR+Age+Sex+Euler+Site CRP10 T2scan
  • the resulting statistics for the WHR coefficient can be plotted as a brain map separately for each imaging modality as shown in Figure 1.

  • add Allen Brain Atlas gene expression data to the mix

  • use ABAGEN package (Markello et al., 2021) to map gene expression onto same parcellation as previous imaging data (Glasser HCP):

    • after matching samples to regions, only keep regions that have at least one samplefrom at least one of the six donors (43 regions did not)

    The other parameters used are:

    • filter out subcortical samples upfront using AHBA annotations of samples

    • use Arnatkeviciute et al., 2019 for native parcellation images mapped to each of the six donor brains

    • when multiple probes are available for a gene, use them probe with highest differential stability (=mean correlation over spatial regions between all pairs of donors)

    • average samples into regions first within each donor separately, then across donors

    • normalize all samples to have same mean expression over genes, then normalize genes to have same mean expression over samples, both using scaled robust sigmoid method (see Arnatkeviciute et al., 2019)

  • do correlation analysis with the ABAGEN maps (∼13,000 maps, one for each gene) on the right (predictors X) and the NODDI-WHR maps on the left (responses Y):

    • as a sensitivity analysis, the process was repeated for BMI instead of WHR (Appendix 2—figure 4), and correlation was substituted by PLS regression. Statistical significance was tested by performing 1000 spin permutations of the ABAGEN data (X) and 1000 bootstrap resamples of the imaging data (Y). The explained variance per component for both X (Appendix 2—figure 5e) and Y (Appendix 2—figure 5f) is significantly higher for the empirical dataset (red) compared to the surrogate data distribution (boxes).

  • feeding the loadings from the correlation analysis into the gene enrichment analysis tool Webgestalt (Wang et al., 2017) yielded a number of significantly enriched gene ontology categories (at spin and FDR corrected PFDR<0.05) as shown in Figure 2. The analysis was done separately but in parallel for ISOVF and ICVF.

Appendix 2—table 1. UK Biobank data.

Variable N Female Male
Age 34,229 18,143 16,086
Body Mass Index (BMI), kg/m2 33,090 17,501 15,589
Waist to Hip Ratio (WHR) 33,183 17,560 15,623
Visceral Adipose Tissue (VAT) 7539 3957 3582
Extracellular free water (isotropic volume fraction ISOVF) 34,194 18,126 16,068
Intracellular neurite density (intracellular volume fraction ICVF) 34,194 18,126 16,068
Intracellular neurite dispersion (orientation dispersion OD) 34,194 18,126 16,068
Fractional anisotropy (FA) 34,194 18,126 16,068
Mean diffusivity (MD) 34,194 18,126 16,068
Gray matter volume (GM) 34,229 18,143 16,086

Appendix 2—table 2. Gene correlation analysis results.

*trait 1 trait 2 rg std error z-score p-value
WHR ISOVF 0.0259 0.0282 0.9184 0.3584
WHR ICVF 0.1118 0.0337 3.3187 9×10−4 ***

Appendix 2—figure 1. Internal structure of input data.

Appendix 2—figure 1.

Waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) in (a) has a much tighter linear relationship with relative visceral adipose tissue from MRI scans than BMI in (b). Bottom row: internal correlation in adiposity data (c), imaging data (d), and imaging-WHR maps (e). GM = Grey Matter; MD = Mean Diffusivity; FA = Fractional Anisotropy; OD = Orientation Dispersion Index; ISOVF = isotropic volume fraction; ICVF = intra-cellular volume fraction; BMI = body mass index; WHR = waist-to-hip ratio; CRP = C-reactive protein; VATI = visceral adipose tissue index; TOTFVI = total fat volume index.

Appendix 2—figure 2. Association of various MRI metrics with BMI.

Appendix 2—figure 2.

(a) Brain maps showing dependence of NODDI metrics and gray matter density on body mass index, separately for males and females. Bottom: (b) enlarged ISOVF-BMI map and (c) corresponding terms from Neurosynth arranged as a word cloud.

Appendix 2—figure 3. Association of various MRI metrics with BMI.

Appendix 2—figure 3.

(a) Brain maps showing dependence of NODDI metrics and gray matter density on body mass index, separately for males and females. Bottom: terms from Neurosynth arranged as a word cloud corresponding respectively to (b) ISOVF, (c) ISOVF sub-cortical, (d) ICVF, and (e) ICVF sub-cortical maps.

Appendix 2—figure 4. Body mass index.

Appendix 2—figure 4.

Gene correlational maps of first two X scores (A) and Y scores (B). Scatterplot of X vs Y scores across ROIs (C). (D) Cross validation of the PLS analysis. Only the first component contributes significantly to reduce the mean square error of the prediction. (E) and (F) Explained variance in X and Y respectively per component in real data (red) compared to surrogate data (boxes).

Appendix 2—figure 5. Waist-to-hip ratio: gene correlational maps of first two X scores (A) and Y scores (B).

Appendix 2—figure 5.

Scatterplot of X vs Y scores across ROIs (C). (D) Cross validation of the PLS analysis. Only the first component contributes significantly to reduce the mean square error of the prediction. (E) and (F) Explained variance in X and Y respectively per component in real data (red) compared to surrogate data (boxes).

Appendix 2—figure 6. Schematic of analysis pipeline for gene ontology analysis with Webgestalt based on the correlation of NODDI-WHR and gene expression maps.

Appendix 2—figure 6.

Significance calculation is based on permutations taking into account the smoothness of cortical patterns (spin permutations).

Appendix 2—figure 7. Waist-to-hip ratio: significantly enriched gene ontology categories according to Webgestalt based on the correlation of NODDI-WHR and gene expression maps.

Appendix 2—figure 7.

Left: results using the ISOVF-WHR maps (free water vs adiposity). (a) bar graph of significant gene ontologies showing normalized enrichment score on the x-axis. (b) Directed acyclic hierarchical graph (DAG) of GOs in the Biological Processes category. (c) DAG of GOs in the Molecular Function category. Right: (d-f) are exactly the same as (a-c) on the left, using instead the ICVF-WHR maps (neurite density vs adiposity). Significance calculation is based on permutations taking into account the smoothness of cortical patterns (spin permutations).

Appendix 2—figure 8. Significantly enriched gene ontology categories according to Webgestalt based on the correlation of NODDI-WHR and gene expression maps.

Appendix 2—figure 8.

(a–b) same results as in Figure 2a but with semantically reduced GO categories illustrating hierarchical dependencies. Results are split by category: biological processes (a) and molecular function (b). (c–d) same results as in Figure 2b but with semantically reduced GO categories split by category: biological processes (c) and molecular function (d).

Appendix 2—figure 9. Body mass index: correlations of cortical neurotransmitter maps from the literature with the NODDI ICVF-BMI maps shown above.

Appendix 2—figure 9.

Significance after Bonferroni correction is indicated by shading. Left: individual studies, right: same neurotransmitters from different studies combined. The CB1 (cannabinoid) receptors show the maximum (absolute) correlation with the maps of microstructural effect of obesity.

Appendix 2—figure 10. Left: Correlations of Brain cell type maps for 31 cell types from Lake et al., 2018 with the NODDI ISOVF and ICVF-WHR maps shown above.

Appendix 2—figure 10.

Significance is indicated by shading (based on spin permutation and Bonferroni correction). Right: The Astrocytes, Microglia, and OPC cell type maps show the maximum (absolute) correlation with the ISOVF maps of microstructural effect of obesity.

Appendix 2—figure 11. Neurotransmitter maps for 36 neurotransmitters from Hansen et al., 2022.

Appendix 2—figure 11.

Appendix 2—figure 12. Brain cell type maps for 31 cell types from Lake et al., 2018.

Appendix 2—figure 12.

Appendix 2—figure 13. Scatterplot over 376 regions of pairwise relationships between t-score maps for variables WHR, BMI, and CRP respectively.

Appendix 2—figure 13.

Top: similarity between ISOVF maps, bottom: similarity between ICVF maps. Calculating statistics based on Fisher transformed correlation values, for both CRP pairs the correlation is significantly stronger for the ISOVF maps than the ICVF maps (CRP-BMI: P<1.2×105, CRP-WHR: P<0.024, one-tailed) and we also find that the BMI and WHR maps are marginally different (BMI-WHR: P<0.05, two-tailed).

Funding Statement

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication. For the purpose of Open Access, the authors have applied a CC BY public copyright license to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission.

Contributor Information

Neil A Harrison, Email: harrisonn4@cardiff.ac.uk.

Susie Y Huang, Massachusetts General Hospital, United States.

Ma-Li Wong, State University of New York Upstate Medical University, United States.

Funding Information

This paper was supported by the following grant:

  • Wellcome Trust 104025/Z/14/Z to Manfred G Kitzbichler, Federico Turkheimer, Mara Cercignani, Neil A Harrison.

Additional information

Competing interests

No competing interests declared.

Author contributions

Conceptualization, Resources, Data curation, Software, Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing.

Conceptualization, Methodology.

Data curation, Software, Funding acquisition, Writing – review and editing.

Software, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – review and editing.

Data curation, Software, Writing – review and editing.

Software, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – review and editing.

Data curation, Software, Writing – review and editing.

Conceptualization.

Conceptualization, Writing – review and editing.

Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review and editing.

Conceptualization, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing.

Conceptualization, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing.

Additional files

MDAR checklist

Data availability

Data were provided by the UK Biobank (https://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/, application IDs 20904 and 48943). Source code can be found on GitHub under https://github.com/ucam-department-of-psychiatry/UKB (copy archived at Romero-Garcia, 2023).

References

  1. Alfaro-Almagro F, Jenkinson M, Bangerter NK, Andersson JLR, Griffanti L, Douaud G, Sotiropoulos SN, Jbabdi S, Hernandez-Fernandez M, Vallee E, Vidaurre D, Webster M, McCarthy P, Rorden C, Daducci A, Alexander DC, Zhang H, Dragonu I, Matthews PM, Miller KL, Smith SM. Image processing and Quality Control for the first 10,000 brain imaging datasets from UK Biobank. NeuroImage. 2018;166:400–424. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.10.034. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Andersson JL, Jenkinson M, Smith S. Non-linear registration aka Spatial normalisation FMRIB Technial Report TR07JA2. FMRIB Analysis Group of the University of Oxford; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  3. Andersson JLR, Sotiropoulos SN. Non-parametric representation and prediction of single- and multi-shell diffusion-weighted MRI data using Gaussian processes. NeuroImage. 2015;122:166–176. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.07.067. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Andersson JLR, Sotiropoulos SN. An integrated approach to correction for off-resonance effects and subject movement in diffusion MR imaging. NeuroImage. 2016;125:1063–1078. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.10.019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Arnatkeviciute A, Fulcher BD, Fornito A. A practical guide to linking brain-wide gene expression and neuroimaging data. NeuroImage. 2019;189:353–367. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.01.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Arnatkeviciute A, Markello RD, Fulcher BD, Misic B, Fornito A. Toward best practices for imaging transcriptomics of the human brain. Biological Psychiatry. 2023;93:391–404. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2022.10.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Arnoldussen IAC, Gustafson DR, Leijsen EMC, de Leeuw F-E, Kiliaan AJ. Adiposity is related to cerebrovascular and brain volumetry outcomes in the RUN DMC study. Neurology. 2019;93:e864–e878. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bobb JF, Schwartz BS, Davatzikos C, Caffo B. Cross-sectional and longitudinal association of body mass index and brain volume. Human Brain Mapping. 2014;35:75–88. doi: 10.1002/hbm.22159. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bulik-Sullivan B, Finucane HK, Anttila V, Gusev A, Day FR, Loh PR, ReproGen Consortium. Psychiatric Genomics Consortium. Genetic Consortium for Anorexia Nervosa of the Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium 3. Duncan L, Perry JRB, Patterson N, Robinson EB, Daly MJ, Price AL, Neale BM. An atlas of genetic correlations across human diseases and traits. Nature Genetics. 2015;47:1236–1241. doi: 10.1038/ng.3406. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Caunca MR, Gardener H, Simonetto M, Cheung YK, Alperin N, Yoshita M, DeCarli C, Elkind MSV, Sacco RL, Wright CB, Rundek T. Measures of obesity are associated with MRI markers of brain aging: The Northern Manhattan Study. Neurology. 2019;93:e791–e803. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000007966. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Cox SR, Lyall DM, Ritchie SJ, Bastin ME, Harris MA, Buchanan CR, Fawns-Ritchie C, Barbu MC, de Nooij L, Reus LM, Alloza C, Shen X, Neilson E, Alderson HL, Hunter S, Liewald DC, Whalley HC, McIntosh AM, Lawrie SM, Pell JP, Tucker-Drob EM, Wardlaw JM, Gale CR, Deary IJ. Associations between vascular risk factors and brain MRI indices in UK Biobank. European Heart Journal. 2019;40:2290–2300. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Daducci A, Canales-Rodríguez EJ, Zhang H, Dyrby TB, Alexander DC, Thiran JP. Accelerated Microstructure Imaging via Convex Optimization (AMICO) from diffusion MRI data. NeuroImage. 2015;105:32–44. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.10.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Duff E, Zelaya F, Almagro FA, Miller KL, Martin N, Nichols TE, Taschler B, Griffanti L, Arthofer C, Douaud G, Wang C, Okell TW, Bethlehem RAI, Eickel K, Günther M, Menon DK, Williams G, Facer B, Lythgoe DJ, Dell’Acqua F, Wood GK, Williams SCR, Houston G, Keller SS, Holden C, Hartmann M, George L, Breen G, Michael BD, Jezzard P, Smith SM, Bullmore ET, COVID-CNS Consortium Reliability of multi-site UK Biobank MRI brain phenotypes for the assessment of neuropsychiatric complications of SARS-CoV-2 infection: The COVID-CNS travelling heads study. PLOS ONE. 2022;17:e0273704. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273704. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Fischl B, van der Kouwe A, Destrieux C, Halgren E, Ségonne F, Salat DH, Busa E, Seidman LJ, Goldstein J, Kennedy D, Caviness V, Makris N, Rosen B, Dale AM. Automatically parcellating the human cerebral cortex. Cerebral Cortex. 2004;14:11–22. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhg087. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Fornito A, Arnatkevičiūtė A, Fulcher BD. Bridging the gap between connectome and transcriptome. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2019;23:34–50. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2018.10.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Franz CE, Xian H, Lew D, Hatton SN, Puckett O, Whitsel N, Beck A, Dale AM, Fang B, Fennema-Notestine C, Hauger RL, Jacobson KC, Lyons MJ, Reynolds CA, Kremen WS. Body mass trajectories and cortical thickness in middle-aged men: a 42-year longitudinal study starting in young adulthood. Neurobiology of Aging. 2019;79:11–21. doi: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2019.03.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. García-García I, Michaud A, Dadar M, Zeighami Y, Neseliler S, Collins DL, Evans AC, Dagher A. Neuroanatomical differences in obesity: meta-analytic findings and their validation in an independent dataset. International Journal of Obesity. 2019;43:943–951. doi: 10.1038/s41366-018-0164-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. García-García I, Michaud A, Jurado MÁ, Dagher A, Morys F. Mechanisms linking obesity and its metabolic comorbidities with cerebral grey and white matter changes. Reviews in Endocrine & Metabolic Disorders. 2022;23:833–843. doi: 10.1007/s11154-021-09706-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Glasser MF, Sotiropoulos SN, Wilson JA, Coalson TS, Fischl B, Andersson JL, Xu J, Jbabdi S, Webster M, Polimeni JR, Van Essen DC, Jenkinson M, WU-Minn HCP Consortium The minimal preprocessing pipelines for the Human Connectome Project. NeuroImage. 2013;80:105–124. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.04.127. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Glasser MF, Coalson TS, Robinson EC, Hacker CD, Harwell J, Yacoub E, Ugurbil K, Andersson J, Beckmann CF, Jenkinson M, Smith SM, Van Essen DC. A multi-modal parcellation of human cerebral cortex. Nature. 2016;536:171–178. doi: 10.1038/nature18933. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. González-Muniesa P, Mártinez-González MA, Hu FB, Després JP, Matsuzawa Y, Loos RJF, Moreno LA, Bray GA, Martinez JA. Obesity. Nature Reviews. Disease Primers. 2017;3:17034. doi: 10.1038/nrdp.2017.34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Hamer M, Batty GD. Association of body mass index and waist-to-hip ratio with brain structure: UK Biobank study. Neurology. 2019;92:e594–e600. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000006879. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Hansen JY, Shafiei G, Markello RD, Smart K, Cox SML, Nørgaard M, Beliveau V, Wu Y, Gallezot JD, Aumont É, Servaes S, Scala SG, DuBois JM, Wainstein G, Bezgin G, Funck T, Schmitz TW, Spreng RN, Galovic M, Koepp MJ, Duncan JS, Coles JP, Fryer TD, Aigbirhio FI, McGinnity CJ, Hammers A, Soucy JP, Baillet S, Guimond S, Hietala J, Bedard MA, Leyton M, Kobayashi E, Rosa-Neto P, Ganz M, Knudsen GM, Palomero-Gallagher N, Shine JM, Carson RE, Tuominen L, Dagher A, Misic B. Mapping neurotransmitter systems to the structural and functional organization of the human neocortex. Nature Neuroscience. 2022;25:1569–1581. doi: 10.1038/s41593-022-01186-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Hawrylycz MJ, Lein ES, Guillozet-Bongaarts AL, Shen EH, Ng L, Miller JA, van de Lagemaat LN, Smith KA, Ebbert A, Riley ZL, Abajian C, Beckmann CF, Bernard A, Bertagnolli D, Boe AF, Cartagena PM, Chakravarty MM, Chapin M, Chong J, Dalley RA, David Daly B, Dang C, Datta S, Dee N, Dolbeare TA, Faber V, Feng D, Fowler DR, Goldy J, Gregor BW, Haradon Z, Haynor DR, Hohmann JG, Horvath S, Howard RE, Jeromin A, Jochim JM, Kinnunen M, Lau C, Lazarz ET, Lee C, Lemon TA, Li L, Li Y, Morris JA, Overly CC, Parker PD, Parry SE, Reding M, Royall JJ, Schulkin J, Sequeira PA, Slaughterbeck CR, Smith SC, Sodt AJ, Sunkin SM, Swanson BE, Vawter MP, Williams D, Wohnoutka P, Zielke HR, Geschwind DH, Hof PR, Smith SM, Koch C, Grant SGN, Jones AR. An anatomically comprehensive atlas of the adult human brain transcriptome. Nature. 2012;489:391–399. doi: 10.1038/nature11405. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Jenkinson M, Bannister P, Brady M, Smith S. Improved optimization for the robust and accurate linear registration and motion correction of brain images. NeuroImage. 2002;17:825–841. doi: 10.1016/s1053-8119(02)91132-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Kamiya K, Hori M, Aoki S. NODDI in clinical research. Journal of Neuroscience Methods. 2020;346:108908. doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2020.108908. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Kitzbichler MG, Aruldass AR, Barker GJ, Wood TC, Dowell NG, Hurley SA, McLean J, Correia M, Clarke C, Pointon L, Cavanagh J, Cowen P, Pariante C, Cercignani M, Neuroimmunology of Mood Disorders and Alzheimer’s Disease (NIMA) Consortium. Bullmore ET, Harrison NA. Peripheral inflammation is associated with micro-structural and functional connectivity changes in depression-related brain networks. Molecular Psychiatry. 2021;26:7346–7354. doi: 10.1038/s41380-021-01272-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Kullmann S, Callaghan MF, Heni M, Weiskopf N, Scheffler K, Häring HU, Fritsche A, Veit R, Preissl H. Specific white matter tissue microstructure changes associated with obesity. NeuroImage. 2016;125:36–44. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.10.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Lake BB, Chen S, Sos BC, Fan J, Kaeser GE, Yung YC, Duong TE, Gao D, Chun J, Kharchenko PV, Zhang K. Integrative single-cell analysis of transcriptional and epigenetic states in the human adult brain. Nature Biotechnology. 2018;36:70–80. doi: 10.1038/nbt.4038. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Markello RD, Arnatkeviciute A, Poline JB, Fulcher BD, Fornito A, Misic B. Standardizing workflows in imaging transcriptomics with the abagen toolbox. eLife. 2021;10:e72129. doi: 10.7554/eLife.72129. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Opel N, Thalamuthu A, Milaneschi Y, Grotegerd D, Flint C, Leenings R, Goltermann J, Richter M, Hahn T, Woditsch G, Berger K, Hermesdorf M, McIntosh A, Whalley HC, Harris MA, MacMaster FP, Walter H, Veer IM, Frodl T, Carballedo A, Krug A, Nenadic I, Kircher T, Aleman A, Groenewold NA, Stein DJ, Soares JC, Zunta-Soares GB, Mwangi B, Wu MJ, Walter M, Li M, Harrison BJ, Davey CG, Cullen KR, Klimes-Dougan B, Mueller BA, Sämann PG, Penninx B, Nawijn L, Veltman DJ, Aftanas L, Brak IV, Filimonova EA, Osipov EA, Reneman L, Schrantee A, Grabe HJ, Van der Auwera S, Wittfeld K, Hosten N, Völzke H, Sim K, Gotlib IH, Sacchet MD, Lagopoulos J, Hatton SN, Hickie I, Pozzi E, Thompson PM, Jahanshad N, Schmaal L, Baune BT, Dannlowski U. Brain structural abnormalities in obesity: relation to age, genetic risk, and common psychiatric disorders: Evidence through univariate and multivariate mega-analysis including 6420 participants from the ENIGMA MDD working group. Molecular Psychiatry. 2021;26:4839–4852. doi: 10.1038/s41380-020-0774-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Pulit SL, Stoneman C, Morris AP, Wood AR, Glastonbury CA, Tyrrell J, Yengo L, Ferreira T, Marouli E, Ji Y, Yang J, Jones S, Beaumont R, Croteau-Chonka DC, Winkler TW, GIANT Consortium. Hattersley AT, Loos RJF, Hirschhorn JN, Visscher PM, Frayling TM, Yaghootkar H, Lindgren CM. Meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies for body fat distribution in 694 649 individuals of European ancestry. Human Molecular Genetics. 2019;28:166–174. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddy327. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Romero-Garcia R. Ucam-Department-of-psychiatry/UKB. swh:1:rev:5eed03392ad36643c169a9c3c6608b45a83f9dddSoftware Heritage. 2023 https://archive.softwareheritage.org/swh:1:dir:8c46840b78de2e731e5482f08e948c788318f1b5;origin=https://github.com/ucam-department-of-psychiatry/UKB;visit=swh:1:snp:85c5ee2635f2ea266eee0ce86f202b0d710c4ae2;anchor=swh:1:rev:5eed03392ad36643c169a9c3c6608b45a83f9ddd
  34. Sellbom KS, Gunstad J. Cognitive function and decline in obesity. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease. 2012;30 Suppl 2:S89–S95. doi: 10.3233/JAD-2011-111073. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Shungin D, Winkler TW, Croteau-Chonka DC, Ferreira T, Locke AE, Mägi R, Strawbridge RJ, Pers TH, Fischer K, Justice AE, Workalemahu T, Wu JMW, Buchkovich ML, Heard-Costa NL, Roman TS, Drong AW, Song C, Gustafsson S, Day FR, Esko T, Fall T, Kutalik Z, Luan J, Randall JC, Scherag A, Vedantam S, Wood AR, Chen J, Fehrmann R, Karjalainen J, Kahali B, Liu CT, Schmidt EM, Absher D, Amin N, Anderson D, Beekman M, Bragg-Gresham JL, Buyske S, Demirkan A, Ehret GB, Feitosa MF, Goel A, Jackson AU, Johnson T, Kleber ME, Kristiansson K, Mangino M, Mateo Leach I, Medina-Gomez C, Palmer CD, Pasko D, Pechlivanis S, Peters MJ, Prokopenko I, Stančáková A, Ju Sung Y, Tanaka T, Teumer A, Van Vliet-Ostaptchouk JV, Yengo L, Zhang W, Albrecht E, Ärnlöv J, Arscott GM, Bandinelli S, Barrett A, Bellis C, Bennett AJ, Berne C, Blüher M, Böhringer S, Bonnet F, Böttcher Y, Bruinenberg M, Carba DB, Caspersen IH, Clarke R, Warwick Daw E, Deelen J, Deelman E, Delgado G, Doney ASF, Eklund N, Erdos MR, Estrada K, Eury E, Friedrich N, Garcia ME, Giedraitis V, Gigante B, Go AS, Golay A, Grallert H, Grammer TB, Gräßler J, Grewal J, Groves CJ, Haller T, Hallmans G, Hartman CA, Hassinen M, Hayward C, Heikkilä K, Herzig KH, Helmer Q, Hillege HL, Holmen O, Hunt SC, Isaacs A, Ittermann T, James AL, Johansson I, Juliusdottir T, Kalafati IP, Kinnunen L, Koenig W, Kooner IK, Kratzer W, Lamina C, Leander K, Lee NR, Lichtner P, Lind L, Lindström J, Lobbens S, Lorentzon M, Mach F, Magnusson PKE, Mahajan A, McArdle WL, Menni C, Merger S, Mihailov E, Milani L, Mills R, Moayyeri A, Monda KL, Mooijaart SP, Mühleisen TW, Mulas A, Müller G, Müller-Nurasyid M, Nagaraja R, Nalls MA, Narisu N, Glorioso N, Nolte IM, Olden M, Rayner NW, Renstrom F, Ried JS, Robertson NR, Rose LM, Sanna S, Scharnagl H, Scholtens S, Sennblad B, Seufferlein T, Sitlani CM, Vernon Smith A, Stirrups K, Stringham HM, Sundström J, Swertz MA, Swift AJ, Syvänen AC, Tayo BO, Thorand B, Thorleifsson G, Tomaschitz A, Troffa C, van Oort FVA, Verweij N, Vonk JM, Waite LL, Wennauer R, Wilsgaard T, Wojczynski MK, Wong A, Zhang Q, Hua Zhao J, Brennan EP, Choi M, Eriksson P, Folkersen L, Franco-Cereceda A, Gharavi AG, Hedman ÅK, Hivert MF, Huang J, Kanoni S, Karpe F, Keildson S, Kiryluk K, Liang L, Lifton RP, Ma B, McKnight AJ, McPherson R, Metspalu A, Min JL, Moffatt MF, Montgomery GW, Murabito JM, Nicholson G, Nyholt DR, Olsson C, Perry JRB, Reinmaa E, Salem RM, Sandholm N, Schadt EE, Scott RA, Stolk L, Vallejo EE, Westra HJ, Zondervan KT, Amouyel P, Arveiler D, Bakker SJL, Beilby J, Bergman RN, Blangero J, Brown MJ, Burnier M, Campbell H, Chakravarti A, Chines PS, Claudi-Boehm S, Collins FS, Crawford DC, Danesh J, de Faire U, de Geus EJC, Dörr M, Erbel R, Eriksson JG, Farrall M, Ferrannini E, Ferrières J, Forouhi NG, Forrester T, Franco OH, Gansevoort RT, Gieger C, Gudnason V, Haiman CA, Harris TB, Hattersley AT, Heliövaara M, Hicks AA, Hingorani AD, Hoffmann W, Hofman A, Homuth G, Humphries SE, Hyppönen E, Illig T, Jarvelin MR, Johansen B, Jousilahti P, Jula AM, Kaprio J, Kee F, Keinanen-Kiukaanniemi SM, Kooner JS, Kooperberg C, Kovacs P, Kraja AT, Kumari M, Kuulasmaa K, Kuusisto J, Lakka TA, Langenberg C, Le Marchand L, Lehtimäki T, Lyssenko V, Männistö S, Marette A, Matise TC, McKenzie CA, McKnight B, Musk AW, Möhlenkamp S, Morris AD, Nelis M, Ohlsson C, Oldehinkel AJ, Ong KK, Palmer LJ, Penninx BW, Peters A, Pramstaller PP, Raitakari OT, Rankinen T, Rao DC, Rice TK, Ridker PM, Ritchie MD, Rudan I, Salomaa V, Samani NJ, Saramies J, Sarzynski MA, Schwarz PEH, Shuldiner AR, Staessen JA, Steinthorsdottir V, Stolk RP, Strauch K, Tönjes A, Tremblay A, Tremoli E, Vohl MC, Völker U, Vollenweider P, Wilson JF, Witteman JC, Adair LS, Bochud M, Boehm BO, Bornstein SR, Bouchard C, Cauchi S, Caulfield MJ, Chambers JC, Chasman DI, Cooper RS, Dedoussis G, Ferrucci L, Froguel P, Grabe HJ, Hamsten A, Hui J, Hveem K, Jöckel KH, Kivimaki M, Kuh D, Laakso M, Liu Y, März W, Munroe PB, Njølstad I, Oostra BA, Palmer CNA, Pedersen NL, Perola M, Pérusse L, Peters U, Power C, Quertermous T, Rauramaa R, Rivadeneira F, Saaristo TE, Saleheen D, Sinisalo J, Eline Slagboom P, Snieder H, Spector TD, Thorsteinsdottir U, Stumvoll M, Tuomilehto J, Uitterlinden AG, Uusitupa M, van der Harst P, Veronesi G, Walker M, Wareham NJ, Watkins H, Wichmann HE, Abecasis GR, Assimes TL, Berndt SI, Boehnke M, Borecki IB, Deloukas P, Franke L, Frayling TM, Groop LC, Hunter DJ, Kaplan RC, O’Connell JR, Qi L, Schlessinger D, Strachan DP, Stefansson K, van Duijn CM, Willer CJ, Visscher PM, Yang J, Hirschhorn JN, Carola Zillikens M, McCarthy MI, Speliotes EK, North KE, Fox CS, Barroso I, Franks PW, Ingelsson E, Heid IM, Loos RJF, Cupples LA, Morris AP, Lindgren CM, Mohlke KL, The ADIPOGen Consortium. The CARDIOGRAMplusC4D Consortium. The CKDGen Consortium. The GEFOS Consortium. The GENIE Consortium. The GLGC. The ICBP. The International Endogene Consortium. The LifeLines Cohort Study. The MAGIC Investigators. The MuTHER Consortium. The PAGE Consortium. The ReproGen Consortium New genetic loci link adipose and insulin biology to body fat distribution. Nature. 2015;518:187–196. doi: 10.1038/nature14132. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Smith SM. Fast robust automated brain extraction. Human Brain Mapping. 2002;17:143–155. doi: 10.1002/hbm.10062. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Sudlow C, Gallacher J, Allen N, Beral V, Burton P, Danesh J, Downey P, Elliott P, Green J, Landray M, Liu B, Matthews P, Ong G, Pell J, Silman A, Young A, Sprosen T, Peakman T, Collins R. UK Biobank: an open access resource for identifying the causes of a wide range of complex diseases of middle and old age. PLOS Medicine. 2015;12:e1001779. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001779. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Turkheimer F, Veronese M, Mondelli V, Cash D, Pariante C. Sickness Behaviour and Depression: An Updated Model of Peripheral-Central Immunity Interactions. Preprints.org. 2022 doi: 10.20944/preprints202203.0062.v1. [DOI] [PubMed]
  39. Wang J, Vasaikar S, Shi Z, Greer M, Zhang B. WebGestalt 2017: a more comprehensive, powerful, flexible and interactive gene set enrichment analysis toolkit. Nucleic Acids Research. 2017;45:W130–W137. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkx356. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Warrier V, Stauffer EM, Huang QQ, Wigdor EM, Slob EAW, Seidlitz J, Ronan L, Valk S, Mallard TT, Grotzinger AD, Romero-Garcia R, Baron-Cohen S, Geschwind DH, Lancaster M, Murray GK, Gandal MJ, Alexander-Bloch A, Won H, Martin HC, Bullmore ET, Bethlehem RAI. The Genetics of Cortical Organisation and Development: A Study of 2,347 Neuroimaging Phenotypes. bioRxiv. 2022 doi: 10.1101/2022.09.08.507084. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  41. Westwater ML, Mallard TT, Warrier V, Bethlehem RAI, Scheinost D, Grillon C, Fletcher PC, Seidlitz J, Ernst M. Assessing a Multivariate Model of Brain-Mediated Genetic Influences on Disordered Eating in the ABCD Cohort. medRxiv. 2022 doi: 10.1101/2022.10.02.22280578. [DOI]
  42. Yatsuya H, Li Y, Hilawe EH, Ota A, Wang C, Chiang C, Zhang Y, Uemura M, Osako A, Ozaki Y, Aoyama A. Global trend in overweight and obesity and its association with cardiovascular disease incidence. Circulation Journal. 2014;78:2807–2818. doi: 10.1253/circj.cj-14-0850. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Zhang Y, Brady M, Smith S. Segmentation of brain MR images through a hidden Markov random field model and the expectation-maximization algorithm. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging. 2001;20:45–57. doi: 10.1109/42.906424. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Zhang R, Beyer F, Lampe L, Luck T, Riedel-Heller SG, Loeffler M, Schroeter ML, Stumvoll M, Villringer A, Witte AV. White matter microstructural variability mediates the relation between obesity and cognition in healthy adults. NeuroImage. 2018;172:239–249. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.01.028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Editor's evaluation

Susie Y Huang 1

Kitzbichler et al. conducted a valuable large-scale study using the UK Biobank data to explore the relationship between brain tissue microstructure and obesity and provided convincing evidence for two coupled yet distinct brain systems mediating relationships between free water and neurite density as markers of inflammation with the genes enriched for innate immunity and specific neurotransmitter receptors. Major strengths include the innovative and expansive approach to understanding the genetic factors, neurotransmitters and potential mechanisms underlying observed alterations in cortical thickness and gray matter volume in obesity. The scope of the work goes beyond most standard neuroimaging analyses and reveals coherent patterns linking neurite density and free water to relevant neuroinflammatory and neurotransmitter pathways.

Decision letter

Editor: Susie Y Huang1
Reviewed by: Annette Horstmann2

In the interests of transparency, eLife publishes the most substantive revision requests and the accompanying author responses.

Decision letter after peer review:

[Editors’ note: the authors submitted for reconsideration following the decision after peer review. What follows is the decision letter after the first round of review.]

Thank you for submitting the paper "Two differentiated brain systems micro-structurally associated with obesity" for consideration by eLife. Your article has been reviewed by 2 peer reviewers, and the evaluation has been overseen by a Reviewing Editor and a Senior Editor. The following individual involved in the review of your submission has agreed to reveal their identity: Annette Horstmann (Reviewer #1).

Comments to the Authors:

We are sorry to say that, after consultation with the reviewers, we have decided that this work will not be considered further for publication by eLife.

I am sorry to convey this disappointing news. This is clearly an interesting work. As you will see below, the reviewers had mixed opinions, with one reviewer considering the work to be an important advance with some methodological limitations, and the other finding the approach to be too exploratory with major methodological flows. Given the reservations regarding the methodology, the article does not represent an advance with sufficient rigor to merit publication in eLife.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

The study uses a large and well-suited human dataset to investigate the relationship between brain microstructure, as determined by in vivo MRI, and obesity, as measured by waist-to-hip ratio, in humans. The authors identify two brain systems that are individually associated with two different markers of brain structure: Neurite density (ICVF) and free water (ISOVF), a potential indicator of inflammatory processes. The authors link the identified associations to biological processes and in particular to neurotransmitter systems using publicly available expression atlases. This is a definite strength as it paves the way to a deeper and mechanistic understanding of the observed associations. Finally, they use GWAS analyses to investigate the influence of genetic variation on the associations between brain microstructure and obesity. They find that only one of the associations is linked to genetic variation and conclude that the structural differences in the two brain systems could be interpreted as a cause or consequence of obesity, respectively.

The analyses reported in the main manuscript are limited to the waist-to-hip ratio. This measure of obesity is correlated with BMI but primarily captures visceral obesity. The complementary results suggest that the results obtained using BMI are much more influenced by gender. The motivation to look at one and not the other is not well established. The same applies to the choice of MRI markers: the decision to use neurite density and free water as the main dependent variables is based on the strength of their association with the predictors. It is not clear from the data whether the associations with the two brain systems are present in the same individuals or whether these results come from two different subgroups within the data set. The authors do not support their interpretation with further (potentially available) data, e.g. on inflammatory status.

Overall, the data are of great interest and the technical methods are sound. Some methodological choices and selective reporting of results weaken the validity of the conclusions at this stage.

– The sole focus on WHR is not well justified. Although BMI and WHR share a large proportion of the variance, the correlation is only r = 0.428. Furthermore, the supplementary figures show that the association between MRI and BMI varies much more by gender than WHR. Please point out in the manuscript that WHR is primarily a measure of central, i.e. visceral obesity, which is metabolically less favourable but also has gender differences, and discuss the choice of predictor more thoroughly. It would be even more interesting if both measures could be analysed, as WHR may be more closely associated with low-grade inflammation than BMI.

– The motivation to study the specific measures of microstructure is insufficiently justified. The stated motivation does not go far beyond stating that "no one has done this before" and that these metrics were most strongly correlated with WHR, i.e. 'To address this potential redundancy, we performed a preliminary correlational analysis of all 6 MRI metrics with WHR then focused our subsequent analyses on ICVF and ISOVF, the two complementary MRI metrics that were most strongly associated with WHR.' Please explain in more detail what these metrics contribute in addition to the other metrics reported in the literature.

– Are the 'distinct brain phenotypes' present in the same individuals or do they represent different subgroups?

– What does it mean that 'The maps of ISOVF~WHR and ICVF~WHR were negatively correlated with r = -0:366'? This indicates that these systems (or the underlying measures/analyses) are not independent. How can this be explained? Does this not weaken the interpretation of differential association?

– Why was GM but not cortical thickness included in the MRI measurements? This would be informative as results have already been published on the relationship between cortical thickness and obesity.

– What does it mean that "taste receptor activity is under-represented in the enrichment analysis for one but positively enriched in the analysis for the other MRI marker? If both are valid findings, please report both and not selectively report one.

– Have inflammatory markers been investigated? For example, if IL-6 was associated with MRI markers in the same way as WHR, this would support the authors' interpretation of the data.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

Strengths

The article takes an expansive, whole-brain approach to addressing the question of interest. While the methodology is simple (i.e., correlations), the rigor of the statistical method ensures that some of the results are plausible and are likely to be replicated. While I disagree with the range of techniques used, there is a comprehensive quality to them which for some reviewers and readers will be impressive.

Finally, the figures are all high-quality and very well made, though incorrect or overreaching elements do cloud this otherwise rosy picture.

Weaknesses

In the introduction, the authors take a straightforward approach to address what is terrible literature, as I describe at length in a previous article. There are inconsistencies in how the brain is assessed, measures that are used to gauge obesity, the wide variance in sample size, poor statistical analysis of many brain regions, and so on. It is much less "pat" than the authors describe, and they really need to spend more time describing the non-significant and inconsistent findings over several brain regions described. The transition to discussing DTI is also incomplete. Finally, I think it is odd to examine 180 cortical regions in a systematic fashion, rather than limiting analyses to larger regions and focusing on smaller regions based on initial analyses. This approach is faulty and prone to error, one which is exacerbated by FDR which looks great on paper but in practice is highly prone to type 1 error given enough comparisons.

For methods, describe the final sample size in the main article. Do not relegate it to supplemental, as the sample size is really around 31,500 instead of 34,000 for most indices. I do not understand why people with high CRP values were excluded, yet scans were kept with participants that had all-cause dementia, heart failure, stroke, and a variety of other conditions that reliably show differences in the frontal lobe and other volumes. Only one scanner is described for UK Biobank but this is not correct. Three scanners were used, as described later on in the analysis pipeline. While the site can be added as a covariate, some studies looking at the effect of scanner units have been done and should be included. The use of the Allen Brain Atlas for gene expression data is unwise. Last I checked, a literal few participants in the same age range as the UK Biobank participants had been scanned using this technique.

For results, BMI is not a good representation of central obesity and should be ignored. That it is relegated to supplemental is wise. WHR is better, but a correlation of r=0.428 is not "strong." It is a small-moderate effect size and should be treated appropriately. I find the use of volumetrics, DTI, and DTI-NODDI to be strange. For each region, technically, there should be 4 standard DTI metrics and 3 NODDI metrics.

Figure 1 is slick. I do not see the point of having a correlation matrix like Figure 1a. For Figures 1b and 1c, as well as Figures 1d and 1e, what I am struck by is the small correlation found in the areas that show the strongest association. That higher WHR is related to greater ICVF in the hippocampus is important, for example, but a correlation of 0.32 is hardly something to worry about. I demand a range of correlation matrices besides what looks best. Further, I find the associations with the occipital lobe hard to believe. This region rarely shows significant associations with obesity. Likewise, I find the frontal and in particular prefrontal areas showing no association to be surprising. In comparing all participants aged 40-70 years, perhaps comparisons by binned age groups would be better.

I do not see the point of using the Allen Brain Atlas, as described. It is not only non-representative of gene expression given its very small sample size, but a lack of suitability to the British population versus the handful of younger to a literal few older Americans used to make the maps. Use Bonferroni correction to truly take into account the number of comparisons made and get back to me. What I most strongly object to is the lack of actual metrics (i.e., r, R^2, Cohen's D, etc.) describing any of the correlations. We are shown plots but are not given correlations in many cases (e.g., Figure 4). This makes for more slick figures, but to what end and for what purpose? I am not going to win over by glam and type-setting.

The discussion is off-putting. To be clear, the authors focused on two DTI-NODDI indices and relegated three other metrics to supplemental because they were less impressive. This is not a hypothesis. There was no a priori determination that ISOVF and ICVF would show impressive results. This was the result of an FDR-corrected smorgasbord of analyses that the authors hoped would win over reviewers because of how nice everything looked. I do machine learning and limited computational biology techniques every day. I am not impressed. The rest of the discussion is based on a corpus of findings that are either not appropriate (e.g., Allen Brain Atlas) or many series of FDR-corrected findings that I do not believe.

[Editors’ note: what follows is the reviewers’ response to the second round of review.]

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

Kitzbichler et al. performed a large-scale study using UK Biobank data to explore the relationship between brain tissue microstructure and obesity. The authors uncover two coupled yet distinct brain systems mediating relationships between free water and neurite density as markers of inflammation with the genes enriched for innate immunity and specific neurotransmitter receptors. This paper offers an innovative and expansive approach to understanding the genetic factors, neurotransmitters, and potential mechanisms underlying observed alterations in cortical thickness and gray matter volume in obesity. The scope of the work goes well beyond most neuroimaging analyses and reveals coherent patterns linking neurite density and free water to relevant neuroinflammatory and neurotransmitter pathways.

Strengths of the paper include the use of a large and well-substantiated human dataset alongside rigorous, albeit limited, gene expression data derived from the Allen Brain Atlas. The GWAS analyses are well integrated and provide insights into the impact of genetic variation on associations between gray matter microstructure and obesity, thereby offering a more comprehensive understanding of the observed relationships. While it would be helpful to include additional data to support the interpretations, the manuscript presents a sufficiently comprehensive body of evidence to indicate the presence of distinct brain systems mediating the effect of obesity on brain tissue microstructure and macrostructure.

The results support an intriguing mechanistic model in which neurite density in the medial temporal-occipital-striatal system may contribute to obesity, while free water in the prefrontal-temporal striatal system may reflect the consequences of obesity mediated by innate immune system function. The findings provide evidence that microstructural imaging measures derived from diffusion MRI may offer more specific insights into the biological mechanisms underlying previously observed alterations in cortical thickness and gray matter volume in obesity. The work offers a notable advance in understanding the link between obesity, neuroinflammation, and alterations in brain tissue microscopic structure and provides a framework for deriving further mechanistic insights through this approach that may be applied to other neurological diseases and systemic disorders.

The authors have addressed the critiques from the previous round of review thoroughly. All major criticisms have been mitigated by additional data and appropriate responses. While the critiques from the second reviewer were phrased strongly, the authors have done their best to address the most salient comments objectively. As a result, the revisions to the manuscript have greatly strengthened its presentation and provide a more comprehensive and well-reasoned paper.

eLife. 2023 Oct 20;12:e85175. doi: 10.7554/eLife.85175.sa2

Author response


[Editors’ note: The authors appealed the original decision. What follows is the authors’ response to the first round of review.]

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

1. The study uses a large and well-suited human dataset to investigate the relationship between brain microstructure, as determined by in vivo MRI, and obesity, as measured by waist-to-hip ratio, in humans. The authors identify two brain systems that are individually associated with two different markers of brain structure: Neurite density (ICVF) and free water (ISOVF), a potential indicator of inflammatory processes. The authors link the identified associations to biological processes and in particular to neurotransmitter systems using publicly available expression atlases. This is a definite strength as it paves the way to a deeper and mechanistic understanding of the observed associations.

We thank the reviewer for their positive comments about the strengths of our work.

2. Finally, they use GWAS analyses to investigate the influence of genetic variation on the associations between brain microstructure and obesity. They find that only one of the associations is linked to genetic variation and conclude that the structural differences in the two brain systems could be interpreted as a cause or consequence of obesity, respectively.

The analyses reported in the main manuscript are limited to the waist-to-hip ratio. This measure of obesity is correlated with BMI but primarily captures visceral obesity. The complementary results suggest that the results obtained using BMI are much more influenced by gender. The motivation to look at one and not the other is not well established.

Thank you for raising this point. Our primary motivation for focussing on WHR was because of its greater association with visceral obesity (as also highlighted by R2). Nevertheless, we performed (and reported) all analyses for both WHR and BMI. For the most part, findings for WHR and BMI were broadly comparable, as illustrated in Figure S13 which explicitly compares the BMI and WHR maps. For clarity, we presented the WHR results in the main text and placed all equivalent results for BMI in the SI. We have now clarified this decision to focus on WHR in the main text as highlighted in our detailed replies below.

3. The same applies to the choice of MRI markers: the decision to use neurite density and free water as the main dependent variables is based on the strength of their association with the predictors.

We apologise for not being clearer in our rationale for focussing on neurite density and free water. As we have now further clarified in the text, our goal was to use NODDI modelling of diffusion MRI to investigate associations of obesity with brain microstructure. We focussed on NODDI as this provides three (reasonably well validated and interpretable) indices of tissue microstructure. Of note, standard diffusion metrics such as mean diffusivity and fractional anisotropy of grey matter have poor interpretability with respect to cortical microstructure and were only included to illustrate their relationship to the NODDI metrics.

Our decision to restrict ourselves to two of the three NODDI metrics (i.e. excluding OD) was largely driven by a desire for brevity. The ICVF and OD maps were strongly correlated, so we elected to illustrate results for the more independent and complementary measures of ISOVF and ICVF in the main text and report the results on OD in SI rather than reporting the OD results in parallel to the closely related ICVF results in the main paper.

In response to the reviewer’s comments, we have now repeated the analysis using PCA components rather than raw NODDI measures. This confirmed that ISOVF was an independent measure and that ICVF and OD were co-linear. We have now clarified this in the paper as copied below. However, we stuck with our decision to report NODDI metrics (rather than PCA components) as this is generally more easily interpretable for the general reader.

The detailed response below discusses again in more detail these questions and also shows the textual changes made.

4. It is not clear from the data whether the associations with the two brain systems are present in the same individuals or whether these results come from two different subgroups within the data set.

This is an interesting question. Our assumption is that both systems would be in operation in the same individuals. However, we are not aware of any currently available tools that would allow us to undertake this analysis within a single subject.

5. The authors do not support their interpretation with further (potentially available) data, e.g. on inflammatory status.

Thank you for raising this interesting point. UK Biobank does not provide data on IL or other proinflammatory cytokines but it does provide CRP data as a broad index of systemic inflammation. As suggested we have now undertaken an additional analysis of associations between CRP and the microstructural MRI metrics to test the hypothesis that brain maps relating to CRP will be more similar to (more strongly correlated with) maps of obesity scaling with ISOVF (which we hypothesised represent potentially inflammatory effects of obesity on the brain) than to maps of obesity scaling with ICVF (which we hypothesised represent potentially causal effects of brain-mediated behaviour on obesity).

We have now addressed this point in the results and Discussion sections (as well as the abstract) and have added a new figure (Figure S13, also included in the next section for reference) which shows two main findings: (1) that there is a moderately strong association of CRP with microstructural brain metrics similar but weaker than WHR or BMI; and (2) that this relationship was statistically significantly stronger for the effect maps of CRP vs ISOVF compared to the maps of CRP vs ICVF as would be expected if the free water measured by ISOVF is related to inflammatory effects of obesity on the brain.

6. Overall, the data are of great interest and the technical methods are sound. Some methodological choices and selective reporting of results weaken the validity of the conclusions at this stage.

We thank the reviewer for their positive assessment of the relevance of our work. We hope that we have been able to better clarify the motivation for our methodology and show that this has been driven by a desire for clarity rather than a selective focus on reporting specific findings (all of which are reported in SI). We also hope that our additional analyses have provided further support for our conclusions.

7. The sole focus on WHR is not well justified. Although BMI and WHR share a large proportion of the variance, the correlation is only r = 0.428. Furthermore, the supplementary figures show that the association between MRI and BMI varies much more by gender than WHR. Please point out in the manuscript that WHR is primarily a measure of central, i.e. visceral obesity, which is metabolically less favourable but also has gender differences, and discuss the choice of predictor more thoroughly. It would be even more interesting if both measures could be analysed, as WHR may be more closely associated with low-grade inflammation than BMI.

We have performed all analyses in parallel for both WHR and BMI but decided for the sake of clarity to present only the WHR results in the main text and provide the BMI results in the SI for the interested reader. Additional text justifying our preference for WHR as the principal marker of (visceral) obesity and discussing the metabolic importance of visceral fat has been added to the main text:

“To date, cross-sectional and longitudinal studies investigating effects of obesity on the brain have focused almost exclusively on macroscopic aspects of brain structure such as total grey matter volume and cortical thickness. Typically, these have reported negative associations between obesity (particularly visceral obesity indexed by waist to hip ratio: WHR) and (smaller) total grey matter volume (Cox et al., 2019) and (thinner) cortical thickness (Caunca et al., 2019).

[…]

Given previous findings of a particular association between macroscopic differences in brain structure and visceral obesity we elected to report associations with WHR in the main text and report complementary results for BMI as a measure of whole body obesity in the SI.”

Furthermore, the relationships between MRI-derived visceral fat and BMI as well as WHR are now presented in Figure S1 a-b, separately for males and females, to make it clear that this effect is not gender-driven and to demonstrate that the relationship with MRI measures of visceral fat is more strongly linear for WHR compared to BMI.

Concerning the microstructural effects, findings for WHR and BMI were broadly comparable, as can be also seen in Figure S13 which explicitly compares the BMI and WHR maps.

8. The motivation to study the specific measures of microstructure is insufficiently justified. The stated motivation does not go far beyond stating that "no one has done this before" and that these metrics were most strongly correlated with WHR, i.e. 'To address this potential redundancy, we performed a preliminary correlational analysis of all 6 MRI metrics with WHR then focused our subsequent analyses on ICVF and ISOVF, the two complementary MRI metrics that were most strongly associated with WHR.' Please explain in more detail what these metrics contribute in addition to the other metrics reported in the literature.

We apologise for not being clearer in our rationale for focussing on neurite density and free water. We note that the reviewer made a similar comment (R1, #3) previously and our response to this comment substantially reproduces our response to R1, #3. As we have now further clarified in the text, our goal was to use NODDI modelling of diffusion MRI to investigate associations of obesity with brain microstructure. We focussed on NODDI as this provides three (reasonably well validated and interpretable) indices of tissue microstructure. Of note, standard diffusion metrics such as mean diffusivity and fractional anisotropy grey matter have poor interpretability with respect to cortical microstructure and were only included to illustrate their relationship to the NODDI metrics.

We have rewritten the text to better motivate our choice of microstructural metrics and why these offer a new and complementary approach as copied below:

“However, changes in grey matter volume and cortical thickness can be driven by multiple different underlying processes and our understanding of the microstructural features that underpin this relationship remain largely unknown (Westwater et al., 2022). For example, it is currently not known whether obesity-associated differences in grey matter volume relate to changes in the size, shape or number of neurons e.g. neurite density or orientation dispersion within that region or alternately to differences in tissue water content.

[…]

Unlike conventional diffusion MRI which models data acquired at a single diffusion weighting (shell), NODDI requires data collected at multiple different diffusion weightings (shells) then exploits the diffusion characteristics that can be observed in different tissue compartments to quantify their respective volume fractions. In this model, diffusion is modelled as isotropic in free water, restricted within neurites, and hindered in the extracellular space resulting in three microstructural metrics: Intracellular Volume Fraction (ICVF) which captures the volume fraction occupied by neurites (axons and dendrites) but not cell bodies, Orientation Dispersion Index (OD) which captures the spatial distribution of these processes and isotropic volume fraction (ISOVF) which provides a measure of free water index).”

Our decision to restrict ourselves to two of the three NODDI metrics (i.e. excluding OD) was largely driven by a desire for brevity. The ICVF and OD maps were strongly correlated, so we elected to illustrate results for the more independent and complementary measures of ISOVF and ICVF in the main text and report the results on OD in SI rather than reporting the OD results in parallel to the closely related ICVF results in the main paper.

In response to the reviewer’s comments we have now repeated the analysis using PCA components rather than raw NODDI measures. This confirmed that ISOVF was an independent measure and that ICVF and OD were co-linear. We have now clarified this in the paper as copied below. However, we stuck with our decision to report NODDI metrics (rather than PCA components) as this is generally more easily interpretable for the general reader. The respective section in the main text is quoted below:

“As illustrated in Figure 1a, some of these metrics were strongly correlated, indicating that they represented similar aspects of the underlying cortical micro-structure or tissue composition. For example, FA, OD and ICVF metrics of neurite density were more strongly correlated with each other than with ISOVF, which is typically interpreted as a marker of tissue free water rather than cytoarchitectonics (Kamiya et al., 2020).

To address this potential redundancy, we performed a preliminary correlational analysis of all MRI metrics with WHR, then focused our subsequent analyses on ICVF and ISOVF, the two complementary MRI metrics that were most strongly associated with WHR. Comparable results for the other 4 metrics are reported in the Supplemental Information Figure S2.”

9. Are the 'distinct brain phenotypes' present in the same individuals or do they represent different subgroups?

We note that this comment is identical to the one raised as R1, #4 and we reproduce our response to the earlier comment here. This is an interesting question. Our assumption is that both systems would be in operation in the same individuals. However, we are not aware of any currently available tools that would allow us to undertake this analysis within a single subject. We have added some discussion of this point to the main text:

“Concerning the question whether both brain systems are in operation in the same individual at the same time, we are not aware of any currently available tools that would allow us to actually test this assumption, but it could be an interesting avenue for future work.”

10. What does it mean that 'The maps of ISOVF~WHR and ICVF~WHR were negatively correlated with r = -0:366'? This indicates that these systems (or the underlying measures/analyses) are not independent. How can this be explained? Does this not weaken the interpretation of differential association?

We agree that a shared variance explained of R2 ~ 13% indicates that these two systems are not entirely independent. We have now modified the title of the manuscript to de-emphasise the claim that these two systems are entirely independent or differentiated with respect to each other. However, we note that the two brain systems associated with ISOVF and ICVF were differentiated anatomically and in terms of their colocation with gene expression profiles and neurotransmitter receptor maps (as per Table 1).

As mentioned above, we have also repeated the analysis with PCA components of NODDI metrics, which are independent (orthogonal) by construction, but we found the same moderate relation in the resulting effect maps, indicating that this is probably mediated by effects of obesity.

11. Why was GM but not cortical thickness included in the MRI measurements? This would be informative as results have already been published on the relationship between cortical thickness and obesity.

The primary aim of the current manuscript was to focus on microstructural associations with obesity not to repeat macrostructural analyses previously reported by other groups (including in UK Biobank). Our decision to include GM and other macrostructural measures in Figure 1 was purely for the sake of completeness, to allow the reader to compare the novel microstructural features that we report here with macrostructural features previously reported and show that our microstructural data are indeed complementary as we have attempted to clarify in the respective section of the main text:

“Of the MRI metrics, there was one macro-structural measure (GM, grey matter volume) and micro-structural measures (MD, mean diffusivity; FA, fractional anisotropy; OD, orientation dispersion; ICVF, intra-cellular volume fraction; and ISOVF, isotropic volume fraction). As illustrated in Figure 1a, some of these metrics were strongly correlated, indicating that they represented similar aspects of the underlying cortical micro-structure or tissue composition. For example, FA, OD and ICVF metrics of neurite density were more strongly correlated with each other than with ISOVF, which is typically interpreted as a marker of tissue free water rather than cytoarchitectonics (Kamiya et al., 2020).

To address this potential redundancy, we performed a preliminary correlational analysis of all MRI metrics with WHR then focused our subsequent analyses on ICVF and ISOVF, the two complementary MRI metrics that were most strongly associated with WHR. Comparable results for the other 4 metrics are reported in the Supplemental Information Figure S2.”

12. What does it mean that "taste receptor activity is under-represented in the enrichment analysis for one but positively enriched in the analysis for the other MRI marker? If both are valid findings, please report both and not selectively report one.

We have clarified and balanced the reporting of the enrichment results for taste receptor activity. All the significant enrichment results are reported in full (not selectively) in Figure 2 and SI Figure S6.

13. Have inflammatory markers been investigated? For example, if IL-6 was associated with MRI markers in the same way as WHR, this would support the authors' interpretation of the data.

This interesting question has been raised as point R1, #5 above and we replicate our answer here. UK Biobank does not provide data on IL6 or other proinflammatory cytokines but it does provide CRP data as a broad index of systemic inflammation. As suggested we have now undertaken an additional analysis of associations between CRP and the microstructural MRI metrics to test the hypothesis that brain maps relating to CRP will be more similar to (more strongly correlated with) maps of obesity scaling with ISOVF (which we hypothesised represent potentially inflammatory effects of obesity on the brain) than to maps of obesity scaling with ICVF (which we hypothesised represent potentially causal effects of brain-mediated behaviour on obesity).

We have now addressed this point in the results and Discussion sections (as well as the abstract) and have added a new figure (Figure S13) which shows two main findings: (1) that there is a moderately strong association of CRP with microstructural brain metrics similar but weaker than WHR or BMI; and (2) that this relationship was statistically significantly stronger for the effect maps of CRP vs ISOVF compared to the maps of CRP vs ICVF as would be expected if the free water measured by ISOVF is related to inflammatory effects of obesity on the brain.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

Strengths

1. The article takes an expansive, whole-brain approach to addressing the question of interest. While the methodology is simple (i.e., correlations), the rigor of the statistical method ensures that some of the results are plausible and are likely to be replicated. While I disagree with the range of techniques used, there is a comprehensive quality to them which for some reviewers and readers will be impressive.

We appreciate the reviewer’s positive comments about the rigour, robustness, comprehensiveness and plausibility of our work.

2. Finally, the figures are all high-quality and very well made, though incorrect or overreaching elements do cloud this otherwise rosy picture.

We thank the reviewer for appreciating the considerable effort that went into creating figures of a high standard and we hope that we have managed to address the issues raised.

Weaknesses

3. In the introduction, the authors take a straightforward approach to address what is terrible literature, as I describe at length in a previous article. There are inconsistencies in how the brain is assessed, measures that are used to gauge obesity, the wide variance in sample size, poor statistical analysis of many brain regions, and so on. It is much less "pat" than the authors describe, and they really need to spend more time describing the non-significant and inconsistent findings over several brain regions described.

We agree that the literature is not entirely consistent and there are a number of methodological reasons that likely contribute to discrepancies between primary studies. The reviewer has not cited their previous article so we cannot be sure we have completely represented their perspective in our revision. However we have edited the Introduction to echo and highlight these legitimate concerns:

“To date, cross-sectional and longitudinal studies investigating effects of obesity on the brain have focused almost exclusively on macroscopic aspects of brain structure such as total grey matter volume and cortical thickness. Results in this field were often contradictory: although studies tended to report lower gray matter volume in relation to obesity, some have also observed null or positive associations as described in a meta-analysis by García-García et al. (2019), who noted that the likely reasons for this were heterogeneities in brain and obesity metrics, a wide variation in sample size, and poor statistical methodology.”

4. The transition to discussing DTI is also incomplete.

We have rewritten the relevant section of the Introduction to provide a more complete motivation for our focus on DWI-derived metrics:

“Unlike conventional diffusion MRI which models data acquired at a single diffusion weighting (shell), NODDI requires data collected at multiple different diffusion weightings (shells) and then exploits the diffusion characteristics that can be observed in different tissue compartments to quantify their respective volume fractions. In this model, diffusion is modelled as isotropic in free water, restricted within neurites, and hindered in the extracellular space, resulting in three microstructural metrics: intracellular volume fraction (ICVF) which captures the volume fraction occupied by neurites (axons and dendrites) but not cell bodies; orientation dispersion index (OD) which captures the spatial distribution of these processes; and isotropic volume fraction (ISOVF) which provides a measure of free water.”

5. Finally, I think it is odd to examine 180 cortical regions in a systematic fashion, rather than limiting analyses to larger regions and focusing on smaller regions based on initial analyses. This approach is faulty and prone to error, one which is exacerbated by FDR which looks great on paper but in practice is highly prone to type 1 error given enough comparisons.

We thank the reviewer for appreciating the considerable effort that went into creating figures of a high standard and we hope that we have managed to address the issues raised.

6. For methods, describe the final sample size in the main article. Do not relegate it to supplemental, as the sample size is really around 31,500 instead of 34,000 for most indices.

We agree with the reviewer that it is important to clarify the size of the analyzable sample and we have now done so in Abstract and Results.

7. I do not understand why people with high CRP values were excluded, yet scans were kept with participants that had all-cause dementia, heart failure, stroke, and a variety of other conditions that reliably show differences in the frontal lobe and other volumes.

Participants with high CRP (>10mg/L) were excluded due to potential effects on brain microstructure (see https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-021-01272-1). The number of subjects with episodes of stroke or dementia in the UK Biobank data is less than 1%. However, your comment is well taken and in order to address these concerns we re-analysed the data excluding these subjects. We found a correlation of >0.99 between the resulting maps and the ones in the original analysis. We have now clarified this in the main text:

“In order to avoid spurious effects from pathologies causing systemic inflammation we also excluded subjects with high CRP (>10 mg/L). We repeated the analysis without subjects who had reported an episode of stroke or diagnosis of dementia, producing identical results.”

8. Only one scanner is described for UK Biobank but this is not correct. Three scanners were used, as described later on in the analysis pipeline. While the site can be added as a covariate, some studies looking at the effect of scanner units have been done and should be included.

Thank you for raising this point. We have now discussed the fact that there were three different sites using separate scanners, but of the same make and model and we reference some literature about the between site comparability in UK Biobank.

9. The use of the Allen Brain Atlas for gene expression data is unwise. Last I checked, a literal few participants in the same age range as the UK Biobank participants had been scanned using this technique.

It is true that the age range of the AHBA donors (24-57 years) is only partially overlapping with the participants in the UK Biobank (44-80 years). While future studies may be able to provide a comprehensive picture of whole brain gene expression as a function of age, for the time being we will have to accept the steady-state approximation that is the AHBA. Since this is an important limitation, we are now discussing it in text:

“It should also be mentioned that the age range of the AHBA donors (24-57 years) is only partially overlapping with the participants in the UK Biobank (44-80 years). Future studies will hopefully provide a more comprehensive picture of whole brain gene expression as a function of age so that the powerful strategy for linking transcriptional and imaging data that the AHBA dataset has enabled can be extended to gene expression datasets more closely aligned demographically with the neuroimaging dataset of interest. These and other methodological issues relating to alignment of AHBA gene expression data with MRI phenotypes have been rigorously reviewed in detail (Fornito et al. 2019, Arnatkeviciute et al. 2023).”

10. For results, BMI is not a good representation of central obesity and should be ignored. That it is relegated to supplemental is wise. WHR is better, but a correlation of r=0.428 is not "strong." It is a small-moderate effect size and should be treated appropriately.

We thank the reviewer for supporting our focus on WHR and we want to reiterate that we processed the data in parallel using both WHR and BMI and the interested reader can compare the results presented in the Supporting Information section.

This point is similar to point R1, #7 raised by Reviewer 1 above, where we have also quoted the additions to the main text justifying our preference for WHR as the principal marker of (visceral) obesity and discussing the metabolic importance of visceral fat:

“Given previous findings of significant association between macroscopic differences in brain structure and visceral obesity, we elected to report associations with WHR in the main text and report complementary results for BMI as a measure of whole body obesity in the SI.”

11. I find the use of volumetrics, DTI, and DTI-NODDI to be strange. For each region, technically, there should be 4 standard DTI metrics and 3 NODDI metrics.

We apologise for not being clearer in our rationale for focussing on neurite density and free water. We note that Reviewer 1 made similar comments (R1, #3 and R1, #8) previously and our response to this comment is substantially reproduced here. As we have now further clarified in the text, our goal was to use NODDI modelling of diffusion MRI to investigate associations of obesity with brain microstructure. We focussed on NODDI as this provides three (reasonably well validated and interpretable) indices of tissue microstructure. Of note, standard diffusion metrics such as mean diffusivity and fractional anisotropy grey matter have poor interpretability with respect to cortical microstructure and were only included to illustrate their relationship to the NODDI metrics.

We have rewritten the text to better motivate our choice of microstructural metrics and why these offer a new and complementary approach as copied below:

“However, changes in grey matter volume and cortical thickness can be driven by multiple different underlying processes and our understanding of the microstructural features that underpin this relationship remain largely unknown (Westwater et al., 2022). For example, it is currently not known whether obesity-associated differences in grey matter volume relate to changes in the size, shape or number of neurons e.g. neurite density or orientation dispersion within that region or alternately to differences in tissue water content.

[…]

Unlike conventional diffusion MRI which models data acquired at a single diffusion weighting (shell), NODDI requires data collected at multiple different diffusion weightings (shells) then exploits the diffusion characteristics that can be observed in different tissue compartments to quantify their respective volume fractions. In this model, diffusion is modelled as isotropic in free water, restricted within neurites, and hindered in the extracellular space resulting in three microstructural metrics: Intracellular Volume Fraction (ICVF) which captures the volume fraction occupied by neurites (axons and dendrites) but not cell bodies, Orientation Dispersion Index (OD) which captures the spatial distribution of these processes and isotropic volume fraction (ISOVF) which provides a measure of free water index).”

Our decision to restrict ourselves to two of the three NODDI metrics (i.e. excluding OD) was largely driven by a desire for brevity. The ICVF and OD maps were strongly correlated, so we elected to illustrate results for the more independent and complementary measures of ISOVF and ICVF in the main text and report the results on OD in SI rather than reporting the OD results in parallel to the closely related ICVF results in the main paper.

In response to the reviewer’s comments we have now repeated the analysis using PCA components rather than raw NODDI measures. This confirmed that ISOVF was an independent measure and that ICVF and OD were co-linear. We have now clarified this in the paper as copied below. However, we stuck with our decision to report NODDI metrics (rather than PCA components) as this is generally more easily interpretable for the general reader. The respective section in the main text is quoted below:

“As illustrated in Figure 1a, some of these metrics were strongly correlated, indicating that they represented similar aspects of the underlying cortical micro-structure or tissue composition. For example, FA, OD and ICVF metrics of neurite density were more strongly correlated with each other than with ISOVF, which is typically interpreted as a marker of tissue free water rather than cytoarchitectonics (Kamiya et al., 2020).

To address this potential redundancy, we performed a preliminary correlational analysis of all MRI metrics with WHR, then focused our subsequent analyses on ICVF and ISOVF, the two complementary MRI metrics that were most strongly associated with WHR. Comparable results for the other 4 metrics are reported in the Supplemental Information Figure S2.”

12. Figure 1 is slick. I do not see the point of having a correlation matrix like Figure 1a.

We thank the reviewer for appreciating the considerable effort that went into creating figures of a high standard. Figure 1a is meant to illustrate the correlated nature of the available imaging metrics. Specifically it demonstrates that the free-water metric ISOVF is essentially orthogonal to the measures of neurite density ICVF and orientation OD, whereas the latter two are forming a cluster together with fractional anisotropy FA. We have now added this explanation to the legend of Figure1:

“a) Correlation matrix for six macro- and micro-structural MRI metrics demonstrating that ISOVF (free-water) is essentially orthogonal to ICVF (neurite density) and OD, which instead form a cluster with FA.”

13. For Figures 1b and 1c, as well as Figures 1d and 1e, what I am struck by is the small correlation found in the areas that show the strongest association. That higher WHR is related to greater ICVF in the hippocampus is important, for example, but a correlation of 0.32 is hardly something to worry about.

The reviewer’s opinion that a correlation of 0.32 is “hardly something to worry about” is entirely subjective. A correlation of 0.32 means that about 10% of hippocampal variance is related to WHR, which is not trivial, and correlations greater than 0.3 are generally regarded as moderate (not small) in the statistical literature, e.g., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.069.

14. I demand a range of correlation matrices besides what looks best. Further, I find the associations with the occipital lobe hard to believe. This region rarely shows significant associations with obesity. Likewise, I find the frontal and in particular prefrontal areas showing no association to be surprising. In comparing all participants aged 40-70 years, perhaps comparisons by binned age groups would be better.

It is not clear exactly what the reviewer is “demanding” here. As far as we know, all the relevant correlation matrices are reported in full in the main text or supplementary information; we would be happy to include additional results if the reviewer clearly specified what they felt was missing.

The reviewer’s insinuations, here and elsewhere in their remarks, that we have selectively reported “what looks best” is not well documented by the granular detail of their comments and is, frankly, unjustified and disrespectful. We have reported the results of an unusually comprehensive analysis, including multiple sensitivity analyses and statistical controls to ensure the robustness of our findings. The reviewer may find it “hard to believe” the presence or absence of certain results they expected in the occipital or frontal lobes but, as stated, this is no more than their personal opinion. We would be happy to include further discussion of expected and unexpected results if the reviewer could kindly point us to the prior evidence on which their expectations are based. It is not clear to us why “comparisons by binned age groups would be better” – it would certainly dramatically increase the number of statistical tests and increase the risk of type 1 error, so we have therefore not elected to adopt this suggestion.

15. I do not see the point of using the Allen Brain Atlas, as described. It is not only non-representative of gene expression given its very small sample size, but a lack of suitability to the British population versus the handful of younger to a literal few older Americans used to make the maps. Use Bonferroni correction to truly take into account the number of comparisons made and get back to me.

As we pointed out in the original paper, and have amplified in this revision, the Allen Brain Atlas is not perfect but it is the only available dataset on human brain gene expression that is available and appropriate for analysis of whole genome transcriptional profiles spatially co-located with MRI phenotypes in the UKB cohort. The high value attached to the Allen Brain Atlas by the neuroscience research community is attested by the fact that it has been cited between 1400-2400 times (depending on metric), and many of the neuroimaging papers using the Allen Brain Atlas have themselves been highly cited. The limitations of the existing dataset, and the methodological issues involved in aligning it with MRI phenotypes, have been well-recognised and discussed in the field (as noted in our response to R2 #9).

This comment: “use Bonferroni correction to truly take into account the number of comparisons made and get back to me” is again phrased in an intemperate and disrespectful tone. We note that all the analyses have been corrected for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate which is a well-recognised and very widely used method for this purpose. Without more granular and well-founded arguments in favour of using the alternative Bonferroni procedure (which is well acknowledged to inflate type 2 error rates: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.316.7139.1236), we have elected not to adopt this suggestion.

16. What I most strongly object to is the lack of actual metrics (i.e., r, R^2, Cohen's D, etc.) describing any of the correlations. We are shown plots but are not given correlations in many cases (e.g., Figure 4). This makes for more slick figures, but to what end and for what purpose? I am not going to win over by glam and type-setting.

We have added relevant or clarified quantitative data as appropriate throughout the text, figures, figure legends and supplemental information. The figures were not intended to be “slick” or “glam” (again, somewhat disrespectful language for a scientific review); they were intended to be high quality and engaging representations of an extensive analysis of a large and complex dataset. We are always happy to take on board constructive and specific feedback about how the quality of the figures in this paper could be further improved.

17. The discussion is off-putting. To be clear, the authors focused on two DTI-NODDI indices and relegated three other metrics to supplemental because they were less impressive. This is not a hypothesis. There was no a priori determination that ISOVF and ICVF would show impressive results.

The rationale for focusing on two NODDI metrics was set out in the Introduction and has been further clarified in this revision (see our response to the very similar point made previously by this reviewer, #11). The reviewer’s insinuation that we “relegated three other metrics to supplemental because they were less impressive” is, again, unjustified and disrespectfully phrased.

18. This was the result of an FDR-corrected smorgasbord of analyses that the authors hoped would win over reviewers because of how nice everything looked. I do machine learning and limited computational biology techniques every day. I am not impressed. The rest of the discussion is based on a corpus of findings that are either not appropriate (e.g., Allen Brain Atlas) or many series of FDR-corrected findings that I do not believe.

As detailed above, we have responded substantively to the reviewer’s concerns about the use of Allen Brain Atlas data and FDR correction to control Type-I error rate, both of which are widely used methods in the neuroimaging literature. As to the reviewers opinion that we used “a smorgasbord of analyses that [we] hoped would win over reviewers because of how nice everything looked”, we would merely highlight again the disrespectful nature of this comment.


Articles from eLife are provided here courtesy of eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd

RESOURCES