Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2026 Jul 1.
Published in final edited form as: Nat Ment Health. 2023 Jan 19;1(1):36–44. doi: 10.1038/s44220-022-00002-y

Lesion network localization of depression in multiple sclerosis

Shan H Siddiqi 1,2,3,4,*, Isaiah Kletenik 1,2,4,5,*, Mark C Anderson 5,6, Michele Cavallari 7,8, Tanuja Chitnis 5,6, Bonnie I Glanz 5,6, Samar Khalil 5, Miklos Palotai 7,8, Rohit Bakshi 5,6,8, Charles R G Guttmann 7,8,**, Michael D Fox 1,2,3,4,**
PMCID: PMC13316769  NIHMSID: NIHMS2189600  PMID: 42383171

Abstract

Depression is a common debilitating complication of multiple sclerosis (MS), but the role of lesion location remains unclear. Recent work shows that stroke lesions and therapeutic neuromodulation sites that modify depression are connected to a common brain circuit, providing an a priori template that could be relevant for MS. Using a clinical and radiological database of patients with MS (n=281), we estimated connectivity between lesion locations and other brain regions using a normative connectome database (n=1000). Functional connectivity between MS lesion locations and our a priori depression circuit was correlated with depression severity in MS (p=0.013) and specific to depression versus other MS-related symptoms (p=0.0058). A data-driven circuit for MS depression showed similar topography to our a priori depression circuit (p=0.015). The peak of this data-driven MS depression circuit was in the ventral midbrain, overlapping the ventral tegmental area (pFWE<0.05). These findings lend insight into the localization of MS depression that may help guide therapeutic targeting.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic immune mediated disease associated with demyelinating white matter lesions in specific regions of the central nervous system. Depression is one of the most common and debilitating complications of MS1,2 and is associated with greater impairment in cognitive function3, physical function4, and quality of life5. Determining the neuroanatomical substrate for MS depression could be useful for identification of treatment targets for transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), and deep brain stimulation (DBS), or other brain stimulation techniques6–8. This is particularly important given that patients with MS are less responsive to antidepressant pharmacotherapy, and there are no clinical trials of brain stimulation for MS depression.

While depression and overall white matter lesion load both increase with disease progression4, attempts to relate MS depression to specific lesion locations have shown conflicting results9. Different studies have reported associations between MS depression and lesions in the frontal lobes10, temporal lobes11, and parietal lobes12. Due to this heterogeneity, it remains unclear if or how lesion location is related to depression in MS4.

When lesions causing a specific symptom fail to localize to a specific region, they may still localize to a specific distributed brain circuit. These circuits can be identified using lesion network mapping (LNM), a technique that uses a normative connectome database (n=1000) to compare the connectivity of brain lesions rather than just their location13. This technique was recently used to study depression associated with focal lesions such as stroke6,14. We found that lesions that cause depression are functionally connected to a common brain circuit. Further, TMS sites and DBS sites that modulate depression were connected to this same circuit, suggesting that lesion-derived circuits can be effective targets for therapeutic brain stimulation6. We identified a convergent neuroanatomical substrate for depression across 14 datasets of lesions, TMS sites, and DBS sites6. However, it remains unclear if this circuit applies to white matter lesions such as those seen in MS.

Here, we use the same method6 to localize depression in MS. We hypothesized that MS lesions connected to our a priori circuit would be more likely to cause depression.

Results

281 participants with MS were identified from a longitudinal clinical and radiological database. Participants had complete MRI data, depression scores (Neuro-QoL depression subscale), and overall disability scores at enrollment. Dataset characteristics are summarized in Fig. 1a. FLAIR hyperintense lesions were defined using an automated white matter segmentation pipeline as previously described15. Lesions were distributed throughout the white matter, with high density in periventricular regions as expected (Fig. 1b). On one-way ANOVA, choice of immunomodulatory therapy was not associated with depression severity (p=0.35), but was associated with lesion load (p=0.0001) and overall disability (p=0.0007) (Table S1).

Figure 1: Dataset characteristics.

Figure 1:

Open in a new tab

(a) Participant demographics. (b) Distribution of MS lesions across the brain.

Using these data, we conducted lesion network mapping, spatial correlation analyses with our a priori circuit, permutation testing, and clinical outcome prediction following the same methods as in our prior work8,13. We estimated the whole-brain connectivity of each patient’s lesion location using a normative connectome database (Fig. 2a,b) and assessed the similarity of each lesion’s connectivity profile to our a priori depression circuit using spatial correlations (Fig. 2c). We compared the Fisher-transformed spatial correlations to depression scores (Fig. 2d), both of which were normally distributed (Fig. S1), using Pearson correlation. As hypothesized, MS patients whose lesions were more connected to our a priori depression circuit had higher depression scores, independent of the effect of age, sex, overall disability, and total lesion volume (r = 0.15, p = 0.013). This relationship was specific to depression compared to 11 other Neuro-QoL metrics and overall disability (p = 0.0058, 25,000 permutations) (Fig. 2e). This relationship also survived after additionally controlling for fatigue and cognitive symptoms, which are common neuropsychiatric comorbidities of MS depression4,16 (r = 0.16, p = 0.0075).

Figure 2: Comparing MS lesions to the a priori depression circuit.

Figure 2:

Open in a new tab

(a) MS lesions were automatically segmented and warped to a standard brain atlas (n=281 patients). Here we show three representative lesions. (b) Lesion connectivity was estimated using a normative connectome database (n=1000). Normative connectivity maps of the three representative lesions are shown here. (c) Each lesion’s connectivity profile was compared with our a priori depression circuit using spatial correlations. (d) These spatial correlations were compared with depression severity and 12 comparator symptoms, including EDSS and the remaining 11 Neuro-QoL symptoms, using Pearson correlations. (e) Lesion connectivity to our a priori depression circuit was more associated with depression than other symptoms (n = 281 patients and 12 symptoms, p = 0.0058 on permutation testing with 25,000 permutations).

Next, we derived a brain network for MS depression in a data-driven fashion by comparing lesion connectivity profile to depression severity across all patients. The resulting circuit map represents the connectivity of MS lesion locations that are associated with greater depression severity. To investigate the full topography of this circuit, we intentionally did not apply a statistical threshold, following our prior work6,8,17. The topography of our MS circuit (Fig. 3a) showed high spatial correlation with the topography of our convergent a priori depression circuit (spatial r = 0.63) (Fig. 2c), and permutation testing confirmed that this relationship was stronger than chance (p = 0.015, 25,000 permutations).

Figure 3: Convergence across lesion etiologies associated with depression.

Figure 3:

Open in a new tab

Our data-driven circuit derived from MS lesions (n=281 patients) (a) was compared to a previously published depression circuit derived from other lesion etiologies including stroke and trauma (n=461 patients across 5 datasets) (b). Permutation testing confirmed that these maps were more similar than expected by chance (spatial r = 0.51, p = 0.04 on permutation testing with 25,000 permutations). Areas of similarity included the medial temporal lobe, medial prefrontal cortex, retrosplenial cortex, and intraparietal sulcus. Areas of difference included the sensorimotor cortex, visual cortex, and posterior lateral prefrontal cortex.

We also compared the topography of our MS depression circuit (Fig. 3a) to the topography of each individual component of our a priori depression circuit, which was derived from lesions, TMS sites, and DBS sites. The MS depression circuit aligns well with the depression circuit that was derived from 461 stroke and penetrating head trauma lesions (Fig. 3b) (r = 0.51, p = 0.04, 25,000 permutations). Our MS depression circuit (Fig. 4a) also aligns with the brain circuit for therapeutic improvement in depression symptoms derived from 151 TMS sites in patients with MDD (Fig. 4b) (r = 0.62, p = 0.009, 25,000 permutations). Finally, our MS depression circuit aligns with the brain circuit derived from 101 DBS sites in patients who were treated for MDD, Parkinson’s disease, or epilepsy, some of which induced greater changes in depression than others (Fig. 4c) (r = 0.68, p = 0.002, 25,000 permutations).

Figure 4: Convergence between MS depression and brain stimulation sites that modulate depression.

Figure 4:

Open in a new tab

Our data-driven circuit derived from MS lesions (n=281 patients) (a) showed similar topography to our previously published depression circuit derived from TMS sites (n=151 patients across 4 datasets) that reduce depression severity (b) (spatial r = 0.62, p = 0.009 on permutation testing with 25,000 permutations) and our previously published depression circuit derived from DBS sites (n=101 patients across 5 datasets) that modify depression severity (c) (spatial r = 0.68, p = 0.002 on permutation testing with 25,000 permutations).

Finally, we searched for the connection in the brain most strongly associated with MS depression. We found that negative connectivity between lesion locations and the ventral midbrain, including the ventral tegmental area (VTA), was the strongest association with MS depression, independent of the effect of age, sex, lesion volume, and overall disability (Fig. 5a) (pFWE < 0.05, peak t = −3.80, cluster size 1016 mm3). This relationship was not driven by fatigue or cognitive symptoms, as it was even stronger after controlling for the fatigue and cognitive subscales of the Neuro-QoL (Fig. 5b) (pFWE < 0.05, peak t = −4.61, cluster size = 3536 mm3) (Fig. 5b). Both of these voxel clusters were substantially larger than the minimum detection threshold of 240 mm3 at p < 0.001. These results were primarily driven by greater depression in patients whose lesions were negatively connected to the VTA, not by decreased depression in patients whose lesions were positively connected to the VTA (Fig. S2).

Figure 5. The peak of our data-driven MS depression circuit is in the ventral midbrain.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

(a) The peak association in the MS depression circuit was a negative correlation between depression severity and lesion connectivity (green) to the ventral tegmental area (violet) (peak t = −3.80, cluster size = 1016 mm3). (b) This association was even stronger after controlling for age, sex, lesion volume, overall disability, fatigue, and cognitive symptoms (peak t = −4.61, cluster size = 3536 mm3). Ventral tegmental area was defined as in Levinson et al., 202253 (freely available via Lead-DBS Toolbox54).

Of note, these results were nearly identical when repeating the analysis after excluding the two participants who were not scanned on a Siemens Skyra for clinical reasons (Table S2).

Discussion

Lesion-based localization of MS depression has yielded inconsistent results, leading to lack of consensus regarding whether depression is related to lesion location in MS4. To our knowledge, this is the largest study to compare lesion locations to depression severity in patients with MS18. Using lesion network mapping, we found that MS lesions associated with depression are preferentially connected to the same circuit as stroke lesions, TMS sites, and DBS sites that modify depression severity6. This not only demonstrates that MS depression is associated with lesion location, but also that MS depression may share some neuroanatomical features with other depression etiologies and therapeutic neuromodulation sites.

MS depression localized to the same a priori circuit as multiple different lesion types associated with depression, including ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, and penetrating head trauma. This a priori circuit was derived primarily from grey matter lesions, but the present work suggests that white matter lesions associated with depression are functionally connected to this same depression circuit. This result may seem surprising, as fMRI fluctuations have relatively low signal-to-noise ratio in white matter19,20,21. We observed positive results despite this limitation, possibly because the large sample size of our connectome database (N = 1000) improved our signal-to-noise ratio. This allows us to see functional connectivity with white matter voxels, similar to prior work using this same connectome21. Our results are also consistent with accumulating evidence suggesting that resting state functional connectivity with white matter voxels can identify relevant network neuroanatomy19,20, as summarized in a recent exhaustive review of white matter functional connectivity findings21. Our data provide further evidence for a convergent brain circuit that is causally associated with depression across different diseases. However, independently of this convergence, each disease entity is likely also associated with some unique patterns of circuitry, as several regions in our MS depression map were different from our a priori depression circuit. Furthermore, MS depression may uniquely be associated with immune-mediated or other systemic factors4,22.

MS depression also localized to the same circuit as other lesions and therapeutic brain stimulation sites that modify depression severity. This cross-modality convergence strengthens causal inference8, as it minimizes the possibility of reverse causality. Specifically, it is possible that our circuit is driven by depression-induced lesions rather than lesion-induced depression, as depression may modify the pathophysiology of MS and the probability of lesions occurring in specific locations. However, this same depression circuit is apparent in data types in which this argument would be implausible. For instance, a depression circuit with similar topography can be derived from penetrating brain lesions (the location of which is determined mostly by the direction from which the trauma came), different TMS sites (the location of which is determined mostly by scalp dimensions), and different DBS sites (the location of which is determined mostly by the surgeon’s approach)6. While each of these factors may follow a non-random distribution that is influenced by premorbid depression, it is highly unlikely that they all follow the same non-random distribution. This illustrates how convergence across different modalities, methods, and disorders can increase the strength of causal inference, as the confounders from one approach can be mitigated by a different approach8.

In addition to strengthening causal inference, this cross-modality convergence also suggests that MS depression may respond to the same TMS targets as primary MDD and post-stroke depression, both of which are supported by multiple randomized clinical trials23,24. This is consistent with recent findings that lesion connectivity can help identify therapeutic targets for various neuropsychiatric disorders, including MDD6, Parkinson’s disease6,25, and Tourette syndrome26. Future clinical trials should thus specifically investigate the antidepressant efficacy of TMS in patients with MS, which has not yet been thoroughly studied27. Furthermore, future work can test whether this principle may be extended to identify circuit-based TMS targets for other symptoms that are commonly found in patients with MS.

The peak of our data-driven MS depression circuit was in the ventral midbrain, including the VTA. This brainstem nucleus is the source of dopamine in the mesolimbic reward system, which is believed to be affected in some patients with depression28. The implication of the VTA is consistent with multiple studies showing that reward processing and dopaminergic neurotransmission are affected in patients with MS29–31. Several antidopaminergic and dopaminergic drugs are effective for unipolar or bipolar depression, such as aripiprazole32, lurasidone33,34, bupropion35, and selegiline36. However, despite the modest success rate of serotonergic antidepressants in MS4,9, to our knowledge there are no clinical trials of dopamine-modulating drugs for MS depression9. Although highly speculative, our results suggest that these medications be worth exploring in MS depression.

Of note, our study relied on the Neuro-QoL, which does not categorically distinguish between presence or absence of major depression. Rather, it is a continuous measure that quantifies variance in mood across the full distribution of patients. We used the term “depression” in a manner that is consistent with its use in the Neuro-QoL and in the MS literature37–43, but is not synonymous with a diagnosis of major depressive disorder. One advantage to using a continuous outcome is that our results are sensitive to lesions associated with either higher or lower mood. This raises the intriguing possibility that some MS lesion locations could protect against depression, a concept that has a strong precedent in the stroke literature13. The present study was only designed to localize the neuroanatomy, but future work may further disentangle how different effects on this circuit may have different effects on depression.

Strengths of this study include independent replication of an a priori circuit using causal sources of information8 in a unique patient population. There are also several limitations, many of which could lead us to underestimate our effect size due to increased sampling error. First, our analyses were based on a single depression score, which may not capture the full breadth of different clinical presentations. Future studies with more detailed psychiatric phenotyping may reveal distinct circuits for distinct symptom clusters17. Second, there remains active debate about how effectively resting-state fMRI can be used to measure white matter signal. This likely introduced noise into the analysis, although some of this noise can be overcome with large sample sizes as in the connectome database that we employed19,20,21. Third, we used a normative database to estimate lesion connectivity, consistent with the methods used to derive our a priori depression circuit6. Patient-specific connectivity measurements may explain additional variance, but would add additional noise to the analysis44. Future work may also include multimodal approaches that incorporate other imaging techniques such as diffusion connectivity, but these combined approaches require further methodological validation. Fourth, our results only represent a cross-sectional view, and do not consider how different lesion patterns may influence longitudinal progression or efficacy of different pharmacological interventions. Although our circuit was independent of immunomodulatory drugs on cross-section, we did not have longitudinal data on therapeutic response. Furthermore, our dataset did not include information on antidepressant use. All of these limitations introduce noise that would bias our analysis in favor of a false negative. For example, if fMRI recordings from white matter were composed of pure noise (with no signal), then our permutation statistics would show no association between white matter lesion location and depression. Future studies that address these limitations may detect stronger effects than those reported here, as effect sizes are inversely proportional to noise45. Because this method is not designed to precisely measure the effect size, it is of limited utility for prognostication.

Overall, our results demonstrate that MS lesion locations associated with depression are connected to a specific brain circuit, with a peak in the ventral midbrain. This circuit topography aligns with previous depression circuits derived from other lesion etiologies or brain stimulation sites. These results may be useful for identification of pharmacological and neuromodulatory treatment targets.

Methods

Dataset characteristics

The SysteMS study included neuroimaging and behavioral data collected for the purpose of identifying factors associated with disease severity and progression in MS. SysteMS participants were enrolled between November 2015 and September 2017 if they met McDonald criteria (2010 revision46) for MS or clinically isolated syndrome. This study was approved by the Partners Human Research Committee and the study complied with all relevant ethical regulations. All study investigators were authorized by the Human Research Committee before accessing identifiable information. All participants signed written informed consent for identifiable information to be accessible to investigators at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, and for de-identified information to be shared with outside investigators for studies related to MS and other inflammatory diseases. No formal power analysis was conducted, but our sample size is larger than any other lesion mapping study of depression in MS18.

Symptom severity was measured using tools and scales that have been previously validated in patients with MS37–43,47. Most symptoms were assessed using Neuro-QoL, a self-report inventory of 12 neuropsychiatric symptom clusters, including ability, anxiety, emotional/behavioral dyscontrol, fatigue, lower extremity function, upper extremity function, stigma, positive affect/well-being, satisfaction with social roles/activities, cognitive function, and sleep. All measures were collected using a computerized adaptive test except for sleep, which was collected using the short form inventory. The primary outcome in this study was the Neuro-QoL depression subscale. Covariates included the Neuro-QoL fatigue subscale, the Neuro-QoL cognitive subscale, and overall disability as measured by the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS)47. As there is no clear consensus on how Neuro-QoL may be used to categorically distinguish between presence and absence of depression or other symptoms (Table S3)37–43, all measures were treated as continuous variables.

Lesion localization

Nearly all participants (n=279) completed structural imaging on a 3T Siemens Skyra MRI scanner. For clinical reasons, one participant was scanned on a 3T Siemens Verio, and one was scanned on a 1.5T Siemens Avanto. All Skyra scans were conducted using a 20-channel head coil to collect 3D high-resolution T1 MPRAGE (TE/TR = 2.96/2,300 milliseconds, TI = 900 milliseconds, flip angle = 9°), T2 spin echo (TE/TR = 300/2,500 milliseconds, echo train length = 160), and T2 FLAIR (TE/TR = 389/5,000 milliseconds, TI = 1,800 milliseconds, echo train length = 248) with 1mm isotropic voxels.

FLAIR hyperintense lesions were defined using an automated white matter segmentation pipeline as previously described15. This pipeline includes bias field correction; spatial co-registration between different sequences; skull stripping; anatomic parcellation/segmentation; intensity normalization; quality cross-check with T1 and T2; delineation of white matter, gray matter, and CSF; expectation-maximization of tissue class and white matter lesion segmentation; and post-processing to remove islands and minimize false positives. The resulting lesion segmentations were warped into standard MNI atlas space using the B-spline registration function in the Elastix Image Registration Toolbox48.

Statistical methods

Except as otherwise specified, all statistical analyses were conducted using MATLAB R2021b, using the same algorithms that were used to derive and cross-validate the a priori depression circuit6. For correlations across patients, two-tailed p-values were determined analytically using standard parametric methods, as each patient is independent of every other patient. For spatial correlations across voxels, p-values were determined using permutation testing, as parametric p-values would yield elevated false-positive rates due to inter-dependence of brain voxels. As in our prior work6, spatial correlations were recomputed after randomly permuting each patient’s clinical outcomes with a different patient’s neuroimaging. After 25,000 iterations, a p-value was computed as the percentage of cases in which the real spatial correlation was stronger than the permuted spatial correlation. This method provides a rigorous way to control for Type I errors (false positives) due noise introduced by physiological, clinical, or methodological factors, as these factors are equally applicable in the permuted sample6,17,49. However, this method increases the chance of Type II errors (false negatives), which can occur if the above sources of noise are large relative to the signal of interest50.

Associating lesion connectivity with depression scores specifically

We hypothesized that depression severity in MS would be correlated with each lesion’s connectivity to our a priori depression circuit. As in our prior work, connectivity was estimated based on the Fisher-transformed spatial correlation of each lesion’s connectivity profile to our convergent depression circuit6. For our primary analysis, we compared these spatial correlation values to the Neuro-QoL depression scale using partial Pearson correlations, controlling for the effect of age, sex, lesion volume, and overall physical disability (based on EDSS). To rule out the effect of clinical confounders and investigate specificity, we also repeated this analysis with additional covariates known to be independently associated with depression in MS4, including fatigue and cognitive symptoms as measured by Neuro-QoL.

To further assess specificity, we repeated the primary analysis for each of the other Neuro-QoL measures and for the EDSS. We hypothesized that the convergent depression circuit would be more associated with depression than with other symptoms. To quantify this, we computed the difference between the r-value for depression and the mean r-value across other symptoms; we refer to this difference as Δr. To test for significance, we used a permutation test in which Δr was recomputed after each patient’s clinical outcomes were randomly re-assigned to a different patient’s neuroimaging. A p-value was computed as the percentage of cases in which the real Δr value exceeded the randomly-permuted Δr value.

Derivation of the MS depression circuit map

Lesion network mapping was conducted following the same procedure that was previously used to derive a convergent depression circuit from stroke lesions, penetrating head trauma lesions, TMS sites, and DBS sites6. First, normative connectivity of each participant’s lesion was estimated using a human connectome database that includes resting-state fMRI scans from 1000 healthy volunteers. This yielded a map depicting the connectivity of each participant’s lesion location to every voxel in the brain. At each voxel, this connectivity value was compared to the patient’s depression severity using partial Pearson correlations, controlling for the same covariates as above. This analysis yielded a whole-brain ‘MS depression circuit map’ representing the positive and negative connectivity of MS lesions associated with increasing depression severity.

As above, to rule out the effect of clinical confounders and investigate specificity, we also repeated this analysis after additionally controlling for fatigue and cognitive symptoms as measured by the Neuro-QoL.

Comparison to convergent depression circuit

We hypothesized that the MS depression circuit would be similar to the convergent depression circuit map derived from stroke lesions, penetrating head trauma lesions, TMS sites, and DBS sites6. We quantified the similarity between these two maps using a spatial correlation. Because the voxels in each map are not statistically independent of one another, significance was assessed using non-parametric permutation testing, as in our prior work6,17. In this permutation test, the spatial correlation was re-computed 25,000 times after randomly re-assigning each participant’s connectivity map with a different participant’s clinical variables. A p-value was defined as the percentage of randomly-permuted spatial correlations that were stronger than the real spatial correlation.

We also hypothesized that the MS depression circuit map would be independently similar to each of the three circuit maps derived from brain lesions, TMS sites, and DBS sites, respectively. To test this hypothesis, we repeated the above analysis for each of these three maps independently.

Identification of peak anatomical associations

In an exploratory analysis, we localized the peak positive and negative regions in the MS depression circuit map after controlling for the relevant covariates. Relative peaks were identified using the FSL cluster tool51 with FWE-corrected threshold of p < 0.05, detection threshold of p < 0.001, and minimum cluster size of 240 mm3, following standard recommendations for the spatial resolution (2mm isotropic) and smoothness (6mm FWHM) of our resting-state functional connectivity data52.

Supplementary Material

supplement

Acknowledgments:

The authors thank all research participants, funding bodies, allied health staff, and other research staff that made this work possible. We thank Mariann Polgar-Turcsanyi for database management. The SysteMS study was funded by Verily Life Sciences. The present analysis was supported by the Brain & Behavior Research Foundation (SHS), the Baszucki Family Foundation (SHS and MDF), and the National Institute of Mental Health (grant no. K23MH121657 to SHS.; grant nos. R01MH113929 and R01MH115949 to MDF). The funders were not directly involved in the conceptualization, design, analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests:

SHS and MDF are scientific consultants for Magnus Medical. SHS is a clinical consultant for Acacia Mental Health, Kaizen Brain Center, and Boston Precision Neurotherapeutics. SHS and MDF have jointly received investigator-initiated research funding from Neuronetics. SHS has served as a speaker for Brainsway and PsychU.org (unbranded, sponsored by Otsuka). SHS and MDF independently own intellectual property involving the use of functional connectivity to target TMS. RB has received consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb and EMD Serono and research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, and Novartis. CG has received research funding from Sanofi, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, the International Progressive Multiple Sclerosis Alliance, the US Office for Naval Research, NIH, the Focused Ultrasound Foundation, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene as well as travel support from Roche Pharmaceuticals; and owns stock in Roche, Novartis, GSK, Alnylam, Protalix Biotherapeutics, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Cocrystal Pharma, and Sangamo Therapeutics. None of these entities were involved in the present work. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Data availability

The functional connectivity data employed in this study are available online through the Harvard Dataverse at: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/ILXIKS.

Due to the potentially identifiable nature of MS lesion patterns, these data cannot be shared publicly, but may be reviewed upon reasonable request with an institutional data use agreement.

The final MS depression circuit is available on our website here: https://siddiqi.bwh.harvard.edu/data-code/

Code availability

The pipeline used to prepare the functional connectivity data is available at: https://github.com/bchcohenlab/BIDS_to_CBIG_fMRI_Preproc2016.

Statistical analyses were performed in MATLAB R2021b.

Custom MATLAB scripts for spatial permutation testing are available on our website here: https://siddiqi.bwh.harvard.edu/data-code/

References

  • 1.Sadovnick AD et al. Depression and multiple sclerosis. Neurology 46, 628–632, doi: 10.1212/wnl.46.3.628 (1996). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Chwastiak L et al. Depressive symptoms and severity of illness in multiple sclerosis: epidemiologic study of a large community sample. Am J Psychiatry 159, 1862–1868, doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.159.11.1862 (2002). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Arnett PA et al. Depressed mood in multiple sclerosis: relationship to capacity-demanding memory and attentional functioning. Neuropsychology 13, 434–446, doi: 10.1037//0894-4105.13.3.434 (1999). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Feinstein A, Magalhaes S, Richard JF, Audet B & Moore C The link between multiple sclerosis and depression. Nat Rev Neurol 10, 507–517, doi: 10.1038/nrneurol.2014.139 (2014). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Janardhan V & Bakshi R Quality of life in patients with multiple sclerosis: the impact of fatigue and depression. J Neurol Sci 205, 51–58, doi: 10.1016/s0022-510x(02)00312-x (2002). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Siddiqi SH et al. Brain stimulation and brain lesions converge on common causal circuits in neuropsychiatric disease. Nature human behaviour (2021). [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Pascual-Leone A, Rubio B, Pallardó F & Catalá MD Rapid-rate transcranial magnetic stimulation of left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in drug-resistant depression. Lancet (London, England) 348, 233–237, doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(96)01219-6 (1996). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Siddiqi SH, Kording KP, Parvizi J & Fox MD Causal mapping of human brain function. Nature reviews. Neuroscience 23, 361–375, doi: 10.1038/s41583-022-00583-8 (2022). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Safar LT, Singhal T, Feng NC, Misasi E & Barker L in Neuropsychiatry and Behavioral Neurology: Principles and Practice (eds Silbersweig David A., Safar Laura T., & Daffner Kirk R.) (McGraw Hill, 2021). [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Feinstein A et al. Diffusion tensor imaging abnormalities in depressed multiple sclerosis patients. Mult Scler 16, 189–196, doi: 10.1177/1352458509355461 (2010). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Zorzon M et al. Depressive symptoms and MRI changes in multiple sclerosis. Eur J Neurol 9, 491–496, doi: 10.1046/j.1468-1331.2002.00442.x (2002). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Bakshi R et al. Brain MRI lesions and atrophy are related to depression in multiple sclerosis. Neuroreport 11, 1153–1158, doi: 10.1097/00001756-200004270-00003 (2000). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Fox MD Mapping Symptoms to Brain Networks with the Human Connectome. N Engl J Med 379, 2237–2245, doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1706158 (2018). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Padmanabhan JL et al. A human depression circuit derived from focal brain lesions. Biol Psychiatry, doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2019.07.023 (2019). [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Meier DS et al. Dual-Sensitivity Multiple Sclerosis Lesion and CSF Segmentation for Multichannel 3T Brain MRI. J Neuroimaging 28, 36–47, doi: 10.1111/jon.12491 (2018). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Bakshi R et al. Fatigue in multiple sclerosis and its relationship to depression and neurologic disability. Multiple Sclerosis Journal 6, 181–185 (2000). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Siddiqi SH et al. Distinct Symptom-Specific Treatment Targets for Circuit-Based Neuromodulation. The American journal of psychiatry 177, 435–446, doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.19090915 (2020). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Masuccio FG, Gamberini G, Calabrese M & Solaro C Imaging and depression in multiple sclerosis: a historical perspective. Neurological Sciences 42, 835–845, doi: 10.1007/s10072-020-04951-z (2021). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Wang P et al. White Matter Functional Connectivity in Resting-State fMRI: Robustness, Reliability, and Relationships to Gray Matter. Cereb Cortex, doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhab181 (2021). [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Fox MD et al. Resting-state networks link invasive and noninvasive brain stimulation across diverse psychiatric and neurological diseases. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111, E4367–4375, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1405003111 (2014). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Gore JC et al. Functional MRI and resting state connectivity in white matter - a mini-review. Magnetic Resonance Imaging 63, 1–11, doi: 10.1016/j.mri.2019.07.017 (2019). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Gold SM & Irwin MR Depression and immunity: inflammation and depressive symptoms in multiple sclerosis. Immunology and allergy clinics of North America 29, 309–320 (2009). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Gaynes BN et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for treatment-resistant depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Journal of clinical psychiatry 75, 29758 (2014). [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Shen X et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for the treatment of post-stroke depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials. J Affect Disord 211, 65–74, doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2016.12.058 (2017). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Joutsa J, Horn A, Hsu J & Fox MD Localizing parkinsonism based on focal brain lesions. Brain 141, 2445–2456, doi: 10.1093/brain/awy161 (2018). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Ganos C et al. A neural network for tics: insights from causal brain lesions and deep brain stimulation. Brain, doi: 10.1093/brain/awac009 (2022). [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.León Ruiz M, Sospedra M, Arce Arce S, Tejeiro-Martínez J & Benito-León J Current evidence on the potential therapeutic applications of transcranial magnetic stimulation in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review of the literature. Neurología (English Edition) 37, 199–215, doi: 10.1016/j.nrleng.2020.05.004 (2022). [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Nestler EJ & Carlezon WA Jr The mesolimbic dopamine reward circuit in depression. Biol Psychiatry 59, 1151–1159 (2006). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Heitmann H et al. Fatigue, depression, and pain in multiple sclerosis: How neuroinflammation translates into dysfunctional reward processing and anhedonic symptoms. Multiple Sclerosis Journal 0, 1352458520972279, doi: 10.1177/1352458520972279. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Pardini M, Capello E, Krueger F, Mancardi G & Uccelli A Reward responsiveness and fatigue in multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis Journal 19, 233–240, doi: 10.1177/1352458512451509 (2013). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Felger JC in Inflammation-Associated Depression: Evidence, Mechanisms and Implications (eds Dantzer Robert & Capuron Lucile) 199–219 (Springer International Publishing, 2017). [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Marcus RN et al. The efficacy and safety of aripiprazole as adjunctive therapy in major depressive disorder: a second multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Journal of clinical psychopharmacology 28, 156–165 (2008). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Suppes T et al. Lurasidone for the treatment of major depressive disorder with mixed features: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. American Journal of Psychiatry 173, 400–407 (2016). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Loebel A et al. Lurasidone monotherapy in the treatment of bipolar I depression: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. American Journal of Psychiatry 171, 160–168 (2014). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Rush AJ et al. Bupropion-SR, sertraline, or venlafaxine-XR after failure of SSRIs for depression. New England Journal of Medicine 354, 1231–1242 (2006). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Bodkin JA & Amsterdam JD Transdermal Selegiline in Major Depression: A Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Parallel-Group Study in Outpatients. American Journal of Psychiatry 159, 1869–1875, doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.159.11.1869 (2002). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Amtmann D et al. A comparison of multiple patient reported outcome measures in identifying major depressive disorder in people with multiple sclerosis. Journal of psychosomatic research 79, 550–557 (2015). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Chan CK, Tian F, Pimentel Maldonado D, Mowry EM & Fitzgerald KC Depression in multiple sclerosis across the adult lifespan. Multiple Sclerosis Journal 27, 1771–1780 (2021). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Miller DM et al. Validating Neuro-QoL short forms and targeted scales with people who have multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis Journal 22, 830–841 (2016). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Healy BC et al. Assessment of computer adaptive testing version of the Neuro-QOL for people with multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis Journal 25, 1791–1799 (2019). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Medina LD, Torres S, Alvarez E, Valdez B & Nair KV Patient-reported outcomes in multiple sclerosis: Validation of the quality of life in neurological disorders (neuro-QoL™) short forms. Multiple Sclerosis Journal–Experimental, Translational and Clinical 5, 2055217319885986 (2019). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Hua LH, Hersh CM, Tian F, Mowry EM & Fitzgerald KC Clinical characteristics of a large multi-center cohort of people with multiple sclerosis over age 60. Multiple sclerosis and related disorders 47, 102637 (2021). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Kletenik I et al. Subjective cognitive concern in multiple sclerosis is associated with reduced thalamic and cortical gray matter volumes. Mult Scler J Exp Transl Clin 5, 2055217319827618, doi: 10.1177/2055217319827618 (2019). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Fox MD, Liu H & Pascual-Leone A Identification of reproducible individualized targets for treatment of depression with TMS based on intrinsic connectivity. Neuroimage 66, 151–160, doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.10.082 (2013). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Kelley K & Preacher KJ On effect size. Psychol Methods 17, 137–152, doi: 10.1037/a0028086 (2012). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Polman CH et al. Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2010 Revisions to the McDonald criteria. Annals of Neurology 69, 292–302, doi: 10.1002/ana.22366 (2011). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Kurtzke JF Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology 33, 1444–1444 (1983). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Klein S, Staring M, Murphy K, Viergever MA & Pluim JP elastix: a toolbox for intensity-based medical image registration. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 29, 196–205, doi: 10.1109/tmi.2009.2035616 (2010). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Foster JC, Nan B, Shen L, Kaciroti N & Taylor JM Permutation Testing for Treatment-Covariate Interactions and Subgroup Identification. Stat Biosci 8, 77–98, doi: 10.1007/s12561-015-9125-9 (2016). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Cremers HR, Wager TD & Yarkoni T The relation between statistical power and inference in fMRI. PloS one 12, e0184923 (2017). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Jenkinson M, Beckmann CF, Behrens TEJ, Woolrich MW & Smith SM FSL. NeuroImage 62, 782–790, doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.09.015 (2012). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Slotnick SD Cluster success: fMRI inferences for spatial extent have acceptable false-positive rates. Cogn Neurosci 8, 150–155, doi: 10.1080/17588928.2017.1319350 (2017). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Levinson S et al. A Structural Connectivity Atlas of Limbic Brainstem Nuclei. bioRxiv, 2022.2008.2010.503282, doi: 10.1101/2022.08.10.503282 (2022). [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Horn A et al. Lead-DBS v2: Towards a comprehensive pipeline for deep brain stimulation imaging. Neuroimage 184, 293–316 (2019). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

supplement
NIHMS2189600-supplement-supplement.pdf (199.6KB, pdf)

Data Availability Statement

The functional connectivity data employed in this study are available online through the Harvard Dataverse at: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/ILXIKS.

Due to the potentially identifiable nature of MS lesion patterns, these data cannot be shared publicly, but may be reviewed upon reasonable request with an institutional data use agreement.

The final MS depression circuit is available on our website here: https://siddiqi.bwh.harvard.edu/data-code/

The pipeline used to prepare the functional connectivity data is available at: https://github.com/bchcohenlab/BIDS_to_CBIG_fMRI_Preproc2016.

Statistical analyses were performed in MATLAB R2021b.

Custom MATLAB scripts for spatial permutation testing are available on our website here: https://siddiqi.bwh.harvard.edu/data-code/

RESOURCES