Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Sep 22;17(9):e0274514. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0274514

Regional variation in brain tissue texture in patients with tonic-clonic seizures

Jennifer A Ogren 1, Luke A Allen 2, Bhaswati Roy 3, Beate Diehl 2, John M Stern 4, Dawn S Eliashiv 4, Samden D Lhatoo 5, Ronald M Harper 1,6, Rajesh Kumar 3,6,7,8,*
Editor: Allan Siegel9
PMCID: PMC9499268  PMID: 36137154

Abstract

Patients with epilepsy, who later succumb to sudden unexpected death, show altered brain tissue volumes in selected regions. It is unclear whether the alterations in brain tissue volume represent changes in neurons or glial properties, since volumetric procedures have limited sensitivity to assess the source of volume changes (e.g., neuronal loss or glial cell swelling). We assessed a measure, entropy, which can determine tissue homogeneity by evaluating tissue randomness, and thus, shows tissue integrity; the measure is easily calculated from T1-weighted images. T1-weighted images were collected with a 3.0-Tesla MRI from 53 patients with tonic-clonic (TC) seizures and 53 healthy controls; images were bias-corrected, entropy maps calculated, normalized to a common space, smoothed, and compared between groups (TC patients and controls using ANCOVA; covariates, age and sex; SPM12, family-wise error correction for multiple comparisons, p<0.01). Decreased entropy, indicative of increased tissue homogeneity, appeared in major autonomic (ventromedial prefrontal cortex, hippocampus, dorsal and ventral medulla, deep cerebellar nuclei), motor (sensory and motor cortex), or both motor and autonomic regulatory sites (basal-ganglia, ventral-basal cerebellum), and external surfaces of the pons. The anterior and posterior thalamus and midbrain also showed entropy declines. Only a few isolated regions showed increased entropy. Among the spared autonomic regions was the anterior cingulate and anterior insula; the posterior insula and cingulate were, however, affected. The entropy alterations overlapped areas of tissue changes found earlier with volumetric measures, but were more extensive, and indicate widespread injury to tissue within critical autonomic and breathing regulatory areas, as well as prominent damage to more-rostral sites that exert influences on both breathing and cardiovascular regulation. The entropy measures provide easily-collected supplementary information using only T1-weighted images, showing aspects of tissue integrity other than volume change that are important for assessing function.

1. Introduction

A concern in patients with epilepsy is the potential for progressive brain injury in critical structures from repeated seizures, which may partially result from impaired blood perfusion arising out of extreme activation of autonomic nervous system influences on the vasculature during seizures. Excitotoxic damage from hyperactivity of neuronal processes, which is another potential mechanism for tissue injury, may be compounded by inadequate perfusion to sustain underlying metabolic needs of overactive neurons and supporting cells. Such processes impose more a concern if the affected brain structures mediate functions essential for survival, which include both maintenance of blood pressure and ventilation. The consequences of repeated injury are apparent; Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy (SUDEP) accounts for ~7.5–17% of deaths in individuals with epilepsy, and over 50% of deaths in patients with intractable epilepsy [1]. Patients with Generalized or Bilateral Tonic-Clonic seizures (TCs) are at elevated risk for SUDEP, with seizure frequency related to that risk [2, 3], a most-probable outcome of enhanced brain injury with successive ictal events. Although the precise mechanisms contributing to SUDEP remain unclear, the processes likely involve a combination of respiratory and/or cardiovascular dysfunction, with sustained apnea leading to reduced oxygenation, cardiac arrhythmia, or profound hypotension [4]. The potential for such events would be exacerbated if breathing and cardiovascular regulatory brain structures, or normal recovery mechanisms from oxygen desaturation or hypotension were impaired.

Evaluation of the functional relevance of injured brain areas would be simplified if the affected areas uniformly lost volume, with declining volumes in those regions translating to impaired function. However, overall-brain evaluation by T1-weighted imaging-based volumetric procedures, although typically showing decreased volumes, sometimes substantially, also show enhanced volumes. Cortical areas in patients with TCs show localized brain tissue thinning, but also thickening, with regional thickness frequently varying in sites affecting cardiovascular or breathing action [5]. Patients with epilepsy at variable risk for SUDEP show brain areas mediating breathing and cardiovascular action undergo volume loss in several regions, but volume gain in other regions. The volume losses, as determined by T1-weighted volumetric procedures in subsequent victims of SUDEP, are often extreme in areas essential for recovery from prolonged apnea and resulting hypoxia or hypotension [6, 7], but increased volumes in other sites important for instigating apnea or collapsing blood pressure are also present. Thus, procedures for assessing competence of regional tissue function based on volumetric determination alone appear insufficient.

Volumetric tissue changes and measures of cortical thickness, determined by T1-weighted procedures, have limited capability to assess the nature of those increased or decreased tissue volume changes. Such measures are unable to differentiate between neuronal loss from glial or other tissue changes with inflammation, due to the restricted range of values on gray matter volume assessment and inherent spatial resolution issues. These limitations make insights into the nature and extent of brain tissue alterations difficult.

Tissue integrity can, however, be examined with texture assessments using procedures derived from high-resolution T1-weighted images, and these texture measures are sensitive to the nature and extent of tissue changes. Tissue texture measures quantify patterns of image signal intensities that differ with the variable nature and extent of brain tissue changes. Although there are several tissue-texture measures, entropy is one such evaluation that assesses the extent of homogeneity or randomness of tissue water signals based on signal intensity characteristics. Entropy is based on information theory, which is translated to a biological system, and shows data complexity, with complex data requiring more data points to characterize and indicate higher entropy. Highly isotropic tissues, such as free water in cerebrospinal fluid, show a greater number of equal states, and fewer data are required to describe simple tissue, leading to lower entropy [8, 9]. However, in the case of highly organized brain tissues, such as white matter sites, due to the complex nature more information is required to accurately describe the tissue, and thus, entropy values will be higher. Entropy values are inversely proportional to the amount of free water content within tissue, with reduced extracellular water corresponding to cellular and axonal swelling. The entropy values can thus help clarify the processes underlying volumetric tissue changes, with increased and decreased regional volumes, found earlier in high-risk SUDEP patients [6, 10, 11].

Entropy measures are useful to determine regional tissue changes in homogeneity; more-homogenous texture is associated with acute injury severity [12]. The potential for entropy values to reveal acute vs chronic tissue alterations, and to provide insights into tissue swelling vs tissue loss may help resolve mechanisms underlying the volume changes found in earlier volumetric studies of patients with epilepsy who are at risk for SUDEP. Assessment of tissue texture over the entire brain could elucidate the temporal sequencing of mechanisms contributing to brain tissue changes that lead to altered breathing or cardiovascular patterns over time in these patients at risk.

A practical aspect of tissue integrity evaluation by entropy measures bears consideration. Tissue entropy can be assessed using simple calculations on conventional T1-weighted scans. Although tissue integrity can be estimated with diffusion tensor imaging scans [1315], such data may not always be collected in patients with epilepsy, while T1-weighted image acquisitions are common in all clinical sites. The potential exists for reduced costs for current evaluation of tissue changes in patients with epilepsy, as well as for post-hoc evaluation of existing T1-weighted data.

We examined tissue texture patterns indicative of brain changes in TCs vs healthy subjects. We hypothesized that, compared to healthy controls, brain entropy values would be altered in TCs patients, especially in cardiovascular and respiratory regions, and provide insights into the nature of tissue injury in patients at risk for SUDEP.

2. Materials and methods

2.1 Subjects

Data from 53 patients with TCS (mean age ± SD: 36.6±12.6 years, 23 male, 43 right-handed) were collected from sites at Case Western Reserve, University College, London, and University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA). Epilepsy patients admitted at Epilepsy Monitoring Units at Case Western Reserve, University College, London, and UCLA sites were approached to discuss the study and whether they wished to participate. All epilepsy patients showed a high incidence of generalized TCS and were at significant risk for SUDEP. Data from 53 healthy control subjects (mean age ± SD: 37.3±14.6 years, 23 male, 34 right-handed) were acquired at the University of California Los Angeles. Subject demographics are outlined in Table 1. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of California at Los Angeles, and informed written consent was obtained from each participant before data collection.

Table 1. Demographics and clinical characteristics of GTCS patients and control subjects.

Variables GTCS Controls P values
n = 53 n = 53
(Mean ± SD) (Mean ± SD)
Age (years) 36.6±12.6 37.3±14.6 0.80
Sex [male] (%) 23 (43%) 23 (43%) 1.00
BMI (n = 44) 27.2 ± 5.6 24.2 ± 4.4 0.003
Handedness [L/R/ambidex] [4/47/2] [12/34/7] 0.01
Disease duration (years) 15.8 ± 12.2 - -
GTCS/months (n = 43) 6.2 ± 27.2 - -
Versive (Y/N) (n = 52) 15/ 37 - -
Nocturnal (Y/N) 32/ 21 - -

GTCS, generalized tonic-clonic seizure; SD = standard deviation; BMI = body mass index; Y = yes; N = no.

2.2 Magnetic resonance imaging

Brain studies at UCLA and Case Western Reserve were performed using a 3.0-Tesla MRI scanner (Siemens, Magnetom, Erlangen, Germany). Side foam pads were used bilaterally to avoid head motion, and subjects laid supine during the scanning. High-resolution T1-weighted images were collected using a magnetization prepared rapid acquisition gradient-echo sequence (TR = 2200 ms; TE = 3.05 ms; inversion time = 1100 ms; FA = 10°; matrix size = 256×256; FOV = 220×220 mm2; slice thickness = 1.0 mm; slices = 176).

2.3 Data processing and analysis

Multiple software packages were used for image visualization, data pre-processing, and analyses, and included the Statistical Parametric Mapping package SPM12 (Wellcome Department of Cognitive Neurology, UK; http://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm), MRIcroN (https://www.nitrc.org), and MATLAB-based custom routines (The MathWorks Inc, Natick, MA). High-resolution T1-weighted images of all subjects were visually-examined to ensure that no serious brain pathologies (e.g., cyst, tumor, or infarct) were present before data processing, and none of the controls included here showed any serious brain tissue changes.

2.4 Entropy calculation

High-resolution T1-weighted images were bias-corrected to remove any signal intensity variations due to field inhomogeneities with SPM12 software. Using the bias-corrected T1-weighted images, the entropy values at a given voxel ‘v’ were calculated with the following equation by defining a 3×3×3 volume of interest (VOI) with ‘v’ as center:

E=i=1Npilog(pi)

Where, N is number of distinct pixel values (gray/white matter) in the VOI, and pi is the probability of occurrence of ith pixel value in the VOI. Mathematically, the VOI can be represented as below:

VOI=I(x1.5:x+1.5,y1.5:y+1.5,z1.5:z+1.5)

where, ‘I’ is the bias corrected T1-weighted image, and x, y, z are spatial coordinates.

2.5 Normalization and smoothing of entropy maps

Before normalization of entropy maps to a common space, the entropy values were scaled between 0–1 by dividing the whole-brain entropy by its maximum value, to attain a common distribution of values across the different scanners. Whole-brain entropy maps were then normalized to Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) space using the SPM12 package. The warping parameters for x, y, z directions were obtained from the bias-corrected T1-weighted images via modified unified segmentation approach, and resulting parameters were applied to the corresponding entropy maps. The normalized entropy maps were smoothed using an isotropic Gaussian filter (8 mm kernel).

2.6 Statistical analyses

The SPM12 and the IBM statistical package for social sciences (IBM SPSS v26, Armonk, New York) were employed for statistical analyses. Chi-square and independent-samples t-tests were used to examine group differences in demographic and other clinical data. We considered a p-value less than 0.05 as statistically significant.

The smoothed entropy maps were compared voxel-by-voxel between groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with age and sex included as covariates (SPM12, family-wise error correction for multiple comparisons, p<0.01). The global brain mask was used to restrict the analysis within brain regions only, and sites with significant differences between groups were overlaid onto background images for structural identification.

3. Results

3.1 Regions with increased homogeneity in GTC patients

Decreased entropy values, indicative of increased homogeneity, appeared prominently in areas associated with blood pressure and breathing control, extending from the ventral medial frontal cortex (Fig 1h) through the basal forebrain and sub anterior cingulate areas, and hypothalamus (Fig 1d), anterior and posterior thalamus (Fig 1g), midbrain (Fig 1f), external surface of the pons (Fig 1a), dorsal and ventral medulla (Fig 1e), deep cerebellar nuclei (Fig 1b) and ventral basal cerebellum Fig 1c).

Fig 1. Brain areas demonstrating decreased entropy (colored) in dorsal and ventral pons (a), deep cerebellar nuclei (b), anterior cerebellum (c), ventral medial frontal cortex (h), extending through the hypothalamus and basal forebrain (d) to the thalamus (g), midbrain (f), dorsal and ventral medulla (e) in TC patients vs controls (p<0.01), corrected for multiple comparisons.

Fig 1

Near-midline slice illustrating extensive entropy declines bilaterally in the ventral temporal cortex (m), and includes the hippocampus (n) and the basal ganglia (o); sparing of deeper tissue in the thalamus (j) and pons (k) is apparent. Extensive entropy declines bilaterally in the sensorimotor cortex (l), as well as posterior cingulate (i) in TC patients appeared.

In addition to ventral medial prefrontal cortex, (Fig 1h), sensorimotor cortices (Fig 1l), posterior insula (Fig 2), ventral temporal cortices (Fig 1m), and posterior cingulate (Fig 1i) showed entropy declines. A large portion of the anterior pole of the temporal lobe showed lower entropy values, and included the hippocampus and amygdala (Figs 1n and 2a and 2b). The basal ganglia (Fig 2d) sites were severely affected bilaterally. Portions of the thalamus (Fig 1g), except for deep areas (Fig 1j), and the midbrain (Fig 1f) were affected, as well as the pons, dorsal and ventral medulla, and ventral-basal cerebellum (Fig 1a, 1c and 1e). The pons and thalamus showed unique entropy distributions in that the external surfaces showed reduced entropy values, but not deeper tissue (Figs 1j and 1k and 2c). Among the spared autonomic control regions was the anterior cingulate and anterior insula; both the posterior insula and cingulate were, however, affected.

Fig 2. Amygdala (a), temporal lobe (b), and basal ganglia (d) showed decreased entropy values in TC patients vs controls (p<0.01).

Fig 2

Few changes in deep regions of the pons (c) appear, but reduced entropy is found on the surface.

3.2 Sites with reduced homogeneity in GTC patients

Only a few isolated brain regions showed increased entropy, reflecting decreased tissue homogeneity, resulting from long-term injury. These sites included areas within the occipital cortex.

4. Discussion

Alterations in regional brain cortical thicknesses, earlier described in patients with TC seizures, are accompanied by changes in entropy, indicating disrupted underlying structural organization of the affected tissue. Decreased entropy (increased tissue homogeneity) appeared in multiple areas classically defined as sensory or motor (sensory and motor cortex, basal ganglia, cerebellum), regions that serve motor, cognitive, memory or affective functions, in addition to autonomic regulation (basal ganglia [1618], deep autonomic cerebellar nuclei and cerebellar cortex [1921], ventral medial prefrontal [2225], anterior pole and ventral temporal cortices, hypothalamus, posterior cingulate, insula, amygdala, hippocampus, and dorsal and ventral medulla, suggesting that acute TC seizures establish tissue alterations which could induce long-term dysfunction in sites serving multiple traditional functions, as well as autonomic and respiratory regulation.

Of particular concern for reports of sustained central apnea in the post-ictal period is the decreased entropy in the rostral and ventral temporal lobe encompassing the amygdala and portions of the hippocampus. The amygdala, with its direct projections to the periaqueductal gray, a structure that provides excitation to breathing, and to respiratory phase-switching parabrachial pontine areas [26], can play a significant role in eliciting prolonged apnea. Single-pulse stimulation to the central amygdala in awake feline preparations can trigger inspiratory efforts [27], but train stimulation elicits apnea in pediatric patients [28], and amygdala lesions reduce seizure-induced respiratory arrest in DBA/1 mice [29].

The hippocampus is traditionally associated with memory and related cognitive functions. However, the hippocampus serves significant blood pressure and breathing roles; the structure is a vital link in rostral brain regulation of blood pressure [25] that responds prominently to multiple blood pressure challenges in humans during functional MRI [25]. Moreover, regional hippocampal single neuron discharge follows the breathing cycle in humans [30], and train electrical stimulation of the ventral hippocampus in the rat induces apnea, slows subsequent respiratory rate, and increases tidal volume [31]. The blood pressure effects can be abolished by ventral medial frontal cortex lesions; that area shows significant entropy declines here. Nearly the entire anterior and ventral temporal lobe showed decreased entropy, indicating tissue structural changes potentially affecting a range of temporal cortex-related functions.

Similarly, brain sites normally associated with motor coordination, such as the cerebellum, (showing significant entropy changes in this study), are critical in recovery from prolonged apnea [20] and profound blood pressure collapse [19], roles that are important for SUDEP. We found significant entropy changes in the basal ganglia, normally considered an extrapyramidal motor control area. However, recent evidence, largely derived from studies of Parkinson’s disease, indicates pronounced basal ganglia roles in autonomic regulation, especially for parasympathetic action [18], and thus, critical in mediating bradycardia sometimes found preceding SUDEP.

Actions of the sensorimotor and ventral cerebellar regions control a range of respiratory musculature ranging from the diaphragm, abdominal, and thoracic muscles, as well as upper airway flow-restricting muscles, could be compromised given the injury found here. Although selected autonomic sites were spared (anterior insula, anterior cingulate), the ventral medial prefrontal cortex, cerebellar deep nuclei, and medulla showed significant entropy changes, which, if transformed into chronic injury has the potential to impede resting and dynamic changes to blood pressure.

Few areas of increased entropy (decreased homogeneity), presumably reflecting the enhanced structural organization accompanying the increased connectivity found in particular pathways in those who succumb to SUDEP [32] were found. These areas included portions of the occipital cortex, and the processes underlying those entropy changes are unclear. Such patterns of little common injury are unlike those of temporal lobe epilepsy onset patients, where increased entropy appears in multiple, defined sites.

We speculate that those outcomes reflect enhanced vascularization of tissue on the structural surfaces relative to deeper tissues, with well-perfused areas more affected by perfusion changes accompanying ictal events in these two sites. Such a possibility has implications for protection of brain areas during ictal events. If the speculation is indeed the case, efforts at reducing constriction of the central vasculature, perhaps by restricting extremes of central hypertension during ictal events might lessen central injury. Such an objective might be achieved by prophylactic pharmacologic agents, or by recently described neuromodulatory procedures, such as been found useful for apnea in premature infants [33].

Declines in entropy typically reflect a loss in tissue organization, a process found with inflammation, which often accompanies acute tissue changes. Earlier T1-weigthed imaging-based cortical thickness studies [5] showed regions of both decreased and increased cortical thickness over controls; these areas of cortical thinning included the frontal cortex, temporal pole, posterior cingulate and lateral parietal cortices, and those sites appeared here as regions of reduced entropy, i.e., decline in tissue organization. Increased cortical thickness has been reported in post-central gyri, insula, and subgenual, anterior, posterior, and isthmus cingulate cortices [5]. The latter finding, increased cortical thickness which, in the current study, showed decreased entropy, suggests the possibility of inflammatory processes (i.e., reduced organization, not enhanced neural tissue development in those cortical areas). Analogous tissue changes can be found in some disease conditions, e.g., acute hepatic encephalopathy, which shows increased regional brain volumes, reflected as increased cortical thickness accompanying inflammatory processes.

Perhaps the findings of most interest for SUDEP investigators are the indications of decreased entropy in classic areas of cardiovascular and respiratory patterning influence. These sites include the temporal pole and amygdala, the ventral medial prefrontal cortex, the hippocampus, and anterior and posterior thalamus, dorsal and ventral midbrain, the entire medullary area, and projections to the deep cerebellar nuclei. All of these areas influence the cardiovascular system or respiratory timing in significant ways. The amygdala is the focus of processes that trigger apnea or respiratory rate through projections to the periaqueductal gray and parabrachial pons [26], and functional demonstrations by stimulation [28] or lesion evidence [29]. The ventral medial prefrontal cortex and hippocampal role in mediation of blood pressure has been well described [25], the posterior thalamus serves roles in mediating hypoxia and expiratory timing [34, 35], and has shown tissue loss earlier [10], both dorsal and ventral medullary areas are critical in both chemo and lung afferent sensing for breathing and blood pressure, and the cerebellar deep nuclei play a significant role in compensating for extremes of both blood pressure loss or prolonged apnea [19, 20].

Entropy procedures have been useful in assessing neural injury in other clinical conditions. Pediatric obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is accompanied by a wide range of tissue injury to the brain, a consequence of intermittent hypoxia exposure, and those injuries vary in severity, depending on brain area. Detectability of gray matter volume changes in pediatric OSA is often difficult, given the short time course of disease development over, for example, adult OSA, the latter often taking years to emerge. T1-weighted scans and gray matter volume analysis alone are inadequate to detect tissue type changes in pediatric OSA cases, but entropy procedures were much more useful [36].

Other evaluations of tissue integrity in epilepsy typically use variations of diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) to evaluate the motion of water molecules within tissue as a function of direction to reveal the underlying tissue microstructure. Extensions of DTI techniques can reveal the packing density of neurites and the spatial organization of the neuronal projections [37]. However, a significant consideration in a clinical environment is the potential to derive a measure of tissue integrity rapidly and at low cost. The entropy measures can be calculated easily from T1-weighted scans that are typically acquired from patients with epilepsy in all clinical sites, while other assessments of damage, e.g., DTI, may not be available. The need for only T1-weighted images also makes available retrospective examination of tissue integrity for data collected before DTI procedures were commonly used.

5. Limitations

One limitation of this study includes unavailability of data and analyses from different types of seizures instead of a defined cohort. However, other types of seizures should also show entropy changes, but the sites and direction of entropy changes (increased or decreased) may vary, based on acute or chronic tissue changes in different types of epilepsy patients. Another major limitation of this study is that the entropy values were determined solely from adults; pediatric cases with epilepsy would require a very large sample with snapshots of structure at different developmental stages of changes in neural tissue and glia accompanying the normal rapid transitions of such tissue in young children. Pediatric cases offer the possibility of following the interaction of injurious intermittent hypoxia and impaired perfusion on tissue homogeneity accompanying ictal events on differing cortical and other tissue sites with development; cortical changes alone during early teen age years are substantial [for Review, see [38]]. However, such an evaluation was outside of the scope of this study, and we studied only adult subjects. Similarly, the sample size was insufficient to adequately assess duration of epilepsy in subjects or proximity to the last seizure.

The patients evaluated were subjected to a wide array of antiepileptic medications. The action of these agents on both glial and neuronal cellular processes have not been well-described, but could have affected the properties of tissue here, just as pharmacologic agents affect cortical tissue thickness [39].

We cannot assume that the increased or decreased entropy values resulted from unitary processes; it is possible that a combination of pathologic changes could have led to assessed values that were less deviant from normal levels.

6. Conclusions

Brain areas critical for mediating a range of cognitive, affective, and motor control show increased homogeneity, i.e., a decline in differentiation of tissue in epilepsy patients with TCS. Several of these areas serve primary respiratory and cardiovascular functions; however, multiple regions shared both respiratory and cardiovascular roles with motor, memory, and affective functions, and these areas were widespread. The affected regions typically overlapped sites of previously described volume loss and increases, determined by T1-weighted imaging procedures, and likely resulted from inflammatory processes. Well-defined structures, such as the thalamus and pons show surface entropy declines with spared deeper tissue, possibly from ictal influences on the surface vasculature of these structures. The anterior cingulate and anterior insula were also spared. Entropy evaluation can provide insights into the nature of injury in brain structures of patients with epilepsy and do so using only T1-weighted imaging.

Acknowledgments

We thank Ms. Rebecca K. Harper for assistance with data collection.

Data Availability

Since the data contain potentially sensitive personal health information on individual subjects, we are bound by ethical and legal restrictions on freely sharing data publicly. However, data from this study are available with approval from the UCLA Institutional Review Board for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data. This restriction is due to the consent used at the time of data collection. Data may be requested by contacting the UCLA Institutional Review Board (Website: https://webirb.research.ucla.edu/; Phone (Medical IRB): +1-310-825-5344; Email: webirbhelp@research.ucla.edu; Reference: IRB#14-001301.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke [U01 NS090407]. The UCL group is grateful to the Wolfson Foundation and the Epilepsy Society for supporting the Epilepsy Society MRI scanner. The UCL contributions were also supported by the National Institute for Health Research, University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Ryvlin P, Rheims S, Lhatoo SD. Risks and predictive biomarkers of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy patient. Curr Opin Neurol. 2019;32(2):205–12. doi: 10.1097/WCO.0000000000000668 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.DeGiorgio CM, Markovic D, Mazumder R, Moseley BD. Ranking the Leading Risk Factors for Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy. Frontiers in neurology. 2017;8:473. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2017.00473 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.DeGiorgio CM, Curtis A, Hertling D, Moseley BD. Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy: Risk factors, biomarkers, and prevention. Acta Neurol Scand. 2019;139(3):220–30. doi: 10.1111/ane.13049 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Ryvlin P, Nashef L, Lhatoo SD, Bateman LM, Bird J, Bleasel A, et al. Incidence and mechanisms of cardiorespiratory arrests in epilepsy monitoring units (MORTEMUS): a retrospective study. Lancet Neurol. 2013;12(10):966–77. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(13)70214-X . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Ogren JA, Tripathi R, Macey PM, Kumar R, Stern JM, Eliashiv DS, et al. Regional cortical thickness changes accompanying generalized tonic-clonic seizures. Neuroimage Clin. 2018;20:205–15. doi: 10.1016/j.nicl.2018.07.015 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Allen LA, Vos SB, Kumar R, Ogren JA, Harper RK, Winston GP, et al. Cerebellar, limbic, and midbrain volume alterations in sudden unexpected death in epilepsy. Epilepsia. 2019;60(4):718–29. doi: 10.1111/epi.14689 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Allen LA, Harper RM, Vos SB, Scott CA, Lacuey N, Vilella L, et al. Peri-ictal hypoxia is related to extent of regional brain volume loss accompanying generalized tonic-clonic seizures. Epilepsia. 2020;61(8):1570–80. doi: 10.1111/epi.16615 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Delic J, Alhilali LM, Hughes MA, Gumus S, Fakhran S. White Matter Injuries in Mild Traumatic Brain Injury and Posttraumatic Migraines: Diffusion Entropy Analysis. Radiology. 2016;279(3):859–66. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2015151388 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Metwalli NS, LaConte SM, Hu XP. An information theoretic approach characterizing diffusion anisotropy in diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance images. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2006;2006:2260–3. doi: 10.1109/IEMBS.2006.259870 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Wandschneider B, Koepp M, Scott C, Micallef C, Balestrini S, Sisodiya SM, et al. Structural imaging biomarkers of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy. Brain. 2015;138(Pt 10):2907–19. doi: 10.1093/brain/awv233 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Mueller SG, Bateman LM, Nei M, Goldman AM, Laxer KD. Brainstem atrophy in focal epilepsy destabilizes brainstem-brain interactions: Preliminary findings. Neuroimage Clin. 2019;23:101888. doi: 10.1016/j.nicl.2019.101888 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Lu M, Zhang J. [Correlation study between entropy index and Glasgow coma scale score in patients with acute brain injury]. Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue. 2018;30(1):47–50. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095-4352.2018.01.009 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Diehl B, Busch RM, Duncan JS, Piao Z, Tkach J, Luders HO. Abnormalities in diffusion tensor imaging of the uncinate fasciculus relate to reduced memory in temporal lobe epilepsy. Epilepsia. 2008;49(8):1409–18. doi: 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2008.01596.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Diehl B, Tkach J, Piao Z, Ruggieri P, LaPresto E, Liu P, et al. Diffusion tensor imaging in patients with focal epilepsy due to cortical dysplasia in the temporo-occipital region: electro-clinico-pathological correlations. Epilepsy Res. 2010;90(3):178–87. doi: 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2010.03.006 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Le Bihan D, Mangin JF, Poupon C, Clark CA, Pappata S, Molko N, et al. Diffusion tensor imaging: concepts and applications. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2001;13(4):534–46. doi: 10.1002/jmri.1076 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Cersosimo MG, Benarroch EE. Autonomic involvement in Parkinson’s disease: pathology, pathophysiology, clinical features and possible peripheral biomarkers. J Neurol Sci. 2012;313(1–2):57–63. doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2011.09.030 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Pazo JH, Belforte JE. Basal ganglia and functions of the autonomic nervous system. Cell Mol Neurobiol. 2002;22(5–6):645–54. doi: 10.1023/a:1021844605250 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Tessa C, Toschi N, Orsolini S, Valenza G, Lucetti C, Barbieri R, et al. Central modulation of parasympathetic outflow is impaired in de novo Parkinson’s disease patients. PLoS One. 2019;14(1):e0210324. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210324 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Lutherer LO, Lutherer BC, Dormer KJ, Janssen HF, Barnes CD. Bilateral lesions of the fastigial nucleus prevent the recovery of blood pressure following hypotension induced by hemorrhage or administration of endotoxin. Brain Res. 1983;269(2):251–7. doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(83)90134-8 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Xu F, Frazier DT. Role of the cerebellar deep nuclei in respiratory modulation. Cerebellum. 2002;1(1):35–40. doi: 10.1080/147342202753203078 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Welsh JP, Yuen G, Placantonakis DG, Vu TQ, Haiss F, O’Hearn E, et al. Why do Purkinje cells die so easily after global brain ischemia? Aldolase C, EAAT4, and the cerebellar contribution to posthypoxic myoclonus. Adv Neurol. 2002;89:331–59 . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Cechetto DF, Shoemaker JK. Functional neuroanatomy of autonomic regulation. Neuroimage. 2009;47(3):795–803. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.05.024 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Shoemaker JK, Goswami R. Forebrain neurocircuitry associated with human reflex cardiovascular control. Front Physiol. 2015;6:240. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2015.00240 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Wong SW, Masse N, Kimmerly DS, Menon RS, Shoemaker JK. Ventral medial prefrontal cortex and cardiovagal control in conscious humans. Neuroimage. 2007;35(2):698–708. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.12.027 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Shoemaker JK, Wong SW, Cechetto DF. Cortical circuitry associated with reflex cardiovascular control in humans: does the cortical autonomic network "speak" or "listen" during cardiovascular arousal. Anat Rec (Hoboken). 2012;295(9):1375–84. doi: 10.1002/ar.22528 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Hopkins DA, Holstege G. Amygdaloid projections to the mesencephalon, pons and medulla oblongata in the cat. Exp Brain Res. 1978;32(4):529–47. doi: 10.1007/BF00239551 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Harper RM, Frysinger RC, Trelease RB, Marks JD. State-dependent alteration of respiratory cycle timing by stimulation of the central nucleus of the amygdala. Brain Res. 1984;306(1–2):1–8. doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(84)90350-0 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Rhone AE, Kovach CK, Harmata GI, Sullivan AW, Tranel D, Ciliberto MA, et al. A human amygdala site that inhibits respiration and elicits apnea in pediatric epilepsy. JCI Insight. 2020;5(6). doi: 10.1172/jci.insight.134852 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Marincovich A, Bravo E, Dlouhy B, Richerson GB. Amygdala lesions reduce seizure-induced respiratory arrest in DBA/1 mice. Epilepsy Behav. 2021;121(Pt B):106440. doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2019.07.041 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Frysinger RC, Harper RM. Cardiac and respiratory correlations with unit discharge in human amygdala and hippocampus. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1989;72(6):463–70. doi: 10.1016/0013-4694(89)90222-8 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Ruit KG, Neafsey EJ. Cardiovascular and respiratory responses to electrical and chemical stimulation of the hippocampus in anesthetized and awake rats. Brain Res. 1988;457(2):310–21. doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(88)90701-9 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.La A, Rm H, M G, R K, Ja O, Sb V, et al. Altered brain connectivity in sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) revealed using resting-state fMRI. Neuroimage Clin. 2019;24:102060. doi: 10.1016/j.nicl.2019.102060 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Kesavan K, Frank P, Cordero DM, Benharash P, Harper RM. Neuromodulation of Limb Proprioceptive Afferents Decreases Apnea of Prematurity and Accompanying Intermittent Hypoxia and Bradycardia. PLoS One. 2016;11(6):e0157349. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0157349 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Koos BJ, Kawasaki Y, Hari A, Bohorquez F, Jan C, Roostaeian J, et al. Electrical stimulation of the posteromedial thalamus modulates breathing in unanesthetized fetal sheep. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2004;96(1):115–23. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00517.2003 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Koos BJ, Rajaee A, Ibe B, Guerra C, Kruger L. Thalamic mediation of hypoxic respiratory depression in lambs. American journal of physiology Regulatory, integrative and comparative physiology. 2016;310(7):R586–95. doi: 10.1152/ajpregu.00412.2015 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Kheirandish-Gozal L, Sahib AK, Macey PM, Philby MF, Gozal D, Kumar R. Regional brain tissue integrity in pediatric obstructive sleep apnea. Neurosci Lett. 2018;682:118–23. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2018.06.002 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Zhang H, Schneider T, Wheeler-Kingshott CA, Alexander DC. NODDI: practical in vivo neurite orientation dispersion and density imaging of the human brain. Neuroimage. 2012;61(4):1000–16. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.03.072 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Blakemore SJ. Imaging brain development: the adolescent brain. Neuroimage. 2012;61(2):397–406. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.11.080 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Pardoe HR, Berg AT, Jackson GD. Sodium valproate use is associated with reduced parietal lobe thickness and brain volume. Neurology. 2013;80(20):1895–900. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e318292a2e5 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Allan Siegel

31 May 2022

PONE-D-22-08022Regional Variation in Brain Tissue Texture in Patients with Tonic-Clonic SeizuresPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kumar,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The manuscript makes a new contribution to the literature by showing the effects of entropy changes following tonic-clonic seizures. Detailed critiques of the manuscript by the two reviewers are presented below. Please respond to each of the critiques of the reviewers. A selection of the primary comments are summarized below.

1. More details regarding recruitment of patients and their histories would be helpful, including their etiologies.

2. Further discussion and analysis of entropy, including how it could be used clinically.

3. Possible limitations/concerns regarding the use of entropy should be considered, including the lack of specificity (which should be discussed and which appears to be prevalent from the observed data).

4. Further analysis of other forms of epilepsy as they may relate to and affect entropy.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 30 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Allan Siegel

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“This work was supported by the National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke [U01 NS090407]. The UCL group is grateful to the Wolfson Foundation and the Epilepsy Society for supporting the Epilepsy Society MRI scanner. The UCL contributions were also supported by the National Institute for Health Research, University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre.”

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“This work was supported by the National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke [U01 NS090407]. The UCL group is grateful to the Wolfson Foundation and the Epilepsy Society for supporting the Epilepsy Society MRI scanner. The UCL contributions were also supported by the National Institute for Health Research, University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre.

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

5. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

Additional Editor Comments:

The manuscript makes a new contribution to the literature by showing the effects of entropy changes following tonic-clonic seizures. Detailed critiques of the manuscript by the two reviewers are presented below. Please respond to each of the critiques of the reviewers. A selection of the primary comments are summarized below.

1. More details regarding recruitment of patients and their histories would be helpful, including their etiologies.

2. Further discussion and analysis of entropy, including how it could be used clinically.

3. Possible limitations/concerns regarding the use of entropy should be considered, including the lack of specificity (which should be discussed and which appears to be prevalent from the observed data).

4. Further analysis of other forms of epilepsy as they may relate to and affect entropy.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In this paper, authors present data on entropy measures in patients with tonic-clonic (TC) seizures and healthy controls. The present evidence of decreased entropy (increased tissue homogeneity) in major autonomic regulatory areas, motor control areas and the pons which are widespread. They concluded that injury to areas of the brain associated with control of breathing and circulation occurs due to TC seizures and may be the mechanism underlying SUDEP. The study was well conducted and imaging data presented was interesting. I also think this paper adds to the literature on changes in brain (volumetric) in patients with or at risk of SUDEP.

There are several issues that are not clear and would benefit or enhance the impact.

1. They recruited patients with TC seizures. However, addition of several pieces of data would be helpful. a. How did they determine that these patients are at risk of SUDEP? Is there a risk score (Hesdoffer et al, 2011 for example)? b. what types of epilepsy patients are we dealing with? c. no demographic data is presented. I would recommend addition of patient details and a method to classify those that have TC seizures but at "higher risk of SUDEP" vs low risk of SUDEP".

2. The entropy changes are wide spread and not limited to finite regions of the brain. Not all of these areas are associated with breathing and circulation. In fact, the changes in entropy are seen in areas far beyond and hence the interpretation that "entropy changes are seen in areas that regulate breathing and circulation" may not be accurate. It is possible that they recruited patients with many different etiologies and a wide age spectrum that may have resulted in this. Once they brain in all patient data (in the form of 1-2 tables), it may be more clear and conclusions can be appropriately adjusted.

3. Lines 194-199 is a long run on sentence and confusing to read. Please modify or simplify.

Reviewer #2: This study sought to identify the effects of clonic-tonic seizures upon neuronal cell tissue volume within different regions of the brain. The study is of interest and the findings and methodology could be of potential importance. However, a number of issues are raised in the manuscript that the authors should address. These are indicated below.

To what extent are the changes in entropy unique to tonic-clonic seizures? Or would such effects also be seen with other kinds of seizures such as partial-complex seizures that do not evolve into generalized tonic-clonic seizures or myoclonic seizures, etc.? Further analysis of other types of seizures would have been helpful here.

It is not clear the extent to which entropy can be used as a clinical measure or estimate of possible neurological damage or dysfunction. Do the authors have any evidence from other know and well-established methodologies and tools that correlate with entropy as a neurological tool or measure? The question raised here is to what extent does the change in entropy reflect a clinical phenomenon.

Another issue is the extent of the specificity of the effects of seizures as determined by entropy measures. For example, the authors describe a wide number of structures displaying changes in entropy. But how many of these are related to cardiovascular changes that possibly are linked to sudden death syndrome? A specific example: in Fig, 2, changes are shown in entropy for components of the basal ganglia…but this region is generally not known to be associated with cardiovascular events. So, how do the authors know which structures are relevant to the processes possibly linked to the cardiovascular and related effects of the tonic-clonic seizures?

Fig. 1 indicates the effects of seizures upon entropy`/ What about the brains of normal individuals (controls)?

In the beginning of the manuscript, the authors raised the question of whether entropy was related to neurons or glia. Do the authors have any thoughts on this question?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Allan Siegel

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Sep 22;17(9):e0274514. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0274514.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


11 Aug 2022

Response to Reviewers

PONE-D-22-08022

Regional Variation in Brain Tissue Texture in Patients with Tonic-Clonic Seizures

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kumar,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. The manuscript makes a new contribution to the literature by showing the effects of entropy changes following tonic-clonic seizures. Detailed critiques of the manuscript by the two reviewers are presented below. Please respond to each of the critiques of the reviewers. A selection of the primary comments are summarized below.

1. More details regarding recruitment of patients and their histories would be helpful, including their etiologies.

We appreciate this suggestion. We expanded subject recruitment details, patient histories, and added etiologies for available subjects.

2. Further discussion and analysis of entropy, including how it could be used clinically.

Yes. We understand this concern. We added a paragraph in the Discussion on clinical usefulness and prior studies under other medical conditions, as well as advantageous practical considerations of the entropy measures. A significant consideration is the potential to derive a measure of tissue integrity solely from T1-weighted scans, typically acquired from patients with epilepsy in all clinical centers, where other assessments of damage, e.g., diffusion tensor imaging, may not be available. That potential offers considerable cost benefits, as well as the possibility to evaluate tissue integrity retrospectively in the absence of DTI data. Those aspects are now discussed as well.

3. Possible limitations/concerns regarding the use of entropy should be considered, including the lack of specificity (which should be discussed, and which appears to be prevalent from the observed data).

The specificity issue is indeed a concern. This aspect is now discussed in the context of the widespread tissue injury accompany epilepsy in diverse brain areas, as well as in the limitations of implementation. We also consider the lack of specificity in the context of the central concern for SUDEP, namely injury to cardiovascular and breathing regulatory sites, and discuss how multiple “motor” and “cognitive” sites serve autonomic and breathing roles (thus, spreading functions over multiple brain areas).

4. Further analysis of other forms of epilepsy as they may relate to and affect entropy.

We agree that adding analyses of other forms of epilepsy would be helpful to generalize the findings, and to provide insights into the nature of brain tissue injury. However, we lack availability of such data and would not be able to add additional analyses in the paper. We do point to another study in pediatric obstructive sleep apnea, a condition with both marked and subtle brain tissue injury, where entropy measures were successfully used.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 2, 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

Done!

• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

Uploaded.

• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Done.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

There are no changes in the financial disclosures from the original submission.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

Not applicable.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Allan Siegel

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Checked!

2. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

Not applicable.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“This work was supported by the National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke [U01 NS090407]. The UCL group is grateful to the Wolfson Foundation and the Epilepsy Society for supporting the Epilepsy Society MRI scanner. The UCL contributions were also supported by the National Institute for Health Research, University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre.” We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement.

We removed the funding-related information from the manuscript per the journal’s requirement.

Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: “This work was supported by the National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke [U01 NS090407]. The UCL group is grateful to the Wolfson Foundation and the Epilepsy Society for supporting the Epilepsy Society MRI scanner. The UCL contributions were also supported by the National Institute for Health Research, University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

The amended Funding Statement included in the cover letter that reads as follows: “This work was supported by the National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke [U01 NS090407]. The UCL group is grateful to the Wolfson Foundation and the Epilepsy Society for supporting the Epilepsy Society MRI scanner. The UCL contributions were also supported by the National Institute for Health Research and University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

4. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

The cover letter is revised and details the ethical and legal restrictions on freely sharing data publicly. However, such data will be shared with investigators upon request, as long as personal identifying information is not needed for their analyses.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

5. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

ORCID ID is available for the corresponding author, and this ID is validated in Editorial Manager.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

________________________________________

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In this paper, authors present data on entropy measures in patients with tonic-clonic (TC) seizures and healthy controls. The present evidence of decreased entropy (increased tissue homogeneity) in major autonomic regulatory areas, motor control areas and the pons which are widespread. They concluded that injury to areas of the brain associated with control of breathing and circulation occurs due to TC seizures and may be the mechanism underlying SUDEP. The study was well conducted and imaging data presented was interesting. I also think this paper adds to the literature on changes in brain (volumetric) in patients with or at risk of SUDEP.

There are several issues that are not clear and would benefit or enhance the impact.

1. They recruited patients with TC seizures. However, addition of several pieces of data would be helpful.

a. How did they determine that these patients are at risk of SUDEP? Is there a risk score (Hesdoffer et al, 2011 for example)?

We appreciate the reviewer’s query. We did not evaluate epilepsy patients for low or high-risk of SUDEP category. However, a characteristic of our patient data set was a high incidence of generalized tonic clonic seizures (GTCS), which, as the reviewer notes, is a significant risk factor for SUDEP. We clarified this issue in the manuscript.

b. what types of epilepsy patients are we dealing with?

All patients included in this study expressed GTCS with variable seizure frequency.

c. no demographic data is presented.

Added. Thank you!

I would recommend addition of patient details and a method to classify those that have TC seizures but at "higher risk of SUDEP" vs low risk of SUDEP".

Thank you for the suggestion. We added patient details, including recruitment information, demographics, and other available clinical data. In addition, seizure frequency details that correlate with SUDEP risk based on previous studies from others are added, although SUDEP risk classification information is not included, since such classifications were not performed in this study.

2. The entropy changes are wide spread and not limited to finite regions of the brain. Not all of these areas are associated with breathing and circulation. In fact, the changes in entropy are seen in areas far beyond and hence the interpretation that "entropy changes are seen in areas that regulate breathing and circulation" may not be accurate. It is possible that they recruited patients with many different etiologies and a wide age spectrum that may have resulted in this. Once they brain in all patient data (in the form of 1-2 tables), it may be more clear and conclusions can be appropriately adjusted.

We included epilepsy patients with consistent etiologies, with a relatively narrow age range. In addition, age was included as a covariate in the statistical model. We now realize that we did not adequately describe how brain areas, not typically considered “respiratory” or “cardiovascular” control sites, may influence such vital functions (and showed entropy changes). Our findings indicate significant tissue changes in autonomic and respiratory regulatory areas, as well as in sites usually associated with motor, mood and cognitive functions. However, it is now apparent that brain areas known to be primarily associated with negative emotions, such as the amygdala, play a key role in inducing apnea in human patients with epilepsy [1-3], and can pace breathing in animal models [4]. Similarly, brain sites normally associated with motor coordination, such as the cerebellum (showing significant entropy changes in this study), are critical in recovery from prolonged apnea and profound blood pressure collapse [5, 6], outcomes that are important for SUDEP. We found significant entropy changes in the basal ganglia, normally considered an extrapyramidal motor control area. However, recent evidence, largely derived from studies of Parkinson’s disease, indicates pronounced basal ganglia roles in autonomic regulation, especially for parasympathetic action, and thus, critical in bradycardia sometimes found preceding SUDEP.

The potential for cerebellar and amygdala dysfunctions to play key roles in breathing and blood pressure is now being recognized in the epilepsy field as a principal area of concern in SUDEP [7-10]. However, other brain sites normally associated with mood or cognitive functions are now realized to have essential breathing or cardiovascular roles, and some of these sites showed dramatic entropy changes. These areas include the cingulate cortex (serving mood and depression; but also blood pressure [11, 12], hippocampus (memory, but a key structure in blood pressure regulation [13, 14], ventral medial prefrontal cortex (significant structure in central apnea, as well as blood pressure) [15-17], and midbrain (essential breathing and blood pressure roles) [15, 16]. We realize that those descriptions were lacking in the original manuscript, and those aspects are now included.

3. Lines 194-199 is a long run on sentence and confusing to read. Please modify or simplify.

Modified (currently lines 270-274). Thank you!

Reviewer #2: This study sought to identify the effects of clonic-tonic seizures upon neuronal cell tissue volume within different regions of the brain. The study is of interest and the findings and methodology could be of potential importance. However, a number of issues are raised in the manuscript that the authors should address. These are indicated below.

To what extent are the changes in entropy unique to tonic-clonic seizures? Or would such effects also be seen with other kinds of seizures such as partial-complex seizures that do not evolve into generalized tonic-clonic seizures or myoclonic seizures, etc.? Further analysis of other types of seizures would have been helpful here.

We believe that other types of seizures will also show entropy changes, but the direction of entropy changes (increased or decreased) may vary, based on acute or chronic tissue changes in different types of epilepsy patients. Our data are derived from a defined cohort, and we are unable to generalize the findings here to other types of seizures.

It is not clear the extent to which entropy can be used as a clinical measure or estimate of possible neurological damage or dysfunction. Do the authors have any evidence from other known and well-established methodologies and tools that correlate with entropy as a neurological tool or measure? The question raised here is to what extent does the change in entropy reflect a clinical phenomenon.

That question is very appropriate. It is the case that the measure is novel, but has been used earlier to assess brain injury in pediatric obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) [18], a condition where T1-weighted scans and gray matter volume analysis alone are inadequate to detect tissue type changes. It should be noted that the injury detected by entropy measures in pediatric OSA cases has been confirmed by other MRI measures. One significant advantage of the entropy measure is the simplicity; only easy calculations from T1-weighted scans are needed, and T1-weighted scans are typically readily available for patients with epilepsy, while other tissue-change assessments, such as diffusion tensor imaging, may not be as readily attainable.

Another issue is the extent of the specificity of the effects of seizures as determined by entropy measures. For example, the authors describe a wide number of structures displaying changes in entropy. But how many of these are related to cardiovascular changes that possibly are linked to sudden death syndrome? A specific example: in Fig, 2, changes are shown in entropy for components of the basal ganglia…but this region is generally not known to be associated with cardiovascular events. So, how do the authors know which structures are relevant to the processes possibly linked to the cardiovascular and related effects of the tonic-clonic seizures?

This issue was partially covered in response to a concern raised by Reviewer 1. Several of the brain sites, normally considered as having few, or no cardiovascular or respiratory-related functions, in reality serve significant breathing or autonomic roles. The basal ganglia, long recognized as serving extrapyramidal motor control functions, serves significant autonomic functions, especially for the parasympathetic system; most of those revelations derived from studies of Parkinson’s Disease. Since bradycardia is a concern in SUDEP, integrity of the parasympathetic system is critical in patients with epilepsy. Although we emphasized that significant tissue changes occurred in autonomic and breathing control areas, we did not indicate that those areas were widespread, and included “non-conventional” sites, such as the basal ganglia. We showed tissue changes over the entire brain in the figures, and now point out the widely-distributed nature of brain sites that modify breathing and cardiovascular action. In addition, other cognitive and affective brain regions are affected as well.

Fig. 1 indicates the effects of seizures upon entropy`/ What about the brains of normal individuals (controls)?

Figure 1 shows regional brain tissue entropy changes in patients with GTCS compared to normal/control subjects. Brain images of normal individuals were evaluated for any serious brain pathology before data processing, and none of the controls included here showed any serious brain tissue changes. We added this description in the manuscript.

In the beginning of the manuscript, the authors raised the question of whether entropy was related to neurons or glia. Do the authors have any thoughts on this question?

We believe that entropy changes in this study result predominantly from glial changes, since the tissue alterations likely are indicative of inflammatory activities that contribute to glial cell activation.

________________________________________

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Allan Siegel

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

References

1. Rhone AE, Kovach CK, Harmata GI, Sullivan AW, Tranel D, Ciliberto MA, et al. A human amygdala site that inhibits respiration and elicits apnea in pediatric epilepsy. JCI Insight. 2020;5(6). doi: 10.1172/jci.insight.134852. PubMed PMID: 32163374; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC7213805.

2. Nobis WP, Schuele S, Templer JW, Zhou G, Lane G, Rosenow JM, et al. Amygdala-stimulation-induced apnea is attention and nasal-breathing dependent. Ann Neurol. 2018;83(3):460-71. doi: 10.1002/ana.25178. PubMed PMID: 29420859; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5867259.

3. Nobis WP, Gonzalez Otarula KA, Templer JW, Gerard EE, VanHaerents S, Lane G, et al. The effect of seizure spread to the amygdala on respiration and onset of ictal central apnea. J Neurosurg. 2019;132(5):1313-23. doi: 10.3171/2019.1.JNS183157. PubMed PMID: 30952127; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC8022327.

4. Harper RM, Frysinger RC, Trelease RB, Marks JD. State-dependent alteration of respiratory cycle timing by stimulation of the central nucleus of the amygdala. Brain Res. 1984;306(1-2):1-8. doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(84)90350-0. PubMed PMID: 6466967.

5. Lutherer LO, Lutherer BC, Dormer KJ, Janssen HF, Barnes CD. Bilateral lesions of the fastigial nucleus prevent the recovery of blood pressure following hypotension induced by hemorrhage or administration of endotoxin. Brain Res. 1983;269(2):251-7. doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(83)90134-8. PubMed PMID: 6349747.

6. Xu F, Frazier DT. Role of the cerebellar deep nuclei in respiratory modulation. Cerebellum. 2002;1(1):35-40. doi: 10.1080/147342202753203078. PubMed PMID: 12879972.

7. Allen LA, Vos SB, Kumar R, Ogren JA, Harper RK, Winston GP, et al. Cerebellar, limbic, and midbrain volume alterations in sudden unexpected death in epilepsy. Epilepsia. 2019;60(4):718-29. doi: 10.1111/epi.14689. PubMed PMID: 30868560; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC6479118.

8. Whatley BP, Winston JS, Allen LA, Vos SB, Jha A, Scott CA, et al. Distinct Patterns of Brain Metabolism in Patients at Risk of Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy. Front Neurol. 2021;12:623358. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2021.623358. PubMed PMID: 34899550; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC8651549.

9. La A, Rm H, M G, R K, Ja O, Sb V, et al. Altered brain connectivity in sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) revealed using resting-state fMRI. Neuroimage Clin. 2019;24:102060. doi: 10.1016/j.nicl.2019.102060. PubMed PMID: 31722289; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC6849487.

10. Allen LA, Harper RM, Kumar R, Guye M, Ogren JA, Lhatoo SD, et al. Dysfunctional Brain Networking among Autonomic Regulatory Structures in Temporal Lobe Epilepsy Patients at High Risk of Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy. Front Neurol. 2017;8:544. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2017.00544. PubMed PMID: 29085330; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5650686.

11. Gianaros PJ, Derbyshire SW, May JC, Siegle GJ, Gamalo MA, Jennings JR. Anterior cingulate activity correlates with blood pressure during stress. Psychophysiology. 2005;42(6):627-35. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2005.00366.x. PubMed PMID: 16364058; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC2246096.

12. Burns SM, Wyss JM. The involvement of the anterior cingulate cortex in blood pressure control. Brain Res. 1985;340(1):71-7. doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(85)90774-7. PubMed PMID: 4027647.

13. Korf ES, White LR, Scheltens P, Launer LJ. Midlife blood pressure and the risk of hippocampal atrophy: the Honolulu Asia Aging Study. Hypertension. 2004;44(1):29-34. doi: 10.1161/01.HYP.0000132475.32317.bb. PubMed PMID: 15159381.

14. Feng R, Rolls ET, Cheng W, Feng J. Hypertension is associated with reduced hippocampal connectivity and impaired memory. EBioMedicine. 2020;61:103082. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2020.103082. PubMed PMID: 33132184; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC7585137.

15. Cechetto DF, Shoemaker JK. Functional neuroanatomy of autonomic regulation. Neuroimage. 2009;47(3):795-803. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.05.024. PubMed PMID: 19446637.

16. Shoemaker JK, Goswami R. Forebrain neurocircuitry associated with human reflex cardiovascular control. Front Physiol. 2015;6:240. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2015.00240. PubMed PMID: 26388780; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4555962.

17. Wong SW, Masse N, Kimmerly DS, Menon RS, Shoemaker JK. Ventral medial prefrontal cortex and cardiovagal control in conscious humans. Neuroimage. 2007;35(2):698-708. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.12.027. PubMed PMID: 17291781.

18. Kheirandish-Gozal L, Sahib AK, Macey PM, Philby MF, Gozal D, Kumar R. Regional brain tissue integrity in pediatric obstructive sleep apnea. Neurosci Lett. 2018;682:118-23. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2018.06.002. PubMed PMID: 29883682; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC6102065.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Allan Siegel

30 Aug 2022

Regional Variation in Brain Tissue Texture in Patients with Tonic-Clonic Seizures

PONE-D-22-08022R1

Dear Dr.Kumar,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Allan Siegel

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

In the initial review of the manuscript, the reviewers described four concerns with the original manuscript. The authors responded effectively to three of these concerns and the authors provided a reasonable explanation why they could not comply with the fourth issue. Overall, the manuscript makes a new, useful and interesting contribution to the literature and thus it is now at a level worthy of publication.

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Allan Siegel

14 Sep 2022

PONE-D-22-08022R1

Regional Variation in Brain Tissue Texture in Patients with Tonic-Clonic Seizures

Dear Dr. Kumar:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr Allan Siegel

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Since the data contain potentially sensitive personal health information on individual subjects, we are bound by ethical and legal restrictions on freely sharing data publicly. However, data from this study are available with approval from the UCLA Institutional Review Board for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data. This restriction is due to the consent used at the time of data collection. Data may be requested by contacting the UCLA Institutional Review Board (Website: https://webirb.research.ucla.edu/; Phone (Medical IRB): +1-310-825-5344; Email: webirbhelp@research.ucla.edu; Reference: IRB#14-001301.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES