Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T06:01:08.485Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lower [18F]fallypride binding to dopamine D2/3 receptors in frontal brain areas in adults with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome: a positron emission tomography study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2019

Esther D. A. van Duin Open the ORCID record for Esther D. A. van Duin [Opens in a new window] ,
Jenny Ceccarini ,
Jan Booij ,
Zuzana Kasanova ,
Claudia Vingerhoets ,
Jytte van Huijstee ,
Alexander Heinzel ,
Siamak Mohammadkhani-Shali ,
Oliver Winz  and
Felix Mottaghy
...Show all authors
Esther D. A. van Duin*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry & Neuropsychology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
Jenny Ceccarini
Affiliation:
Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Division of Imaging and Pathology, University Hospital Leuven, KU Leuven, Belgium
Jan Booij
Affiliation:
Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Zuzana Kasanova
Affiliation:
Department of Neuroscience, Center for Contextual Psychiatry, KU Leuven – Leuven University, Leuven, Belgium
Claudia Vingerhoets
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry & Neuropsychology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Jytte van Huijstee
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry & Neuropsychology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
Alexander Heinzel
Affiliation:
Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital RWTH, Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
Siamak Mohammadkhani-Shali
Affiliation:
Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital RWTH, Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
Oliver Winz
Affiliation:
Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital RWTH, Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
Felix Mottaghy
Affiliation:
Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital RWTH, Aachen University, Aachen, Germany Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center (MUMC+), Maastricht, The Netherland
Inez Myin-Germeys
Affiliation:
Department of Neuroscience, Center for Contextual Psychiatry, KU Leuven – Leuven University, Leuven, Belgium
Thérèse van Amelsvoort
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry & Neuropsychology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
*
Author for correspondence: Esther D. A. van Duin, E-mail: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

The 22q11.2 deletion syndrome (22q11DS) is caused by a deletion on chromosome 22 locus q11.2. This copy number variant results in haplo-insufficiency of the catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) gene, and is associated with a significant increase in the risk for developing cognitive impairments and psychosis. The COMT gene encodes an enzyme that primarily modulates clearance of dopamine (DA) from the synaptic cleft, especially in the prefrontal cortical areas. Consequently, extracellular DA levels may be increased in prefrontal brain areas in 22q11DS, which may underlie the well-documented susceptibility for cognitive impairments and psychosis in affected individuals. This study aims to examine DA D2/3 receptor binding in frontal brain regions in adults with 22q11DS, as a proxy of frontal DA levels.

Methods

The study was performed in 14 non-psychotic, relatively high functioning adults with 22q11DS and 16 age- and gender-matched healthy controls (HCs), who underwent DA D2/3 receptor [18F]fallypride PET imaging. Frontal binding potential (BPND) was used as the main outcome measure.

Results

BPND was significantly lower in adults with 22q11DS compared with HCs in the prefrontal cortex and the anterior cingulate gyrus. After Bonferroni correction significance remained for the anterior cingulate gyrus. There were no between-group differences in BPND in the orbitofrontal cortex and anterior cingulate cortex.

Conclusions

This study is the first to demonstrate lower frontal D2/3 receptor binding in adults with 22q11DS. It suggests that a 22q11.2 deletion affects frontal dopaminergic neurotransmission.

Keywords

[18F]fallypride22q11DSCOMTdopaminefrontalPET
Type
Original Articles
Information
Psychological Medicine , Volume 50 , Issue 5 , April 2020 , pp. 799 - 807
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2019

Introduction

The 22q11.2 deletion syndrome (22q11DS) is a relatively common genetic disorder, with an estimated prevalence of one in 2000–4000 births. It is characterized by a deletion on locus 22q11.2, a copy number variant that contributes significantly to the risk for psychotic disorders (Murphy et al., Reference Murphy, Jones and Owen1999; Schneider et al., Reference Schneider, Debbané, Bassett, Chow, Fung, van den Bree, Owen, Murphy, Niarchou, Kates, Antshel, Fremont, McDonald-McGinn, Gur, Zackai, Vorstman, Duijff, Klaassen, Swillen, Gothelf, Green, Weizman, Van Amelsvoort, Evers, Boot, Shashi, Hooper, Bearden, Jalbrzikowski, Armando, Vicari, Murphy, Ousley, Campbell, Simon and Eliez2014). 22q11DS has a heterogeneous phenotype including cardiac anomalies (Guo et al., Reference Guo, Repetto, McDonald McGinn, Chung, Nomaru, Campbell, Blonska, Bassett, Chow, Mlynarski, Swillen, Vermeesch, Devriendt, Gothelf, Carmel, Michaelovsky, Schneider, Eliez, Antonarakis, Coleman, Tomita-mitchell, Mitchell, Digilio, Dallapiccola, Marino, Philip, Busa, Kushan-Wells, Bearden, Piotrowicz, Hawuła, Roberts, Tassone, Simon, van Duin, van Amelsvoort, Kates, Zackai, Johnston, Cutler, Agopian, Goldmuntz, Mitchell, Wang, Emanuel, Morrow, Mcginn, Chung, Nomaru, Campbell, Blonska, Bassett, Chow, Mlynarski, Swillen, Vermeesch, Devriendt, Gothelf, Carmel, Michaelovsky, Schneider, Eliez, Antonarakis, Coleman, Tomita-mitchell, Mitchell, Digilio, Dallapiccola, Marino, Philip, Busa, Kushan-Wells, Bearden, Piotrowicz, Hawuła, Roberts, Tassone, Simon, Van Duin, Van Amelsvoort, Kates, Zackai, Johnston, Cutler, Agopian, Goldmuntz, Mitchell, Wang, Emanuel and Morrow2017) and several psychiatric problems (Schneider et al., Reference Schneider, Debbané, Bassett, Chow, Fung, van den Bree, Owen, Murphy, Niarchou, Kates, Antshel, Fremont, McDonald-McGinn, Gur, Zackai, Vorstman, Duijff, Klaassen, Swillen, Gothelf, Green, Weizman, Van Amelsvoort, Evers, Boot, Shashi, Hooper, Bearden, Jalbrzikowski, Armando, Vicari, Murphy, Ousley, Campbell, Simon and Eliez2014). Cognitive impairments (Oskarsdóttir et al., Reference Oskarsdóttir, Vujic and Fasth2004; Bassett et al., Reference Bassett, Chow, Husted, Weksberg, Caluseriu, Webb and Gatzoulis2005; Biswas and Furniss, Reference Biswas and Furniss2016; Norkett et al., Reference Norkett, Lincoln, Gonzalez-Heydrich and D'Angelo2017) are part of the core symptoms of the syndrome. Additionally, approximately one in four individuals with 22q11DS develop a psychotic disorder, making 22q11DS one of the greatest known risk factors for developing psychosis (Bassett, Reference Bassett2011).Therefore, it is suggested that 22q11DS represents a valuable model for the study of neurobiological factors underlying both cognitive impairments (Oskarsdóttir et al., Reference Oskarsdóttir, Vujic and Fasth2004; Bassett et al., Reference Bassett, Chow, Husted, Weksberg, Caluseriu, Webb and Gatzoulis2005; Biswas and Furniss, Reference Biswas and Furniss2016; Norkett et al., Reference Norkett, Lincoln, Gonzalez-Heydrich and D'Angelo2017) and psychotic disorders (Gur et al., Reference Gur, Bassett, McDonald-McGinn, Bearden, Chow, Emanuel, Owen, Swillen, Van den Bree, Vermeesch, Vorstman, Warren, Lehner and Morrow2017). Although the biological factors underlying psychotic disorders and (their) cognitive symptoms are still poorly understood, there is evidence suggesting for aberrant dopamine (DA) levels in several brain regions (Howes et al., Reference Howes, Kambeitz, Kim, Stahl, Slifstein, Abi-Dargham and Kapur2012; Fusar-Poli and Meyer-Lindenberg, Reference Fusar-Poli and Meyer-Lindenberg2013), including the prefrontal cortex (PFC) (Slifstein et al., Reference Slifstein, van de Giessen, Van Snellenberg, Thompson, Narendran, Gil, Hackett, Girgis, Ojeil, Moore, D'Souza, Malison, Huang, Lim, Nabulsi, Carson, Lieberman and Abi-Dargham2015).

Alterations in DA neurotransmission are also suggested to underlie some of the psychiatric problems typically seen in 22q11DS (Boot et al., Reference Boot, Booij, Zinkstok, Abeling, de Haan, Baas, Linszen and van Amelsvoort2008, Reference Boot, Booij, Abeling, Meijer, da Silva Alves, Zinkstok, Baas, Linszen and van Amelsvoort2011a; Evers et al., Reference Evers, Curfs, Bakker, Boot, da Silva Alves, Abeling, Bierau, Drukker and van Amelsvoort2014; de Koning et al., Reference de Koning, van Duin, Boot, Bloemen, Bakker, Abel and van Amelsvoort2015). These alterations are possibly due to haplo-insufficiency (reduced dosage of the gene due to hemizygosity) of the catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) gene, located on the deleted region and coding for the enzyme that catabolizes extracellular DA (Chen et al., Reference Chen, Lipska, Halim, Ma, Matsumoto, Melhem, Kolachana, Hyde, Herman, Apud, Egan, Kleinman and Weinberger2004). Especially frontal DA is thought to be affected by COMT haploinsufficiency (Yavich et al., Reference Yavich, Forsberg, Karayiorgou, Gogos and Männistö2007) in 22q11DS. This could be explained by the relatively low density of the DA transporter in the PFC (Sesack et al., Reference Sesack, Hawrylak, Matus, Guido and Levey1998), resulting in a DA dependency of COMT enzyme activity for clearance (Tunbridge et al., Reference Tunbridge, Lane and Harrison2007). It has been indicated that 50% of the prefrontal DA clearance results from COMT activity (Yavich et al., Reference Yavich, Forsberg, Karayiorgou, Gogos and Männistö2007). Since patients with 22q11DS have only one copy of the COMT gene, which is associated with reduced COMT gene expression (van Beveren et al., Reference van Beveren, Krab, Swagemakers, Buitendijk, Buitendijk, Boot, van der Spek, Elgersma and van Amelsvoort2012) and enzyme concentrations (Gothelf et al., Reference Gothelf, Law, Frisch, Chen, Zarchi, Michaelovsky, Ren-Patterson, Lipska, Carmel, Kolachana, Weizman and Weinberger2014), they may consequently be chronically exposed to abnormally high DA levels (Boot et al., Reference Boot, Booij, Zinkstok, Abeling, de Haan, Baas, Linszen and van Amelsvoort2008), particularly in the PFC. We previously showed that the COMT functional polymorphism Val158Met indeed affects DA function in 22q11DS (Boot et al., Reference Boot, Booij, Zinkstok, Baas, Swillen, Owen, Murphy, Murphy, Linszen and Van Amelsvoort2011b). 22q11DS Val-hemizygotes have higher post-synaptic striatal DA D2/3 non-displaceable receptor binding potential (D2/3R BPND) compared to carriers with the relatively unstable and less active COMT Met-allele (Boot et al., Reference Boot, Booij, Zinkstok, Baas, Swillen, Owen, Murphy, Murphy, Linszen and Van Amelsvoort2011b), further implicating altered DA neurotransmission.

The COMT Val/Met genotype has also been related to (dys)function of frontal brain regions in the psychosis continuum (Egan et al., Reference Egan, Goldberg, Kolachana, Callicott, Mazzanti, Straub, Goldman and Weinberger2001; Hernaus et al., Reference Hernaus, Collip, Lataster, Ceccarini, Kenis, Booij, Pruessner, van Laere, van Winkel, van Os and Myin-Germeys2013). Abnormalities in frontal brain DA have been hypothesized to especially underlie cognitive and negative symptoms of psychotic disorders (Howes and Kapur, Reference Howes and Kapur2009; Howes et al., Reference Howes, Kambeitz, Kim, Stahl, Slifstein, Abi-Dargham and Kapur2012), which may also be true for 22q11DS (Stoddard et al., Reference Stoddard, Niendam, Hendren, Carter and Simon2010; Schneider et al., Reference Schneider, Debbané, Bassett, Chow, Fung, van den Bree, Owen, Murphy, Niarchou, Kates, Antshel, Fremont, McDonald-McGinn, Gur, Zackai, Vorstman, Duijff, Klaassen, Swillen, Gothelf, Green, Weizman, Van Amelsvoort, Evers, Boot, Shashi, Hooper, Bearden, Jalbrzikowski, Armando, Vicari, Murphy, Ousley, Campbell, Simon and Eliez2014; Tang et al., Reference Tang, Yi, Calkins, Whinna, Kohler, Souders, McDonald-McGinn, Zackai, Emanuel, Gur and Gur2014). Frontal DA neurotransmission has also been related to (impairments in) different neuropsychological functional domains, including memory, motivation, attention, and concentration (Howes and Kapur, Reference Howes and Kapur2009; Jonas et al., Reference Jonas, Montojo and Bearden2014; Slifstein et al., Reference Slifstein, van de Giessen, Van Snellenberg, Thompson, Narendran, Gil, Hackett, Girgis, Ojeil, Moore, D'Souza, Malison, Huang, Lim, Nabulsi, Carson, Lieberman and Abi-Dargham2015). In addition, the COMT genotype is found to modulate cognitive functioning, relying on frontal DA neurotransmission, in psychotic disorder (Jonas et al., Reference Jonas, Montojo and Bearden2014; Slifstein et al., Reference Slifstein, van de Giessen, Van Snellenberg, Thompson, Narendran, Gil, Hackett, Girgis, Ojeil, Moore, D'Souza, Malison, Huang, Lim, Nabulsi, Carson, Lieberman and Abi-Dargham2015) and in 22q11DS (Gothelf et al., Reference Gothelf, Eliez, Thompson, Hinard, Penniman, Feinstein, Kwon, Jin, Jo, Antonarakis, Morris and Reiss2005; de Koning et al., Reference de Koning, Boot, Bloemen, van Duin, Abel, de Haan, Linszen and van Amelsvoort2012; Carmel et al., Reference Carmel, Zarchi, Michaelovsky, Frisch, Patya, Green, Gothelf and Weizman2014). Moreover the COMT genotype has been implicated in dopaminergic drug effects on cognitive functioning (Schacht, Reference Schacht2016).

In summary, there is evidence for abnormal frontal DA functioning in cognitive impairments, psychotic disorders, and implications for altered DA function in 22q11DS. More insight into the neurobiological factors associated with both psychotic disorder and cognitive deficits in 22q11DS can be gained, by investigating frontal DA function in 22q11DS using in vivo molecular imaging methods.

Neuroimaging techniques consistently showed both aberrant frontal brain anatomy and function as well as an effect of COMT Val/Met genotype in 22q11DS (van Amelsvoort et al., Reference van Amelsvoort, Daly, Robertson, Suckling, Ng, Critchley, Owen, Henry, Murphy and Murphy2001, Reference van Amelsvoort, Zinkstok, Figee, Daly, Morris, Owen, Murphy, De Haan, Linszen, Glaser and Murphy2008; Gothelf et al., Reference Gothelf, Eliez, Thompson, Hinard, Penniman, Feinstein, Kwon, Jin, Jo, Antonarakis, Morris and Reiss2005; Zinkstok and van Amelsvoort, Reference Zinkstok and van Amelsvoort2005; Kates et al., Reference Kates, Antshel, Abdulsabur, Colgan, Funke, Fremont, Higgins, Kucherlapati and Shprintzen2006; Howes et al., Reference Howes, Kambeitz, Kim, Stahl, Slifstein, Abi-Dargham and Kapur2012; Shashi et al., Reference Shashi, Veerapandiyan, Keshavan, Zapadka, Schoch, Kwapil, Hooper and Stanley2012; van Beveren et al., Reference van Beveren, Krab, Swagemakers, Buitendijk, Buitendijk, Boot, van der Spek, Elgersma and van Amelsvoort2012; Jonas et al., Reference Jonas, Montojo and Bearden2014).

In addition, molecular imaging techniques, including [11C]DTBZ- and [18F]fallypride positron emission tomography (PET) and [123I]IBZM single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), have been used successfully in 22q11DS to investigate abnormalities in the striatal DA system (Boot et al., Reference Boot, Booij, Zinkstok, de Haan, Linszen, Baas and van Amelsvoort2010; Butcher et al., Reference Butcher, Marras, Pondal, Rusjan, Boot, Christopher, Repetto, Fritsch, Chow, Masellis, Strafella and Lang2017; van Duin et al., Reference van Duin, Kasanova, Hernaus, Ceccarini, Heinzel, Mottaghy, Mohammadkhani-Shali, Winz, Frank, Beck, Booij, Myin-Germeys and van Amelsvoort2018). However, no studies to date have investigated frontal DA signaling in patients with 22q11DS. This can be measured in vivo with PET, using high-affinity radioligands such as the highly selective DA D2/3 receptor (D2/3R) radioligand [18F]fallypride, successfully used to probe frontal DA functioning (Lataster et al., Reference Lataster, Collip, Ceccarini, Haas, Booij, Van Os, Pruessner, Van Laere and Myin-Germeys2011; Ceccarini et al., Reference Ceccarini, Vrieze, Koole, Muylle, Bormans, Claes and Van Laere2012; Hernaus et al., Reference Hernaus, Collip, Lataster, Ceccarini, Kenis, Booij, Pruessner, van Laere, van Winkel, van Os and Myin-Germeys2013; Nagano Saito et al., Reference Nagano-Saito, Dagher, Booij and Gravel2013).

The present study aimed to investigate, for the first time, frontal D2/3R BPND in 22q11DS using [18F]fallypride PET. Because of COMT haploinsufficiency in 22q11DS and previously described findings of SPECT and PET studies (Boot et al., Reference Boot, Booij, Zinkstok, de Haan, Linszen, Baas and van Amelsvoort2010, Reference Boot, Booij, Zinkstok, Baas, Swillen, Owen, Murphy, Murphy, Linszen and Van Amelsvoort2011b; Butcher et al., Reference Butcher, Marras, Pondal, Rusjan, Boot, Christopher, Repetto, Fritsch, Chow, Masellis, Strafella and Lang2017; van Duin et al., Reference van Duin, Kasanova, Hernaus, Ceccarini, Heinzel, Mottaghy, Mohammadkhani-Shali, Winz, Frank, Beck, Booij, Myin-Germeys and van Amelsvoort2018), we expected reduced D2/3R BPND in frontal brain regions compared to healthy controls (HCs), as a proxy marker of chronically increased extracellular frontal DA levels.

Materials and methods

Participants

Fourteen non-psychotic adult individuals (eight females and six males, mean age = 34.6 years, s.d. = 9.7 years) with 22q11DS and no family history of psychotic disorder were included. They were compared to a previously published (Kasanova et al., Reference Kasanova, Ceccarini, Frank, van Amelsvoort, Booij, Heinzel, Mottaghy and Myin-Germeys2017, Reference Kasanova, Ceccarini, Frank, van Amelsvoort, Booij, van Duin, Steinhart, Vaessen, Heinzel, Mottaghy and Myin-Germeys2018) sample of 18 HCs (12 females and six males, mean age = 38.1 years, s.d. = 15.6 years). Recruitment and exclusion criteria of HC have been described previously (Kasanova et al., Reference Kasanova, Ceccarini, Frank, van Amelsvoort, Booij, Heinzel, Mottaghy and Myin-Germeys2017, Reference Kasanova, Ceccarini, Frank, van Amelsvoort, Booij, van Duin, Steinhart, Vaessen, Heinzel, Mottaghy and Myin-Germeys2018).

All participants were capable of giving written informed consent and did so after receiving full information on the study. Participants were treated in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The study was approved by the Medical Ethical Committee of Maastricht University (The Netherlands) and the RWTH Aachen University ethics committee of Universitäts Klinikum (Germany). The PET protocol was additionally approved by the national authority for radiation protection in humans in Germany (Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz, BfS). Participants received coupons with a total value of €100 for participating in the PET study.

Exclusion criteria for 22q11DS participants were: (1) lifetime history of psychosis as determined by the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I.) (Sheehan et al., Reference Sheehan, Lecrubier, Sheehan, Amorim, Janavs, Weiller, Hergueta, Baker and Dunbar1998) and/or current or previous use of antipsychotic or stimulant medication, (2) contraindications for MRI and/or PET imaging, (3) pregnancy (verified on the day of the scan using a pregnancy test), (4) current drug use (verified on the day of the scan using a urine drug test).

Two HC participants were cigarette smokers. Given the well-known association between smoking (status) and DA function (Mansvelder and McGehee, Reference Mansvelder and McGehee2000), they were asked to refrain from nicotine use on the day of the imaging session. One HC was excluded due to positioning difficulties during scanning. Another HC participant was excluded based on non-compliance with the study procedures. Two 22q11DS participants used the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors escitalopram (10 mg) or paroxetine (20 mg). Since this may influence DA functioning (Tanda et al., Reference Tanda, Carboni, Frau and Chiara1994; Damsa et al., Reference Damsa, Bumb and Bianchi-Demicheli2004) they were asked to refrain from taking their medication on the day of the imaging session. Other participants did not take any psychotropic medication. The final sample consisted of 16 HC and 14 22q11DS participants (Table 1).

Table 1. Demographics and binding potential (BPND) per region of interest (ROI)c

HC, healthy controls; IQ, intelligence quotient; PANSS, positive and negative symptom scale: total score rage min 30–max 210, positive and negative symptom score range min 7–max 49, general psychopathology score range min 16–max 112; PFC, prefrontal cortex; OFC, orbito frontal cortex; ACC, anterior cingulate cortex.

**p < 0.01 and survived Bonferroni correction for multiple testing a = t test, b = χ2 test, c = 2 participants with 22q11DS used selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) escitalopram (10 mg) and paroxetine (20 mg).

Behavioral and physiological assessments

Full scale intelligence quotient (IQ) of the 22q11DS participants was determined using a shortened Dutch version of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale – III (WAIS-III) (Wechsler, Reference Wechsler1997) and was assessed on the day of scanning or in a separate session before or after the PET session (mean = 52.8 days, s.d. = 49.8 days). The shortened WAIS-III consists of four subtests: arithmetic and information (verbal IQ) digit-symbol-coding and block patterns (performance IQ) (Wechsler, Reference Wechsler1997; Brooks and Weaver, Reference Brooks and Weaver2005). In the HC group, total IQ was estimated using the Dutch Adult Reading Test (DART) (Schmand et al., Reference Schmand, Bakker, Saan and Louman1991). Other assessments of the HC group were described previously (Kasanova et al., Reference Kasanova, Ceccarini, Frank, van Amelsvoort, Booij, Heinzel, Mottaghy and Myin-Germeys2017, Reference Kasanova, Ceccarini, Frank, van Amelsvoort, Booij, van Duin, Steinhart, Vaessen, Heinzel, Mottaghy and Myin-Germeys2018).

To assess the presence and severity of psychotic symptoms, the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) (Kay et al., Reference Kay, Fiszbein and O1987) for psychotic disorders was used.

Image data collection

The [18F]fallypride PET data collection acquired for this research was part of a comprehensive PET acquisition protocol, previously carried out to investigate reinforcement learning task-induced striatal DA release (Kasanova et al., Reference Kasanova, Ceccarini, Frank, van Amelsvoort, Booij, Heinzel, Mottaghy and Myin-Germeys2017, Reference Kasanova, Ceccarini, Frank, van Amelsvoort, Booij, van Duin, Steinhart, Vaessen, Heinzel, Mottaghy and Myin-Germeys2018; van Duin et al., Reference van Duin, Kasanova, Hernaus, Ceccarini, Heinzel, Mottaghy, Mohammadkhani-Shali, Winz, Frank, Beck, Booij, Myin-Germeys and van Amelsvoort2018). For the current PET analyses, only the [18F]fallypride sensorimotor control and baseline conditions were considered, including the first 120 min of the scan protocol (Fig. 1). All details of the whole PET procedure and the structural MRI and PET data acquisition have been described previously (Kasanova et al., Reference Kasanova, Ceccarini, Frank, van Amelsvoort, Booij, Heinzel, Mottaghy and Myin-Germeys2017; van Duin et al., Reference van Duin, Kasanova, Hernaus, Ceccarini, Heinzel, Mottaghy, Mohammadkhani-Shali, Winz, Frank, Beck, Booij, Myin-Germeys and van Amelsvoort2018) and additional analyses including the control only condition (excluding the 25 min baseline scan) to confirm reliability of the used method can be found in the Supplementary Materials.

Fig. 1. PET acquisition protocol. The original PET acquisition protocol. In gray, the part of the PET acquisition protocol used for analyses in this study is highlighted. *TS = 68Ge/68Ga-transmission scan, timeline in minutes. PET control: Sensori-motor control condition: Participants conducted a sensori-motor control condition prior to the baseline and experimental condition (previously described in Kasanova et al., Reference Kasanova, Ceccarini, Frank, van Amelsvoort, Booij, Heinzel, Mottaghy and Myin-Germeys2017, Reference Kasanova, Ceccarini, Frank, van Amelsvoort, Booij, van Duin, Steinhart, Vaessen, Heinzel, Mottaghy and Myin-Germeys2018). This condition was designed to contain all features of the task of the experimental condition, without the main manipulation of the experimental condition; outcome-based associative learning. This control condition was presented on a 30-inch screen placed in the field of view of the participant. Similar to the experimental condition, images of a stimulus (photographs of actors) appeared on the screen and participants had to choose between one of two items depicted under the stimulus, for instance, indicate whether the actor was male or female, had short or long hair. The participant was instructed before the task that there was no right or wrong answer. No feedback was provided during the task. The control condition consisted of six blocks of 120 trials, in which 18 actors were presented 40 times, lasting approximately 10 min per block with intertrial intervals where the previous stimulus and items were still visible on the screen for 4 s. The sensori-motor control scan lasted 80 min and consisted of a total of 36 frames (6 × 60 s frames + 30 × 120 s frames). PET baseline condition: During the baseline condition the participants were instructed to lay down and rest in the scanner. The baseline scan lasted 25 min and consisted of 18 (120 s) frames.

Image processing – dopamine D2/3 receptor binding potential maps – and analysis

Image pre-processing procedures were performed as described previously (Kasanova et al., Reference Kasanova, Ceccarini, Frank, van Amelsvoort, Booij, Heinzel, Mottaghy and Myin-Germeys2017, Reference Kasanova, Ceccarini, Frank, van Amelsvoort, Booij, van Duin, Steinhart, Vaessen, Heinzel, Mottaghy and Myin-Germeys2018; van Duin et al., Reference van Duin, Kasanova, Hernaus, Ceccarini, Heinzel, Mottaghy, Mohammadkhani-Shali, Winz, Frank, Beck, Booij, Myin-Germeys and van Amelsvoort2018) using an automatic pipeline in the PMOD brain PNEURO tool (v. 3.8, PMOD Technologies, Zurich, Switzerland) (see Supplementary Materials). For each subject, individual voxel-wise parametric maps of DA D2/3R BPND (Innis et al., Reference Innis, Cunningham, Delforge, Fujita, Gjedde, Gunn, Holden, Houle, Huang, Ichise, Iida, Ito, Kimura, Koeppe, Knudsen, Knuuti, Lammertsma, Laruelle, Logan, Maguire, Mintun, Morris, Parsey, Price, Slifstein, Sossi, Suhara, Votaw, Wong and Carson2007) were generated in patient space using the Ichise's Multilinear Reference Tissue Model 2 (MRTM2) (Ichise et al., Reference Ichise, Liow, Lu, Takano, Model, Toyama, Suhara, Suzuki, Innis and Carson2003). The cerebellum, including the cerebellar hemispheres without the vermis, was used as the reference region, because of its relative lack of D2/3R (Hall et al., Reference Hall, Sedvall, Magnusson, Kopp, Halldin and Farde1994). The details of the MRTM2 analyses can be found in the Supplementary Materials. For the regional-based group comparison analysis (HC v. 22q11DS), a predefined prefrontal mask was generated in patient space for each subject according to the Hammers N30R83 atlas (Hammers et al., Reference Hammers, Allom, Koepp, Free, Myers, Lemieux, Mitchell, Brooks and Duncan2003). This predefined mask included composite and bilateral region of interests (ROIs), for: (1) PFC, including orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), inferior, middle, and superior frontal gyrus, (2) OFC only, including the anterior, medial, lateral, and parietal orbital gyrus, (3) anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), including only the subgenual and presubgenual ACC, and (4) anterior cingulate gyrus (Fig. 2 and online Supplementary Fig. S1).

Fig. 2. Masks for the frontal cortex. The mask is overlaid on a structural MRI scan and shown in transversal (a), sagittal (b), and coronal (c) views. MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; PFC, prefrontal cortex; OFC, orbitofrontal cortex; ACC, anterior cingulate cortex; ant cing gyr, anterior cingulate gyrus.

Statistical analyses

Statistical analyses were conducted in SPSS (IBM SPSS Statistics version 25.0). Between-group differences in demographic characteristics were investigated using χ2 and independent sample t tests. Average BPND values within each ROI (PFC, OFC, ACC, anterior cingulate gyrus) were determined and compared between the 22q11DS and HC group using analysis of variance. Post-hoc analyses were conducted to investigate group differences between HC and 22q11DS in BPND in all sub-regions of the frontal ROIs performing an analysis of variance. In the 22q11DS group, to investigate the relation between frontal BPND, IQ, and PANSS scores, Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated with two-tailed tests of significance. The analyses were corrected for n = 4 ROIs, using a Bonferroni correction (critical p value p = 0.05/4 = 0.013).

Results

Demographic data

Sociodemographic variables of the sample are summarized in Table 1. There were no significant differences between the 22q11DS and the HC group in age (t = 0.74, p = 0.48) and gender distribution (22q11DS M/F ratio 6/8; HC M/F ratio 4/12; χ2 = 1.07, p = 0.30). As expected, IQ-scores were significantly lower in the non-psychotic [PANSS (Leucht et al., Reference Leucht, Kane, Kissling, Hamann, Etschel and Engel2005) scores <58] 22q11DS group compared with the HC group (t = 6.48, p < 0.001), given that impaired cognitive functioning is a core characteristic of the syndrome (Jonas et al., Reference Jonas, Montojo and Bearden2014; Schneider et al., Reference Schneider, Debbané, Bassett, Chow, Fung, van den Bree, Owen, Murphy, Niarchou, Kates, Antshel, Fremont, McDonald-McGinn, Gur, Zackai, Vorstman, Duijff, Klaassen, Swillen, Gothelf, Green, Weizman, Van Amelsvoort, Evers, Boot, Shashi, Hooper, Bearden, Jalbrzikowski, Armando, Vicari, Murphy, Ousley, Campbell, Simon and Eliez2014; Weinberger et al., Reference Weinberger, Yi, Calkins and Guri2016).

Frontal D2/3R BPND in 22q11DS v. HC

Compared with HC, adults with 22q11DS revealed a significant lower D2/3R BPND in the PFC (F = 4.91, p = 0.035) and anterior cingulate gyrus (F = 12.07, p = 0.002) (see Table 1 and Fig. 3, individual data points are plotted in online Supplementary Fig. S2), suggesting lower receptor BPND in 22q11DS. There was no significant difference in D2/3R BPND between HC and adults with 22q11DS in the OFC and ACC (F = 1.47, p = 0.24 and F = 0.40, p = 0.53, respectively; Table 1 and Fig. 3). Results of separate sub-regions of the PFC, OFC, and ACC can be found in the online Supplementary Table S1 and Fig. S3. There was no significant association between D2/3R BPND in any of the frontal ROIs (p > 0.05) and IQ within the HC group and with IQ or PANSS scores within the 22q11DS group.

Fig. 3. Binding potential (BPND) per region of interest (ROI). Average dopamine D2/3 receptor binding potential (D2/3R BPND) (y-axis) in the prefrontal cortex (PFC), the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), and the anterior cingulate gyrus (x-axis). The healthy control (HC) group is depicted in gray and the 22q11DS group in white. Mean D2/3R BPND was significantly (**) lower in the 22q11DS group compared with the HC group in the anterior cingulate gyrus. Error bars represent standard deviation's (s.d.s). **p < 0.013 survived Bonferroni correction for multiple testing. HC, healthy controls.

Discussion

Here we report the results of the first study investigating frontal dopaminergic neurotransmission in 22q11DS, a genetic syndrome that is considered a valuable model for the study of biomarkers of psychotic disorders and cognitive deficits. As hypothesized, we found lower frontal D2/3 receptor BPND in adults with 22q11DS compared with HCs, indicating abnormal frontal DA levels in adults with 22q11DS.

Lower frontal D2/3R BPND in 22q11DS

Lower D2/3R BPND in frontal brain regions adds to the growing evidence indicating aberrant DA neurotransmission in 22q11DS (Boot et al., Reference Boot, Booij, Zinkstok, Abeling, de Haan, Baas, Linszen and van Amelsvoort2008, Reference Boot, Booij, Zinkstok, de Haan, Linszen, Baas and van Amelsvoort2010, Reference Boot, Booij, Abeling, Meijer, da Silva Alves, Zinkstok, Baas, Linszen and van Amelsvoort2011a; de Koning et al., Reference de Koning, Boot, Bloemen, van Duin, Abel, de Haan, Linszen and van Amelsvoort2012; Evers et al., Reference Evers, Curfs, Bakker, Boot, da Silva Alves, Abeling, Bierau, Drukker and van Amelsvoort2014; Butcher et al., Reference Butcher, Marras, Pondal, Rusjan, Boot, Christopher, Repetto, Fritsch, Chow, Masellis, Strafella and Lang2017; van Duin et al., Reference van Duin, Kasanova, Hernaus, Ceccarini, Heinzel, Mottaghy, Mohammadkhani-Shali, Winz, Frank, Beck, Booij, Myin-Germeys and van Amelsvoort2018). There are several potential underlying mechanisms that could explain this novel finding.

It is thought that the radiotracer [18F]fallypride competes with endogenous DA levels for D2/3 receptor binding (Morris et al., Reference Morris, Fisher, Alpert, Rauch and Fischman1995; Ceccarini et al., Reference Ceccarini, Vrieze, Koole, Muylle, Bormans, Claes and Van Laere2012). Lower receptor BPND can therefore be the result of a higher DA concentration in the synaptic cleft, which results in lower BPND due to competition and/or a down-regulation of post-synaptic DA receptor density (Wong et al., Reference Wong, Wagner, Tune, Dannals, Pearlson, Links, Tamminga, Broussolle, Ravert and Wilson1986; Boot et al., Reference Boot, Booij, Abeling, Meijer, da Silva Alves, Zinkstok, Baas, Linszen and van Amelsvoort2011a). This adds to accumulating evidence indicating a hyperdopaminergic state as a general endophenotype of 22q11DS in their young adulthood (Boot et al., Reference Boot, Booij, Zinkstok, Abeling, de Haan, Baas, Linszen and van Amelsvoort2008; Butcher et al., Reference Butcher, Marras, Pondal, Rusjan, Boot, Christopher, Repetto, Fritsch, Chow, Masellis, Strafella and Lang2017). In line with current results, a recent PET study in non-psychotic adults with 22q11DS found higher pre-synaptic DA synthesis capacity in striatal brain regions (Butcher et al., Reference Butcher, Marras, Pondal, Rusjan, Boot, Christopher, Repetto, Fritsch, Chow, Masellis, Strafella and Lang2017). A hyperdopaminergic state could be the result of reduced frontal DA clearance compared with HCs, caused by COMT haploinsufficiency in 22q11DS (Chen et al., Reference Chen, Lipska, Halim, Ma, Matsumoto, Melhem, Kolachana, Hyde, Herman, Apud, Egan, Kleinman and Weinberger2004; Tunbridge et al., Reference Tunbridge, Weickert, Kleinman, Herman, Chen, Kolachana, Harrison and Weinberger2006). COMT hemizygosity in 22q11DS is suggested to result in reduced COMT enzyme activity and consequently higher DA levels, especially in the PFC (Tunbridge et al., Reference Tunbridge, Weickert, Kleinman, Herman, Chen, Kolachana, Harrison and Weinberger2006; Boot et al., Reference Boot, Booij, Zinkstok, Abeling, de Haan, Baas, Linszen and van Amelsvoort2008; van Beveren et al., Reference van Beveren, Krab, Swagemakers, Buitendijk, Buitendijk, Boot, van der Spek, Elgersma and van Amelsvoort2012), in line with our findings. It has been suggested that the ‘clearance role’ of COMT and the effect of COMT Val/Met genotype in (frontal) DA turnover becomes increasingly important under challenged conditions (Huotari et al., Reference Huotari, Gogos, Karayiorgou, Koponen, Forsberg, Raasmaja, Hyttinen and Männistö2002; Yavich et al., Reference Yavich, Forsberg, Karayiorgou, Gogos and Männistö2007), for instance during stress task-induced DA release paradigms (Hernaus et al., Reference Hernaus, Collip, Lataster, Ceccarini, Kenis, Booij, Pruessner, van Laere, van Winkel, van Os and Myin-Germeys2013). Future studies, possibly using a challenge condition and larger samples, are necessary to elaborate on the role of COMT genotype on frontal DA functioning in 22q11DS.

Furthermore, a chronic exposure to higher endogenous DA could have a toxic effect on dopaminergic neurons and is proposed to precede the onset of DA denervation in 22q11DS which is, amongst others, implicated in Parkinson's disease (PD) (Goldstein et al., Reference Goldstein, Kopin and Sharabi2014; Butcher et al., Reference Butcher, Marras, Pondal, Rusjan, Boot, Christopher, Repetto, Fritsch, Chow, Masellis, Strafella and Lang2017). Recent studies indeed show that 22q11DS patients older than 30–40 years have an increased risk for the development of PD (Booij et al., Reference Booij, Van Amelsvoort and Boot2010; Butcher et al., Reference Butcher, Marras, Pondal, Rusjan, Boot, Christopher, Repetto, Fritsch, Chow, Masellis, Strafella and Lang2017), further linking abnormal dopaminergic neurotransmission to 22q11DS.

It is interesting to speculate about the clinical implications of the observed lower frontal D2/3 BPND and the proposed hyperdopaminergic state. On the one hand our results may be associated with cognitive impairments often seen in 22q11DS (Oskarsdóttir et al., Reference Oskarsdóttir, Vujic and Fasth2004; Bassett et al., Reference Bassett, Chow, Husted, Weksberg, Caluseriu, Webb and Gatzoulis2005; Biswas and Furniss, Reference Biswas and Furniss2016; Norkett et al., Reference Norkett, Lincoln, Gonzalez-Heydrich and D'Angelo2017). Abnormal frontal DA levels may play a role in the induction of cognitive deficits based on the inverted U-shaped curve model (Goldman-Rakic et al., Reference Goldman-Rakic, Muly and Williams2000; Gothelf et al., Reference Gothelf, Schaer and Eliez2008). Thus the lower frontal D2/3 BPND in 22q11DS could be the result of excessive DA levels inducing cognitive deficits, including deficits in memory, attention, and reward processing (Gothelf et al., Reference Gothelf, Schaer and Eliez2008). Such cognitive domains have previously been shown (using e.g. single-cell recordings and PET imaging) to rely, amongst others, on frontal DA functioning (Goldman-Rakic et al., Reference Goldman-Rakic, Muly and Williams2000; Slifstein et al., Reference Slifstein, van de Giessen, Van Snellenberg, Thompson, Narendran, Gil, Hackett, Girgis, Ojeil, Moore, D'Souza, Malison, Huang, Lim, Nabulsi, Carson, Lieberman and Abi-Dargham2015) and several of these cognitive domains have been found to be impaired in 22q11DS (de Koning et al., Reference de Koning, Boot, Bloemen, van Duin, Abel, de Haan, Linszen and van Amelsvoort2012; Weinberger et al., Reference Weinberger, Yi, Calkins and Guri2016; Norkett et al., Reference Norkett, Lincoln, Gonzalez-Heydrich and D'Angelo2017; van Duin et al., Reference van Duin, Kasanova, Hernaus, Ceccarini, Heinzel, Mottaghy, Mohammadkhani-Shali, Winz, Frank, Beck, Booij, Myin-Germeys and van Amelsvoort2018). Future research including a comprehensive cognitive assessment tool is necessary, in order to associate cognitive functioning with frontal DA neurotransmission in 22q11DS.

Abnormal frontal DA levels could furthermore be related to the increased risk for developing psychotic disorders in 22q11DS. Problems in the cognitive domain often occur in psychotic disorders (Green and Nuechterlein, Reference Green and Nuechterlein1999; Nuechterlein et al., Reference Nuechterlein, Barch, Gold, Goldberg, Green and Heaton2004).

Moreover, the severity of (primarily) cognitive and negative symptoms of psychotic disorders relying on frontal DA function (Okubo et al., Reference Okubo, Suhara, Suzuki, Kobayashi, Inoue, Terasaki, Someya, Sassa, Sudo, Matsushima, Iyo, Tateno and Toru1997; Abi-Dargham et al., Reference Abi-Dargham, Mawlawi, Lombardo, Gil, Martinez, Huang, Hwang, Keilp, Kochan, Van Heertum, Gorman and Laruelle2002; Slifstein et al., Reference Slifstein, van de Giessen, Van Snellenberg, Thompson, Narendran, Gil, Hackett, Girgis, Ojeil, Moore, D'Souza, Malison, Huang, Lim, Nabulsi, Carson, Lieberman and Abi-Dargham2015) is likely to be associated with decreased DA release in frontal brain regions (Okubo et al., Reference Okubo, Suhara, Suzuki, Kobayashi, Inoue, Terasaki, Someya, Sassa, Sudo, Matsushima, Iyo, Tateno and Toru1997). Although a frontal hypodopaminergic state is proposed to be related to non-deleted psychosis (Slifstein et al., Reference Slifstein, van de Giessen, Van Snellenberg, Thompson, Narendran, Gil, Hackett, Girgis, Ojeil, Moore, D'Souza, Malison, Huang, Lim, Nabulsi, Carson, Lieberman and Abi-Dargham2015), we found lower frontal D2/3R BPND suggestive of a frontal hyperdopaminergic state and/or lower expression of post-synaptic DA receptor density (Wong et al., Reference Wong, Wagner, Tune, Dannals, Pearlson, Links, Tamminga, Broussolle, Ravert and Wilson1986; Boot et al., Reference Boot, Booij, Abeling, Meijer, da Silva Alves, Zinkstok, Baas, Linszen and van Amelsvoort2011a, Reference Boot, Booij, Zinkstok, Baas, Swillen, Owen, Murphy, Murphy, Linszen and Van Amelsvoort2011b) in non-psychotic adults with 22q11DS with (mild) cognitive impairments. This might be explained by the same mechanism as is proposed to result in cognitive dysfunction with the inverted U-shaped curve model (Goldman-Rakic et al., Reference Goldman-Rakic, Muly and Williams2000). This model suggests that either too much or too little frontal DA levels induce cognitive deficits, which could also be true for psychosis-related symptoms. It could additionally be explained by previously found differences in DAergic markers in 22q11DS compared with individuals with ultra-high risk (Vingerhoets et al., Reference Vingerhoets, Bloemen, Boot, Bakker, de Koning, da Silva Alves, Booij and van Amelsvoort2018). Disturbances of the DAergic system in the pathway to psychosis may be different in the 22q11DS population compared with other risk groups.

However, direct evidence for frontal dopaminergic alterations in psychotic disorders is inconsistent and previous findings are inconclusive (Kambeitz et al., Reference Kambeitz, Abi-Dargham, Kapur and Howes2014). In this study, we found results indicating a hyperdopaminergic state in non-psychotic 22q11DS individuals, suggesting that frontal dopaminergic alterations are present in this group regardless of psychopathology. Future research in a sample including also patients with psychotic symptoms with 22q11DS would be interesting to provide additional insight in the association between psychotic risk and frontal DA functioning.

Strengths and limitations

The main strength of this study is the use of a unique patient group with a well-defined genetic syndrome which is a valuable model for the study of biomarkers underlying, among others, cognitive impairments and psychotic disorders. Some limitations of the study should also be taken into account. First, the relatively small sample size of the sample and the use of antidepressant medication in some of the participants. We reanalyzed our main analyses excluding the 22q11DS subjects with medication and replicated our findings, indicating that the results were not affected by medication. Given the challenge of recruitment of (medication-naive) participants, the 22q11DS sample (size) could be considered representative, also in light of previous studies using similar paradigms (Hernaus et al., Reference Hernaus, Collip, Lataster, Ceccarini, Kenis, Booij, Pruessner, van Laere, van Winkel, van Os and Myin-Germeys2013; Kasanova et al., Reference Kasanova, Ceccarini, Frank, van Amelsvoort, Booij, Heinzel, Mottaghy and Myin-Germeys2017; van Duin et al., Reference van Duin, Kasanova, Hernaus, Ceccarini, Heinzel, Mottaghy, Mohammadkhani-Shali, Winz, Frank, Beck, Booij, Myin-Germeys and van Amelsvoort2018).

Secondly, given the well-known association between smoking (status) and DA function (Mansvelder and McGehee, Reference Mansvelder and McGehee2000), we reanalyzed our main analyses excluding the HC subjects that were habitual cigarette smokers and replicated our findings, indicating that the results were not affected by smoking status.

Additionally, the design of the scanning protocol may also have affected the results, and should be taken into consideration in future research. For the analysis of ‘relative resting state’ DA levels, from the original protocol, the sensorimotor control and baseline condition were analyzed, without the experimental condition (designed to induce reward-related DA release) (Kasanova et al., Reference Kasanova, Ceccarini, Frank, van Amelsvoort, Booij, Heinzel, Mottaghy and Myin-Germeys2017, Reference Kasanova, Ceccarini, Frank, van Amelsvoort, Booij, van Duin, Steinhart, Vaessen, Heinzel, Mottaghy and Myin-Germeys2018; van Duin et al., Reference van Duin, Kasanova, Hernaus, Ceccarini, Heinzel, Mottaghy, Mohammadkhani-Shali, Winz, Frank, Beck, Booij, Myin-Germeys and van Amelsvoort2018). This design is necessary to detect reliable task-induced changes on the [18F]fallypride uptake (Vernaleken et al., Reference Vernaleken, Peters, Raptis, Lin, Buchholz, Zhou, Winz, Rösch, Bartenstein, Wong, Schäfer and Gründer2011). A sensorimotor control task was used to control for sensorimotor influence on the experimental reward task condition and to keep subjects awake, in order to prevent unpredictable head movement. Although the subjects were well instructed before the sensorimotor control task (Fig. 1), the task might have influenced and elicited (sensorimotor-induced) DA release in frontal brain regions. However, this would have been the case for both the control and the 22q11DS group, and there is no evidence, to the best of our knowledge, to suggest that 22q11DS confers a different DA release to sensorimotor tasks compared with controls.

Furthermore, lower D2/3R BPND was found in the PFC and the anterior cingulate gyrus, however only the difference in the anterior cingulate gyrus survived the Bonferroni correction. Although D2/3R BPND seemed also lower in the OFC and ACC in 22q11DS compared with controls, this difference failed to reach significance. This could be due to a power issue and in increased sample sizes it is expected to find significant differences in these regions as well. More research is necessary to further explain the absence of significant differences in the OFC and ACC.

Conclusion

This study is the first to demonstrate lower frontal dopamine D2/3 receptor binding in adults with 22q11DS, which may represent a hyperdopaminergic state in frontal brain areas. This could be the result of haplo-insufficiency of COMT in these patients, and may play a role in their increased risk for developing cognitive impairments and psychotic disorders.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/S003329171900062X.

Author ORCIDs

Esther D. A. van Duin, 0000-0002-4679-522X.

Acknowledgements

We thank the participants and their families. The authors thank Wendy Beuken, Debora op ‘t Eijnde, Dennis Hernaus, Merrit Beck, India Teunissen, Justine Lamee, Lucas Martens, Nele Soons, Lara Janssen, Fabiana da Silva Alves, Bernward Oedekoven, and Ron Mengelers for their assistance in data collection and management.

Financial support

This work was supported by an ERC consolidator grant to Prof Dr Inez Myin-Germeys (ERC-2012-StG, project 309767 – INTERACT) and by the National Institute of Mental Health of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number U01MH101722. Jenny Ceccarini is a postdoctoral fellow of the Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO).

Conflict of interest

None.

Ethical standards

The authors assert that all procedures contributing to this work comply with the ethical standards of the relevant national and institutional committees on human experimentation and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008.

Footnotes

*

Shared last authorship

References

Abi-Dargham, A, Mawlawi, O, Lombardo, I, Gil, R, Martinez, D, Huang, Y, Hwang, D-R, Keilp, J, Kochan, L, Van Heertum, R, Gorman, JM and Laruelle, M (2002) Prefrontal dopamine D1 receptors and working memory in schizophrenia. The Journal of Neuroscience 22, 3708–3719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bassett, A (2011) Practical guidelines for managing patients with 22q11. 2 deletion syndrome. The Journal of Pediatrics 17, 281–294.Google Scholar
Bassett, AS, Chow, EWC, Husted, J, Weksberg, R, Caluseriu, O, Webb, GD and Gatzoulis, MA (2005) Clinical features of 78 adults with 22q11 deletion syndrome. American Journal of Medical Genetics 138 A, 307–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biswas, AB and Furniss, F (2016) Cognitive phenotype and psychiatric disorder in 22q11.2 deletion syndrome: a review. Research in Developmental Disabilities 53, 242–257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Booij, J, Van Amelsvoort, T and Boot, E (2010) Co-occurrence of early-onset Parkinson disease and 22q11.2 deletion syndrome: Potential role for dopamine transporter imaging. American Journal of Medical Genetics, Part A 152, 2937–2938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boot, E, Booij, J, Zinkstok, J, Abeling, N, de Haan, L, Baas, F, Linszen, D and van Amelsvoort, T (2008) Disrupted dopaminergic neurotransmission in 22q11 deletion syndrome. Neuropsychopharmacology 33, 1252–1258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boot, E, Booij, J, Zinkstok, JR, de Haan, L, Linszen, DH, Baas, F and van Amelsvoort, TA (2010) Striatal D₂ receptor binding in 22q11 deletion syndrome: an [123I]IBZM SPECT study. Journal of Psychopharmacology (Oxford, England) 24, 1525–1531.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boot, E, Booij, J, Abeling, N, Meijer, J, da Silva Alves, F, Zinkstok, J, Baas, F, Linszen, D and van Amelsvoort, T (2011 a) Dopamine metabolism in adults with 22q11 deletion syndrome, with and without schizophrenia – relationship with COMT Val108/158Met polymorphism, gender and symptomatology. Journal of Psychopharmacology (Oxford, England) 25, 888–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boot, E, Booij, J, Zinkstok, JR, Baas, F, Swillen, A, Owen, MJ, Murphy, DG, Murphy, KC, Linszen, DH and Van Amelsvoort, T (2011 b) COMT val158met genotype and striatal D2/3 receptor binding in adults with 22q11 deletion syndrome. Synapse 65, 967–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, BL and Weaver, LE (2005) Concurrent validity of WAIS-III short forms in a geriatric sample with suspected dementia: verbal, performance and full scale IQ scores. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 20, 1043–1051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butcher, NJ, Marras, C, Pondal, M, Rusjan, P, Boot, E, Christopher, L, Repetto, GM, Fritsch, R, Chow, EWC, Masellis, M, Strafella, AP and Lang, AE (2017) Neuroimaging and clinical features in adults with a 22q11 . 2 deletion at risk of Parkinson's disease. Brain 140, 1371–1383.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carmel, M, Zarchi, O, Michaelovsky, E, Frisch, A, Patya, M, Green, T, Gothelf, D and Weizman, A (2014) Association of COMT and PRODH gene variants with intelligence quotient (IQ) and executive functions in 22q11.2DS subjects. Journal of Psychiatric Research 56, 28–35.10.1016/j.jpsychires.2014.04.019CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ceccarini, J, Vrieze, E, Koole, M, Muylle, T, Bormans, G, Claes, S and Van Laere, K (2012) Optimized in vivo detection of dopamine release using 18F-fallypride PET. Journal of Nuclear Medicine 53, 1565–1572.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, J, Lipska, BK, Halim, N, Ma, QD, Matsumoto, M, Melhem, S, Kolachana, BS, Hyde, TM, Herman, MM, Apud, J, Egan, MF, Kleinman, JE and Weinberger, DR (2004) Functional analysis of genetic variation in catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT): effects on mRNA, protein, and enzyme activity in postmortem human brain. American Journal of Human Genetics 75, 807–821.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Damsa, C, Bumb, A and Bianchi-Demicheli, F (2004) ‘Dopamine-dependent’ side effects of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors: a clinical review. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 65, 1064–1068.10.4088/JCP.v65n0806CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Koning, MB, Boot, E, Bloemen, OJN, van Duin, EDA, Abel, KM, de Haan, L, Linszen, DH and van Amelsvoort, TAMJ (2012) Startle reactivity and prepulse inhibition of the acoustic startle response are modulated by catechol-O-methyl-transferase Val(158) Met polymorphism in adults with 22q11 deletion syndrome. Journal of Psychopharmacology (Oxford, England) 26, 1548–1560.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Koning, MB, van Duin, EDA, Boot, E, Bloemen, OJN, Bakker, JA, Abel, KM and van Amelsvoort, TAMJ (2015) PRODH rs450046 and proline x COMT Val158Met interaction effects on intelligence and startle in adults with 22q11 deletion syndrome. Psychopharmacology 232, 3111–3122.10.1007/s00213-015-3971-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egan, MF, Goldberg, TE, Kolachana, BS, Callicott, JH, Mazzanti, CM, Straub, RE, Goldman, D and Weinberger, DR (2001) Effect of COMT Val108/158 Met genotype on frontal lobe function and risk for schizophrenia. PNAS 98, 6917–6922.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evers, LJM, Curfs, LMG, Bakker, JA, Boot, E, da Silva Alves, F, Abeling, N, Bierau, J, Drukker, M and van Amelsvoort, TAMJ (2014) Serotonergic, noradrenergic and dopaminergic markers are related to cognitive function in adults with 22q11 deletion syndrome. The International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology 17, 1159–1165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fusar-Poli, P and Meyer-Lindenberg, A (2013) Striatal presynaptic dopamine in schizophrenia, part II: meta-analysis of [18F/11C]-DOPA PET Studies. Schizophrenia Bulletin 39, 33–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldman-Rakic, PS, Muly, EC and Williams, GV (2000) D1 receptors in prefrontal cells and circuits. Brain Research Reviews 31, 295–301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldstein, DS, Kopin, IJ and Sharabi, Y (2014) Catecholamine autotoxicity. implications for pharmacology and therapeutics of Parkinson disease and related disorders. Pharmacology & Therapeutics 144, 268–282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gothelf, D, Eliez, S, Thompson, T, Hinard, C, Penniman, L, Feinstein, C, Kwon, H, Jin, S, Jo, B, Antonarakis, SE, Morris, MA and Reiss, AL (2005) COMT genotype predicts longitudinal cognitive decline and psychosis in 22q11.2 deletion syndrome. Nature Neuroscience 8, 1500–1502.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gothelf, D, Schaer, M and Eliez, S (2008) Genes, brain development and psychiatric phenotypes in velo-cardio-facial syndrome. Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews 14, 59–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gothelf, D, Law, AJ, Frisch, A, Chen, J, Zarchi, O, Michaelovsky, E, Ren-Patterson, R, Lipska, BK, Carmel, M, Kolachana, B, Weizman, A and Weinberger, DR (2014) Biological effects of COMT haplotypes and psychosis risk in 22q11.2 deletion syndrome. Biological Psychiatry 75, 406–413.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Green, MF and Nuechterlein, KH (1999) Should schizophrenia be treated as a neurocognitive disorder? Schizophrenia Bulletin 25, 309–319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guo, T, Repetto, GM, McDonald McGinn, DM, Chung, JH, Nomaru, H, Campbell, CL, Blonska, A, Bassett, AS, Chow, EWCC, Mlynarski, EE, Swillen, A, Vermeesch, J, Devriendt, K, Gothelf, D, Carmel, M, Michaelovsky, E, Schneider, M, Eliez, S, Antonarakis, SE, Coleman, K, Tomita-mitchell, A, Mitchell, ME, Digilio, MC, Dallapiccola, B, Marino, B, Philip, N, Busa, T, Kushan-Wells, L, Bearden, CE, Piotrowicz, M, Hawuła, W, Roberts, AE, Tassone, F, Simon, TJ, van Duin, EDA, van Amelsvoort, TA, Kates, WR, Zackai, E, Johnston, HR, Cutler, DJ, Agopian, AJJ, Goldmuntz, E, Mitchell, LE, Wang, T, Emanuel, BS, Morrow, BE, International 22q11.2 Consortium/Brain and Behavior Consortium*, Mcginn, DMM, Chung, JH, Nomaru, H, Campbell, CL, Blonska, A, Bassett, AS, Chow, EWCC, Mlynarski, EE, Swillen, A, Vermeesch, J, Devriendt, K, Gothelf, D, Carmel, M, Michaelovsky, E, Schneider, M, Eliez, S, Antonarakis, SE, Coleman, K, Tomita-mitchell, A, Mitchell, ME, Digilio, MC, Dallapiccola, B, Marino, B, Philip, N, Busa, T, Kushan-Wells, L, Bearden, CE, Piotrowicz, M, Hawuła, W, Roberts, AE, Tassone, F, Simon, TJ, Van Duin, EDA, Van Amelsvoort, TA, Kates, WR, Zackai, E, Johnston, HR, Cutler, DJ, Agopian, AJJ, Goldmuntz, E, Mitchell, LE, Wang, T, Emanuel, BS and Morrow, BE (2017). Identifies Variants in the GPR98 Locus on 5q14 . 3. Circulation. Cardiovascular Genetics 10, e001690.Google ScholarPubMed
Gur, RE, Bassett, AS, McDonald-McGinn, DM, Bearden, CE, Chow, E, Emanuel, BS, Owen, M, Swillen, A, Van den Bree, M, Vermeesch, J, Vorstman, JAS, Warren, S, Lehner, T and Morrow, B (2017) A neurogenetic model for the study of schizophrenia spectrum disorders: the International 22q11.2 Deletion Syndrome Brain Behavior Consortium. Molecular Psychiatry 22, 1664–1672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, H, Sedvall, G, Magnusson, O, Kopp, J, Halldin, C and Farde, L (1994) Distribution of D1- and D2-dopamine receptors, and dopamine and its metabolites in the human brain. Neuropsychopharmacology 11, 245–256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hammers, A, Allom, R, Koepp, MJ, Free, SL, Myers, R, Lemieux, L, Mitchell, TN, Brooks, DJ and Duncan, JS (2003) Three-dimensional maximum probability atlas of the human brain, with particular reference to the temporal lobe. Human Brain Mapping 19, 224–247.10.1002/hbm.10123CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hernaus, D, Collip, D, Lataster, J, Ceccarini, J, Kenis, G, Booij, L, Pruessner, J, van Laere, K, van Winkel, R, van Os, J and Myin-Germeys, I (2013) COMT val158met genotype selectively alters prefrontal [18F]fallypride displacement and subjective feelings of stress in response to a psychosocial stress challenge. PLoS ONE 8, e65662.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Howes, OD and Kapur, S (2009) The dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia: version III – The final common pathway. Schizophrenia Bulletin 35, 549–562.10.1093/schbul/sbp006CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Howes, OD, Kambeitz, J, Kim, E, Stahl, D, Slifstein, M, Abi-Dargham, A and Kapur, S (2012) The nature of dopamine dysfunction in schizophrenia and what this means for treatment. Archives of General Psychiatry 69, 776–786.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huotari, M, Gogos, JA, Karayiorgou, M, Koponen, O, Forsberg, M, Raasmaja, A, Hyttinen, J and Männistö, PT (2002) Brain catecholamine metabolism in catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT)-deficient mice. European Journal of Neuroscience 15, 246–256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ichise, M, Liow, J-S, Lu, J-Q, Takano, A, Model, K, Toyama, H, Suhara, T, Suzuki, K, Innis, RB and Carson, RE (2003) Linearized reference tissue parametric imaging methods: application to [11C]DASB positron emission tomography studies of the serotonin transporter in human brain. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism 23, 1096–1112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Innis, RB, Cunningham, VJ, Delforge, J, Fujita, M, Gjedde, A, Gunn, RN, Holden, J, Houle, S, Huang, S-C, Ichise, M, Iida, H, Ito, H, Kimura, Y, Koeppe, RA, Knudsen, GM, Knuuti, J, Lammertsma, AA, Laruelle, M, Logan, J, Maguire, RP, Mintun, MA, Morris, ED, Parsey, R, Price, JC, Slifstein, M, Sossi, V, Suhara, T, Votaw, JR, Wong, DF and Carson, RE (2007) Consensus nomenclature for in vivo imaging of reversibly binding radioligands. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism 27, 1533–1539.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jonas, RK, Montojo, CA and Bearden, CE (2014) The 22q11.2 deletion syndrome as a window into complex neuropsychiatric disorders over the lifespan. Biological Psychiatry 75, 351–360.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kambeitz, J, Abi-Dargham, A, Kapur, S and Howes, OD (2014) Alterations in cortical and extrastriatal subcortical dopamine function in schizophrenia: systematic review and meta-analysis of imaging studies. The British Journal of Psychiatry 204, 420–429.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kasanova, Z, Ceccarini, J, Frank, MJ, van Amelsvoort, T, Booij, J, Heinzel, A, Mottaghy, F and Myin-Germeys, I (2017) Striatal dopaminergic modulation of reinforcement learning predicts reward-oriented behavior in daily life. Biological Psychology 127, 1–9.10.1016/j.biopsycho.2017.04.014CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kasanova, Z, Ceccarini, J, Frank, MJ, van Amelsvoort, T, Booij, J, van Duin, E, Steinhart, H, Vaessen, T, Heinzel, A, Mottaghy, F and Myin-Germeys, I (2018) Intact striatal dopaminergic modulation of reward learning and daily-life reward-oriented behavior in first-degree relatives of individuals with psychotic disorder. Psychological Medicine 48, 1909–1914.10.1017/S0033291717003476CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kates, WR, Antshel, KM, Abdulsabur, N, Colgan, D, Funke, B, Fremont, W, Higgins, AM, Kucherlapati, R and Shprintzen, RJ (2006) A gender-moderated effect of a functional COMT polymorphism on prefrontal brain morphology and function in velo-cardio-facial syndrome (22q11.2 deletion syndrome). American Journal of Medical Genetics. Part B, Neuropsychiatric Genetics 141B, 274–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, SR, Fiszbein, A and O, L (1987) The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale for schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Bulletin 13, 261–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lataster, J, Collip, D, Ceccarini, J, Haas, D, Booij, L, Van Os, J, Pruessner, J, Van Laere, K and Myin-Germeys, I (2011) Psychosocial stress is associated with in vivo dopamine release in human ventromedial prefrontal cortex: a positron emission tomography study using [18 F]fallypride. NeuroImage 58, 1081–1089.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leucht, S, Kane, JM, Kissling, W, Hamann, J, Etschel, E and Engel, RR (2005) What does the PANSS mean? . Schizophrenia Research 79, 231–238.10.1016/j.schres.2005.04.008CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mansvelder, H and McGehee, D (2000) Long-term potentiation of excitatory inputs to brain reward areas by nicotine. Neuron 27, 349–357.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morris, ED, Fisher, RE, Alpert, NM, Rauch, SL and Fischman, AJ (1995) In vivo imaging of neuromodulation using positron emission tomography: optimal ligand characteristics and task length for detection of activation. Human Brain Mapping 3, 35–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, KC, Jones, LA and Owen, MJ (1999) High rates of schizophrenia in adults with velo-cardio-facial syndrome. Archives of General Psychiatry 56, 940.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nagano-Saito, A, Dagher, A, Booij, L and Gravel, P (2013) Stress-induced dopamine release in human medial prefrontal cortex – 18F-Fallypride/PET study in healthy volunteers. Synapse 67, 821–830.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Norkett, EM, Lincoln, SH, Gonzalez-Heydrich, J and D'Angelo, EJ (2017) Social cognitive impairment in 22q11 deletion syndrome: a review. Psychiatry Research 253, 99–106.10.1016/j.psychres.2017.01.103CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nuechterlein, KH, Barch, DM, Gold, JM, Goldberg, TE, Green, MF and Heaton, RK (2004) Identification of separable cognitive factors in schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research 72, 29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okubo, Y, Suhara, T, Suzuki, K, Kobayashi, K, Inoue, O, Terasaki, O, Someya, Y, Sassa, T, Sudo, Y, Matsushima, E, Iyo, M, Tateno, Y and Toru, M (1997) Decreased prefrontal dopamine D1 receptors in schizophrenia revealed by PET. Nature 385, 634–636.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oskarsdóttir, S, Vujic, M and Fasth, A (2004) Incidence and prevalence of the 22q11 deletion syndrome: a population-based study in Western Sweden. Archives of Disease in Childhood 89, 148–151.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schacht, J (2016) COMT val158met moderation of dopaminergic drug effects on cognitive function: a critical review. The Pharmacogenomics Journal 1643, 430–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmand, B, Bakker, D, Saan, R and Louman, J (1991) The Dutch Reading Test for Adults: a measure of premorbid intelligence level. Tijdschrift Voor Gerontologie En Geriatrie 22, 15–19.Google ScholarPubMed
Schneider, M, Debbané, M, Bassett, AS, Chow, EWC, Fung, WLA, van den Bree, MBM, Owen, M, Murphy, KC, Niarchou, M, Kates, WR, Antshel, KM, Fremont, W, McDonald-McGinn, DM, Gur, RE, Zackai, EH, Vorstman, J, Duijff, SN, Klaassen, PWJ, Swillen, A, Gothelf, D, Green, T, Weizman, A, Van Amelsvoort, T, Evers, L, Boot, E, Shashi, V, Hooper, SR, Bearden, CE, Jalbrzikowski, M, Armando, M, Vicari, S, Murphy, DG, Ousley, O, Campbell, LE, Simon, TJ and Eliez, S (2014) Psychiatric disorders from childhood to adulthood in 22q11.2 deletion syndrome: results from the International Consortium on Brain and Behavior in 22q11.2 Deletion Syndrome. The American Journal of Psychiatry 171, 627–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sesack, S, Hawrylak, V, Matus, C, Guido, M and Levey, A (1998) Dopamine axon varicosities in the prelimbic division of the rat prefrontal cortex exhibit sparse immunoreactivity for the dopamine transporter. The Journal of Neuroscience 18, 2697–2708.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shashi, V, Veerapandiyan, A, Keshavan, MS, Zapadka, M, Schoch, K, Kwapil, TR, Hooper, SR and Stanley, JA (2012) Altered development of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in chromosome 22q11.2 deletion syndrome: an in vivo proton spectroscopy study. Biological Psychiatry 72, 684–691.10.1016/j.biopsych.2012.04.023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheehan, DV, Lecrubier, Y, Sheehan, KH, Amorim, P, Janavs, J, Weiller, E, Hergueta, T, Baker, R and Dunbar, GC (1998). The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I.): the development and validation of a structured diagnostic psychiatric interview for DSM-IV and ICD-10. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 59(suppl. 20), 22–33, quiz 34–57.Google ScholarPubMed
Slifstein, M, van de Giessen, E, Van Snellenberg, J, Thompson, JL, Narendran, R, Gil, R, Hackett, E, Girgis, R, Ojeil, N, Moore, H, D'Souza, D, Malison, RT, Huang, Y, Lim, K, Nabulsi, N, Carson, RE, Lieberman, JA and Abi-Dargham, A (2015) Deficits in prefrontal cortical and extrastriatal dopamine release in schizophrenia. JAMA Psychiatry 72, 316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoddard, J, Niendam, T, Hendren, R, Carter, C and Simon, TJ (2010) Attenuated positive symptoms of psychosis in adolescents with chromosome 22q11. 2 deletion syndrome. Schizophrenia 118, 118–121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tanda, G, Carboni, E, Frau, R and Chiara, G (1994) Increase of extracellular dopamine in the prefrontal cortex: a trait of drugs with antidepressant potential? Psychopharmacology 115, 285–288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tang, SX, Yi, JJ, Calkins, ME, Whinna, DA, Kohler, CG, Souders, MC, McDonald-McGinn, DM, Zackai, EH, Emanuel, BS, Gur, RC and Gur, RE (2014) Psychiatric disorders in 22q11.2 deletion syndrome are prevalent but undertreated. Psychological Medicine 44, 1267–1277.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tunbridge, E, Weickert, C, Kleinman, J, Herman, M, Chen, J, Kolachana, B, Harrison, P and Weinberger, D (2006) Catechol-o-methyltransferase enzyme activity and protein expression in human prefrontal cortex across the postnatal lifespan. Cerebral Cortex 17, 1206–1212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tunbridge, EM, Lane, TA and Harrison, PJ (2007) Expression of multiple catechol-o-methyltransferase (COMT) mRNA variants in human brain. American Journal of Medical Genetics, Part B: Neuropsychiatric Genetics 144, 834–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Amelsvoort, T, Daly, E, Robertson, D, Suckling, J, Ng, V, Critchley, H, Owen, MJ, Henry, J, Murphy, KC and Murphy, DG (2001) Structural brain abnormalities associated with deletion at chromosome 22q11: quantitative neuroimaging study of adults with velo-cardio-facial syndrome. The British Journal of Psychiatry 178, 412–419.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Amelsvoort, T, Zinkstok, J, Figee, M, Daly, E, Morris, R, Owen, MJ, Murphy, KC, De Haan, L, Linszen, DH, Glaser, B and Murphy, DGM (2008) Effects of a functional COMT polymorphism on brain anatomy and cognitive function in adults with velo-cardio-facial syndrome. Psychological Medicine 38, 89–100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Beveren, NJM, Krab, LC, Swagemakers, S, Buitendijk, G, Buitendijk, GHS, Boot, E, van der Spek, P, Elgersma, Y and van Amelsvoort, TAMJ (2012) Functional gene-expression analysis shows involvement of schizophrenia-relevant pathways in patients with 22q11 deletion syndrome. PLoS ONE 7, e33473.10.1371/journal.pone.0033473CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Duin, EDA, Kasanova, Z, Hernaus, D, Ceccarini, J, Heinzel, A, Mottaghy, F, Mohammadkhani-Shali, S, Winz, O, Frank, M, Beck, MCH, Booij, J, Myin-Germeys, I and van Amelsvoort, T (2018) Striatal dopamine release and impaired reinforcement learning in adults with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome. European Neuropsychopharmacology 28, 732–742.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vernaleken, I, Peters, L, Raptis, M, Lin, R, Buchholz, HG, Zhou, Y, Winz, O, Rösch, F, Bartenstein, P, Wong, DF, Schäfer, WM and Gründer, G (2011) The applicability of SRTM in [(18)F]fallypride PET investigations: impact of scan durations. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism 31, 1958–1966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vingerhoets, C, Bloemen, OJN, Boot, E, Bakker, G, de Koning, MB, da Silva Alves, F, Booij, J and van Amelsvoort, TAMJ (2018) Dopamine in high-risk populations: a comparison of subjects with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome and subjects at ultra high-risk for psychosis. Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging 272, 65–70.10.1016/j.pscychresns.2017.11.014CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wechsler, D (1997) WAIS-III Administration and Scoring Manual. The Psychological Corporation. San Antonio, Texas: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Weinberger, R, Yi, J, Calkins, M and Guri, Y (2016) Neurocognitive profile in psychotic versus nonpsychotic individuals with 22q11. 2 deletion syndrome. European Neuropsychopharmacology 26, 1610–1618.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wong, DF, Wagner, H, Tune, L, Dannals, R, Pearlson, G, Links, J, Tamminga, C, Broussolle, E, Ravert, H and Wilson, A (1986) Positron emission tomography reveals elevated D2 dopamine receptors in drug-naive schizophrenics. Science 234, 1558–1564.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yavich, L, Forsberg, MM, Karayiorgou, M, Gogos, JA and Männistö, PT (2007) Site-specific role of catechol-o-methyltransferase in dopamine overflow within prefrontal cortex and dorsal striatum. Journal of Neuroscience 27, 10196–10209.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zinkstok, J and van Amelsvoort, T (2005) Neuropsychological profile and neuroimaging in patients with 22Q11.2 deletion syndrome: a review keywords. Child Neuropsychology 11, 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Demographics and binding potential (BPND) per region of interest (ROI)c

Figure 1

Fig. 1. PET acquisition protocol. The original PET acquisition protocol. In gray, the part of the PET acquisition protocol used for analyses in this study is highlighted. *TS = 68Ge/68Ga-transmission scan, timeline in minutes. PET control: Sensori-motor control condition: Participants conducted a sensori-motor control condition prior to the baseline and experimental condition (previously described in Kasanova et al., 2017, 2018). This condition was designed to contain all features of the task of the experimental condition, without the main manipulation of the experimental condition; outcome-based associative learning. This control condition was presented on a 30-inch screen placed in the field of view of the participant. Similar to the experimental condition, images of a stimulus (photographs of actors) appeared on the screen and participants had to choose between one of two items depicted under the stimulus, for instance, indicate whether the actor was male or female, had short or long hair. The participant was instructed before the task that there was no right or wrong answer. No feedback was provided during the task. The control condition consisted of six blocks of 120 trials, in which 18 actors were presented 40 times, lasting approximately 10 min per block with intertrial intervals where the previous stimulus and items were still visible on the screen for 4 s. The sensori-motor control scan lasted 80 min and consisted of a total of 36 frames (6 × 60 s frames + 30 × 120 s frames). PET baseline condition: During the baseline condition the participants were instructed to lay down and rest in the scanner. The baseline scan lasted 25 min and consisted of 18 (120 s) frames.

Figure 2

Fig. 2. Masks for the frontal cortex. The mask is overlaid on a structural MRI scan and shown in transversal (a), sagittal (b), and coronal (c) views. MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; PFC, prefrontal cortex; OFC, orbitofrontal cortex; ACC, anterior cingulate cortex; ant cing gyr, anterior cingulate gyrus.

Figure 3

Fig. 3. Binding potential (BPND) per region of interest (ROI). Average dopamine D2/3 receptor binding potential (D2/3R BPND) (y-axis) in the prefrontal cortex (PFC), the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), and the anterior cingulate gyrus (x-axis). The healthy control (HC) group is depicted in gray and the 22q11DS group in white. Mean D2/3R BPND was significantly (**) lower in the 22q11DS group compared with the HC group in the anterior cingulate gyrus. Error bars represent standard deviation's (s.d.s). **p < 0.013 survived Bonferroni correction for multiple testing. HC, healthy controls.

Supplementary material: File

van Duin et al. supplementary material

van Duin et al. supplementary material 1

Download van Duin et al. supplementary material(File)
File 2.1 MB