Elsevier

Clinical Neurophysiology

Volume 128, Issue 11, November 2017, Pages 2268-2278
Clinical Neurophysiology

Interindividual variability in response to continuous theta-burst stimulation in healthy adults

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2017.08.023Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Cluster analysis can identify subpopulations in healthy adults with distinct cTBS responses.

  • MEP changes at 10 and 40 min post-cTBS best predicted the results of the cluster analysis.

  • Variability in cTBS response after 10 min was influenced by BDNF polymorphism and cTBS intensity.

Abstract

Objective

We used complete-linkage cluster analysis to identify healthy subpopulations with distinct responses to continuous theta-burst stimulation (cTBS).

Methods

21 healthy adults (age ± SD, 36.9 ± 15.2 years) underwent cTBS of left motor cortex. Natural log-transformed motor evoked potentials (LnMEPs) at 5–50 min post-cTBS (T5–T50) were calculated.

Results

Two clusters were found; Group 1 (n = 12) that showed significant MEP facilitation at T15, T20, and T50 (p’s < 0.006), and Group 2 (n = 9) that showed significant suppression at T5–T15 (p’s < 0.022). LnMEPs at T10 and T40 were best predictors of, and together accounted for 80% of, cluster assignment.

In an exploratory analysis, we examined the roles of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) and apolipoprotein E (APOE) polymorphisms in the cTBS response. Val66Met participants showed greater facilitation at T10 than Val66Val participants (p = 0.025). BDNF and cTBS intensity predicted 59% of interindividual variability in LnMEP at T10. APOE did not significantly affect LnMEPs at any time point (p’s > 0.32).

Conclusions

Data-driven cluster analysis can identify healthy subpopulations with distinct cTBS responses. T10 and T40 LnMEPs were best predictors of cluster assignment. T10 LnMEP was influenced by BDNF polymorphism and cTBS intensity.

Significance

Healthy adults can be sorted into subpopulations with distinct cTBS responses that are influenced by genetics.

Introduction

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a form of noninvasive brain stimulation through electromagnetic induction. TMS was originally developed as a neurophysiological tool to investigate the integrity of corticospinal pathways in humans (Barker et al., 1985). When applied within the recommended guidelines (Rossi et al., 2009, Rossini et al., 2015), TMS provides a safe means to trigger or modulate neural activity. A single TMS pulse applied to the primary motor cortex (M1) can generate a compound muscle action potential in a target muscle, referred to as the motor evoked potential (MEP). Various TMS protocols have been designed to study neural processes, including plasticity, in the motor and non-motor systems by applying single, paired, or repetitive TMS pulses at specific intensities and frequencies to one or more cortical areas.

Theta burst stimulation (TBS) is a form of repetitive TMS developed more than ten years ago (Huang et al., 2005). TBS was originally conceived based on the 4–7 Hz burst discharge (the theta range in electroencephalography) recorded from the hippocampus of rats during exploratory behavior (Diamond et al., 1988) and used to study synaptic plasticity in animal brain slices (Larson and Lynch, 1986, Larson and Lynch, 1989, Capocchi et al., 1992). TBS consists of 50 Hz bursts of three TMS pulses repeated every 200 ms (at 5 Hz), for a total of 600 pulses, in one of two protocols: (1) a 2-s on, 8-s off intermittent TBS (iTBS) pattern for 190 s, which in most individuals increases MEP amplitude by approximately 35% for up to 60 min, or (2) a continuous TBS (cTBS) pattern for 40 s, which can reduce MEP amplitude by approximately 25% for up to 50 min (Wischnewski and Schutter, 2015). Suppression of MEPs by cTBS and their enhancement by iTBS are considered indices of long-term depression- (LTD-) and long-term potentiation- (LTP-) like mechanisms, respectively (Huang et al., 2005, Huerta and Volpe, 2009). Once MEP amplitudes have been altered by cTBS, the time it takes for MEP amplitudes to return to their baseline levels is considered a neurophysiologic index of the mechanisms of cortical plasticity (Oberman et al., 2010, Pascual-Leone et al., 2011, Wischnewski and Schutter, 2015, Suppa et al., 2016).

Application of cTBS to M1 and other brain areas has been used to measure abnormalities in cortical plasticity and to assess therapeutic responses to interventions aimed at restoring normal cortical plasticity in several neurological and psychiatric disorders, including Alzheimer’s disease (Freitas et al., 2011a), autism spectrum disorders and fragile X syndrome (Oberman et al., 2010, Oberman et al., 2012, Oberman et al., 2014, Oberman et al., 2016), dementia (Cantone et al., 2014), epilepsy (Carrette et al., 2016), essential tremor (Chuang et al., 2014), hemispatial neglect (Cazzoli et al., 2012, Koch et al., 2012), major depression (Li et al., 2014), multiple sclerosis (Mori et al., 2013), obsessive–compulsive disorders (Wu et al., 2010, Suppa et al., 2014), Parkinson’s disease (Koch et al., 2009), schizophrenia (Poulet et al., 2009, Eberle et al., 2010, McClintock et al., 2011), stroke (Ackerley et al., 2010, Hsu et al., 2012, Di Lazzaro et al., 2013, Di Lazzaro et al., 2016), tinnitus (Forogh et al., 2014), and Tourette syndrome (Suppa et al., 2014).

Despite the numerous TBS studies conducted among clinical populations, there is large interindividual variability in TBS response among healthy individuals that remains largely unexplained (Hamada et al., 2013, Hinder et al., 2014, López-Alonso et al., 2014). Given such high interindividual variability, it has been estimated that in order to reliably detect a 20% difference in M1 TBS response between two groups, each group may need to have at least 30 participants (Suppa et al., 2016), which is a larger sample size than used in most previous TBS studies (Wischnewski and Schutter, 2015). The large interindividual variability in TBS response among healthy individuals and, consequently, the relatively large sample sizes required to detect a meaningful difference, can limit the utility of TBS in the assessment of mechanisms of plasticity in healthy individuals and patients with neuropsychiatric disorders.

Several factors have been suggested as potential contributors to the interindividual variability in response to TBS, including the activated intracortical networks (Hamada et al., 2013), functional connectivity in the motor system (Nettekoven et al., 2014, Nettekoven et al., 2015), state-dependent factors (Suppa et al., 2016), and single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that can influence neuroplasticity.

Brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) is the most abundantly available protein of the neurotrophine family (Allen and Dawbarn, 2006) and critically involved in N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA)-type glutamate receptor-dependent LTP (Figurov et al., 1996) and LTD (Woo et al., 2005). A frequent BDNF polymorphism (Val66Met) influences the intracellular trafficking and packaging of the precursor peptide (pro-BDNF), which is associated with LTD, and the regulated secretion of the mature (m)BDNF, involved in LTP (Egan et al., 2003, Bramham and Messaoudi, 2005). Several studies have shown effects of BDNF polymorphism on neuroplasticity in humans, including reduced hippocampal plasticity and activity-dependent secretion of BDNF (Egan et al., 2003), reduced training-dependent facilitation of MEPs (Kleim et al., 2006, Lee et al., 2013), reduced cTBS-induced suppression (Cheeran et al., 2008) and iTBS-induced facilitation of MEPs (Cheeran et al., 2008, Antal et al., 2010, Lee et al., 2013, Di Lazzaro et al., 2015), reduced plasticity induced by paired associative stimulation (Cirillo et al., 2012), and reduced rTMS-induced motor recovery after stroke (Chang et al., 2014).

Apolipoprotein E (APOE) codes for a protein component of triglyceride-rich lipoproteins and is an important factor in cholesterol metabolism (Mahley, 1988). APOE has three major alleles (ε2, ε3, and ε4), and the presence of its ε4 allele is a major risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease (AD; Poirier et al., 1993, Saunders et al., 1993). Functional consequences of the presence of APOE ε4 in the central nervous system include poor clinical outcome after acute head trauma and stroke (Mahley and Rall Jr, 2000), reduced neuronal and hippocampal plasticity (White et al., 2001, Nichol et al., 2009), greater impairment in episodic memory among AD patients (Wolk et al., 2010), and differential patterns of rTMS-induced activation (Peña-Gomez et al., 2012).

To investigate the contributors to interindividual variability in TBS response without unfeasibly large sample sizes, one option may be to use statistical approaches such as cluster analyses (Kaufman and Rousseeuw, 2009, Rencher and Christensen, 2012). Due to their data-driven nature, cluster analyses can identify subpopulations of individuals with distinct patterns of response to TBS in a manner that is minimally biased by a priori hypotheses. The resulting subpopulations can then be compared against each other in terms of potentially important predictors. Identifying subpopulations that are more similar in their TBS response can increase the power of TBS studies that investigate differences between healthy individuals and clinical populations. In the present study, we examined the utility of cluster analysis, in the form of complete-linkage cluster analysis, for identification of subpopulations of healthy individuals with distinct patterns of response to cTBS.

As an exploratory analysis, we also assessed the effects of BDNF and APOE polymorphisms on interindividual variability in cTBS-induced plasticity. We did not set out to determine which genetic variants (from among numerous plausible genes) are associated with a particular trait, disease, or outcome measure. Rather, we aimed to test the specific hypothesis that these two well-characterized genetic polymorphisms described in signalling pathways that mediated cortical plasticity (Kleim et al., 2006, Cheeran et al., 2008, Antal et al., 2010, Li Voti et al., 2011, Cirillo et al., 2012, Peña-Gomez et al., 2012, Witte et al., 2012, Lee et al., 2013, Chang et al., 2014, Di Lazzaro et al., 2015) also contributed to the interindividual variability in response to cTBS. Since certain clinical populations, including individuals with Alzheimer’s disease, autism spectrum disorders, schizophrenia, and type-2 diabetes show TBS-induced hyper- or hypoplasticity (Freitas et al., 2011a, McClintock et al., 2011, Oberman et al., 2012, Fried et al., 2017), examining the effects of these polymorphisms on cTBS-induced plasticity would allow for comparing them between healthy individuals and clinical populations in the future.

Section snippets

Participants

21 healthy adults participated in the study that was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the local Institutional Review Board. All participants provided written informed consent prior to enrollment and received monetary compensation upon completion. None of the participants had a history of medical disease or contraindication to TMS, and all of them had normal physical and neurological examinations.

Participants were predominantly male (19 out of 21)

Results

Demographics, single-nucleotide polymorphisms, and neuropsychological measures for individual participants are presented in Table 1. Descriptive statistics for those measures and baseline neurophysiological measures are presented in Table 2.

Discussion

Interindividual variability in TBS response can limit the utility of TBS aftereffects as indices of neuroplasticity. The present work examined the interindividual variability in response to cTBS among healthy individuals applying a data-driven statistical approach, i.e., cluster analysis, to identify subgroups of healthy individuals with distinct patterns of response to cTBS applied to M1. A further, exploratory objective was to assess the effect of BDNF and APOE polymorphisms on cTBS-induced

Conclusions

The large interindividual variability in cTBS response among healthy individuals should be considered when utilizing cTBS as an index of the mechanisms of cortical plasticity. Relying only on grand-average results can obscure important interindividual differences in cTBS response within each group of participants. Data-driven cluster analyses can identify subpopulations of individuals with distinct patterns of cTBS response. BDNF polymorphism had a significant effect on MEP changes at 10 min

Acknowledgements

We thank Stephanie Changeau, Aaron Boes, Simon Laganiere, and Ann Connor (Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center) for assistance with evaluation of participants’ health/medical history and physical/neurological examination.

This study was primarily funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH R01 MH100186). A.P.-L. was further supported by the Sidney R. Baer, Jr. Foundation, the NIH (R01 HD069776, R01 NS073601, R21 MH099196, R21 NS085491, R21 HD07616), and Harvard Catalyst | The Harvard

Conflict of interest

A.P.-L. serves on the scientific advisory boards for Magstim, Nexstim, Neuronix, Starlab Neuroscience, Neuroelectrics, Axilum Robotics, Constant Therapy, and Neosync; and is listed as an inventor on issued and pending patents on real-time integration of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) with electroencephalography (EEG) and magnetic resonance imaging. A.R. is a founder and advisor for Neuromotion, serves on the medical advisory board for NeuroRex, and is listed as an inventor on a patent

References (103)

  • M.F. Egan et al.

    The BDNF val66met polymorphism affects activity-dependent secretion of BDNF and human memory and hippocampal function

    Cell

    (2003)
  • W.J. Ewens

    The sampling theory of selectively neutral alleles

    Theor Popul Biol

    (1972)
  • M.F. Folstein et al.

    “Mini-mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician

    J Psychiatr Res

    (1975)
  • C. Freitas et al.

    Noninvasive brain stimulation in Alzheimer’s disease: systematic review and perspectives for the future

    Exp Gerontol

    (2011)
  • M. Gangitano et al.

    Modulation of input-output curves by low and high frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the motor cortex

    Clin Neurophysiol

    (2002)
  • M.R. Goldsworthy et al.

    Minimum number of trials required for within- and between-session reliability of TMS measures of corticospinal excitability

    Neuroscience

    (2016)
  • M.R. Hinder et al.

    Inter-and Intra-individual variability following intermittent theta burst stimulation: implications for rehabilitation and recovery

    Brain Stimul

    (2014)
  • Y.-Z. Huang et al.

    The after-effect of human theta burst stimulation is NMDA receptor dependent

    Clin Neurophysiol

    (2007)
  • Y.-Z. Huang et al.

    Theta burst stimulation of the human motor cortex

    Neuron

    (2005)
  • J. Larson et al.

    Theta pattern stimulation and the induction of LTP: the sequence in which synapses are stimulated determines the degree to which they potentiate

    Brain Res

    (1989)
  • V. López-Alonso et al.

    Fernández-del-Olmo M (2014) inter-individual variability in response to non-invasive brain stimulation paradigms

    Brain Stimul

    (2014)
  • S.M. McClintock et al.

    Transcranial magnetic stimulation: a neuroscientific probe of cortical function in schizophrenia

    Biol Psychiat

    (2011)
  • C. Nettekoven et al.

    Inter-individual variability in cortical excitability and motor network connectivity following multiple blocks of rTMS

    NeuroImage

    (2015)
  • K. Nichol et al.

    Exercise improves cognition and hippocampal plasticity in APOE ε4 mice

    Alzheimers Dement

    (2009)
  • M.C. Pellicciari et al.

    Ongoing cumulative effects of single TMS pulses on corticospinal excitability: An intra- and inter-block investigation

    Clin Neurophysiol

    (2016)
  • J. Poirier et al.

    Apolipoprotein E polymorphism and Alzheimer’s disease

    Lancet

    (1993)
  • E. Poulet et al.

    A case report of cTBS for the treatment of auditory hallucinations in a patient with schizophrenia

    Brain Stimul

    (2009)
  • S. Rossi et al.

    Safety, ethical considerations, and application guidelines for the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation in clinical practice and research

    Clin Neurophysiol

    (2009)
  • P.M. Rossini et al.

    Non-invasive electrical and magnetic stimulation of the brain, spinal cord, roots and peripheral nerves: Basic principles and procedures for routine clinical and research application. An updated report from an I.F.C.N. Committee

    Clin Neurophysiol

    (2015)
  • A. Suppa et al.

    Ten years of theta burst stimulation in humans: established knowledge, unknowns and prospects

    Brain Stimul

    (2016)
  • M. Vernet et al.

    Reproducibility of the effects of theta burst stimulation on motor cortical plasticity in healthy participants

    Clin Neurophysiol

    (2014)
  • F. White et al.

    Impaired neuronal plasticity in transgenic mice expressing human apolipoprotein E4 compared to E3 in a model of entorhinal cortex lesion

    Neurobiol Dis

    (2001)
  • J.E. Wigginton et al.

    A note on exact tests of hardy-weinberg equilibrium

    Am J Hum Genet

    (2005)
  • M. Wischnewski et al.

    Efficacy and time course of theta burst stimulation in healthy humans

    Brain Stimul

    (2015)
  • I. Abidin et al.

    Impaired GABAergic inhibition in the visual cortex of brain-derived neurotrophic factor heterozygous knockout mice: GABA release is impaired in visual cortex of BDNF heterozygous KO mice

    J Physiol

    (2008)
  • S.J. Ackerley et al.

    Combining theta burst stimulation with training after subcortical stroke

    Stroke

    (2010)
  • S.J. Allen et al.

    Clinical relevance of the neurotrophins and their receptors

    Clin Sci

    (2006)
  • Y. Andrews-Zwilling et al.

    Apolipoprotein E4 causes age- and Tau-dependent impairment of GABAergic interneurons, leading to learning and memory deficits in mice

    J Neurosci

    (2010)
  • A. Auton et al.

    A global reference for human genetic variation

    Nature

    (2015)
  • R.B. Bendel et al.

    Comparison of stopping rules in forward “stepwise” regression

    J Am Stat Assoc

    (1977)
  • Y. Benjamini et al.

    Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing

    J R Stat Soc Ser B Methodol

    (1995)
  • Y. Benjamini et al.

    The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency

    Ann Stat

    (2001)
  • Z. Bursac et al.

    Purposeful selection of variables in logistic regression

    Source Code Biol Med

    (2008)
  • S. Carrette et al.

    Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for the treatment of refractory epilepsy

    Expert Rev Neurother

    (2016)
  • D. Cazzoli et al.

    Theta burst stimulation reduces disability during the activities of daily living in spatial neglect

    Brain

    (2012)
  • B.J. Cheeran et al.

    A common polymorphism in the brain-derived neurotrophic factor gene (BDNF) modulates human cortical plasticity and the response to rTMS: BNDF polymorphism modulates response to rTMS

    J Physiol

    (2008)
  • Y. Chen et al.

    ApoE4 reduces glutamate receptor function and synaptic plasticity by selectively impairing ApoE receptor recycling

    Proc Natl Acad Sci

    (2010)
  • W.L. Chuang et al.

    Reduced cortical plasticity and GABAergic modulation in essential tremor

    Mov Disord

    (2014)
  • J. Cirillo et al.

    Differential modulation of motor cortex excitability in BDNF Met allele carriers following experimentally induced and use-dependent plasticity: BDNF polymorphisms and motor cortex plasticity

    Eur J Neurosci

    (2012)
  • R.M. Crum et al.

    Population-based norms for the mini-mental state examination by age and educational level

    JAMA J Am Med Assoc

    (1993)
  • Cited by (81)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text