Evidence for absence of links between striatal dopamine synthesis capacity and working memory capacity, spontaneous eye-blink rate, and trait impulsivity
Curation statements for this article:-
Curated by eLife
eLife assessment
This fundamental work shows the absence of links between striatal dopamine synthesis capacity and working memory capacity, spontaneous eye-blink rate, and trait impulsivity. The evidence supporting the conclusions is compelling, with rigorous PET investigations and state-of-the-art cognitive assessments in a large sample. Given the high interest in the role of dopamine, the work will be of very broad interest to basic neuroscientists, clinical neuroscientists, and clinicians including neurologists and psychiatrists.
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (eLife)
- Neuroscience (eLife)
Abstract
Individual differences in striatal dopamine synthesis capacity have been associated with working memory capacity, trait impulsivity, and spontaneous eye-blink rate (sEBR), as measured with readily available and easily administered, ‘off-the-shelf’ tests. Such findings have raised the suggestion that individual variation in dopamine synthesis capacity, estimated with expensive and invasive brain positron emission tomography (PET) scans, can be approximated with simple, more pragmatic tests. However, direct evidence for the relationship between these simple trait measures and striatal dopamine synthesis capacity has been limited and inconclusive. We measured striatal dopamine synthesis capacity using [ 18 F]-FDOPA PET in a large sample of healthy volunteers (N = 94) and assessed the correlation with simple, short tests of working memory capacity, trait impulsivity, and sEBR. We additionally explored the relationship with an index of subjective reward sensitivity. None of these trait measures correlated significantly with striatal dopamine synthesis capacity, nor did they have out-of-sample predictive power. Bayes factor analyses indicated the evidence was in favour of absence of correlations for all but subjective reward sensitivity. These results warrant caution for using these off-the-shelf trait measures as proxies of striatal dopamine synthesis capacity.
Article activity feed
-
-
eLife assessment
This fundamental work shows the absence of links between striatal dopamine synthesis capacity and working memory capacity, spontaneous eye-blink rate, and trait impulsivity. The evidence supporting the conclusions is compelling, with rigorous PET investigations and state-of-the-art cognitive assessments in a large sample. Given the high interest in the role of dopamine, the work will be of very broad interest to basic neuroscientists, clinical neuroscientists, and clinicians including neurologists and psychiatrists.
-
Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
The authors present a study to test the relationships between a measured dopamine marker in the brain - so-called, dopamine synthesis capacity - and various other measures purported to index dopamine function. These measures include questionnaire answers about behaviour, and measured behaviour. Various studies have used these other measures as indices or proxies of dopamine function with some evidence to support this. However, some of the evidence is in small groups or indirect.
The major strength of this study is the size of the sample (n=66-94) compared to other studies and the three different analytical strategies employed - frequentist, Bayesian, and predictive modelling.
Areas, where the study is more limited, are the use of only one marker of dopamine neurochemistry ([18F]FDOPA) and this does not …
Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
The authors present a study to test the relationships between a measured dopamine marker in the brain - so-called, dopamine synthesis capacity - and various other measures purported to index dopamine function. These measures include questionnaire answers about behaviour, and measured behaviour. Various studies have used these other measures as indices or proxies of dopamine function with some evidence to support this. However, some of the evidence is in small groups or indirect.
The major strength of this study is the size of the sample (n=66-94) compared to other studies and the three different analytical strategies employed - frequentist, Bayesian, and predictive modelling.
Areas, where the study is more limited, are the use of only one marker of dopamine neurochemistry ([18F]FDOPA) and this does not discount relationships with other markers such as pre-synaptic receptors, post-synaptic receptors, and dynamic release. The authors acknowledge that this study does not speak to the general principle of dopamine relationships with other measures. While the numbers are impressive for this type of study the use of correlation means their power is for correlations of 0.32-0.37 and higher (G*power). It is possible genuine relationships between markers do exist but all studies to date, including this one, are underpowered. The Bayesian analysis conducted speaks to this and is a welcome addition. It is also possible that the conclusions are restricted by the participants recruited as they are limited to the ages of 18-43 and it is not clear how representative they are of the general community from the information provided.
The dopamine system is not one entity in terms of system components (pre-synaptic, post-synaptic, etc), but also in terms of subcortical area with a gradient of input from the brainstem and a distinct connectionist anatomy between the striatum and the cortex (via other structures). Here the authors use a segmentation of the striatum to test the relationships. While this is embedded in the methods and results the introduction's treatment of the subcortical dopamine system is as a single entity. This could be improved.
The results of this work have an important impact in that they strongly suggest one cannot use proxies to estimate endogenous neurochemistry (at least in the dopamine system). However, this implies that any other proxy for any other system needs to be (re-)assessed using similar methods. This is not to say that the proxies are not sensitive to dopamine manipulations, but that they cannot by themselves be used instead of direct measurement. Given the number of studies which suggest that a measure of baseline state may predict the effects of dopaminergic drugs, one must question what the baseline state is being measured.
Despite these limitations, the authors have provided the largest assessment of the relationships between [18F] FDOPA-assessed dopamine synthesis capacity and various markers previously linked to dopamine function. In this respect, it is an important negative. This does mean that the assessments used cannot be used to assess 'baseline' states in relation to dopaminergic drug effects, but the mechanism through which this baseline dependency operates is not well understood.
-
Reviewer #2 (Public Review):
This study examined the relationship between dopamine synthesis capacity, working memory, impulsivity, and spontaneous eye blink rate. The rationale for the study is sound and well-articulated given the results of prior studies suggesting relations between dopaminergic measures and these behavioral measures. Understanding these relationships is important both for understanding the neural and neurochemical correlates of behavioral traits, but also because it has been proposed that these measures might be used as a proxy for dopamine synthesis capacity, which is extremely expensive to collect and requires exposure to radiation. The study used appropriate methods and a major strength is that it was performed in a larger sample than is typical for PET studies, which are typically underpowered due to the expense …
Reviewer #2 (Public Review):
This study examined the relationship between dopamine synthesis capacity, working memory, impulsivity, and spontaneous eye blink rate. The rationale for the study is sound and well-articulated given the results of prior studies suggesting relations between dopaminergic measures and these behavioral measures. Understanding these relationships is important both for understanding the neural and neurochemical correlates of behavioral traits, but also because it has been proposed that these measures might be used as a proxy for dopamine synthesis capacity, which is extremely expensive to collect and requires exposure to radiation. The study used appropriate methods and a major strength is that it was performed in a larger sample than is typical for PET studies, which are typically underpowered due to the expense of using radioligands. Critically, the study did not find evidence for associations. Although the results can be seen as disappointing in that they failed to confirm hypotheses, the findings nevertheless have substantial implications for the field. Specifically, the results argue against the use of these behavioral constructs as a proxy for dopamine synthesis activity. As such, the findings provide a critical corrective for prior conclusions that were derived from past smaller studies.
-
-