Two long-axis dimensions of hippocampal-cortical integration support memory function across the adult lifespan

Curation statements for this article:
  • Curated by eLife

    eLife logo

    eLife assessment

    This fundamental work demonstrates the importance of considering overlapping modes of functional organization (i.e. gradients) in the hippocampus, showing associations between with aging, dopaminergic receptor distribution and episodic memory. The evidence supporting the conclusions is solid, although some clarifications about testing procedures and a discussion of the limitations of the dopaminergic receptor mapping techniques employed should be provided along with analysis code. The work will be of broad interest to basic and clinical neuroscientists.

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

The hippocampus is a complex structure critically involved in numerous behavior-regulating systems. In young adults, multiple overlapping spatial modes along its longitudinal and transverse axes describe the organization of its functional integration with neocortex, extending the traditional framework emphasizing functional differences between sharply segregated hippocampal subregions. Yet, it remains unknown whether these modes (i.e., gradients) persist across the adult human lifespan, and relate to memory and molecular markers associated with brain function and cognition. In two independent samples, we demonstrate that the principal anteroposterior and second-order, mid-to-anterior/posterior hippocampal modes of neocortical functional connectivity, representing distinct dimensions of macroscale cortical organization, manifest across the adult lifespan. Specifically, individual differences in topography of the second-order gradient predicted episodic memory and mirrored dopamine D1 receptor distribution, capturing shared functional and molecular organization. Older age was associated with less distinct transitions along gradients (i.e., increased functional homogeneity). Importantly, a youth-like gradient profile predicted preserved episodic memory – emphasizing age-related gradient dedifferentiation as a marker of cognitive decline. Our results underscore a critical role of mapping multidimensional hippocampal organization in understanding the neural circuits that support memory across the adult lifespan.

Article activity feed

  1. Author response:

    We would like to thank the eLife Editors and Reviewers for their positive assessment and constructive comments, and for the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We greatly appreciate the Reviewers’ recommendations and believe that they will further improve our manuscript.

    In revising the manuscript, our primary focus will be enhancing the clarity surrounding testing procedures and addressing corrections for multiple comparisons. Additionally, we intend to offer more explicit information about the statistical tests employed, along with the details about the number of models/comparisons for each test. We will also include an extended discussion on potential limitations of the dopaminergic receptor mapping methods used, addressing the Reviewers’ comments relating to the quality of PET imaging with different dopaminergic tracers in mesiotemporal regions such as the hippocampus. While the code used for connectopic mapping is publicly available through the ConGrads toolbox, we will provide the additional code we have used for data processing and analysis, visualization of hippocampal gradients, and the cortical projections. The data used in the current study is not publicly available due to ethical considerations concerning data sharing, but can be shared upon reasonable request from the senior author. Additional plans include clarifying and discussing which findings were successfully replicated, and addressing Reviewers’ suggestions for using other openly available cohorts for replication, and implementing alternative coordinate systems to quantify connectivity change along gradients.

  2. eLife assessment

    This fundamental work demonstrates the importance of considering overlapping modes of functional organization (i.e. gradients) in the hippocampus, showing associations between with aging, dopaminergic receptor distribution and episodic memory. The evidence supporting the conclusions is solid, although some clarifications about testing procedures and a discussion of the limitations of the dopaminergic receptor mapping techniques employed should be provided along with analysis code. The work will be of broad interest to basic and clinical neuroscientists.

  3. Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

    The authors studied how hippocampal connectivity gradients across the lifespan, and how these relate to memory function and neurotransmitter distributions. They observed older age with less distinct transitions and observed an association between gradient de-differentiation and cognitive decline.

    This is overall an innovative and interesting study to assess gradient alterations across the lifespan and its associations to cognition.

    The paper is well-written, and the methods appear sound and thoughtful. There are several strengths, including the inclusion of two independent cohorts, the use of gradient mapping and alignment techniques, and an overall sound statistical and analysis framework. There are several areas for potential improvements in the paper, and these are listed below:

    (1) The reported D1 associations appear a bit post-hoc in the current work and I was unclear why the authors specifically focussed on dopamine here, as other transmitter systems are similar present at the level of the hippocampus and implicated in aging.

    Moreover, the authors may be aware that multiple PET tracers are somewhat challenged in the mesiotemporal region. Is this the case for the D1 receptor as well? The hippocampus is a small and complex structure, and PET more of a low res technique so one would want to highlight and discuss the limitations of the correlations with PET maps here and/or evaluate whether the analysis adds necessary findings to the study.

    From my (perhaps somewhat biased) perspective, it might be valuable to instead or in addition look at measures of hippocampal microstructure and how these relate to the functional aging effects. This could be done, if available, using data from the same subjects (eg based on quantitative MRI contrasts and/or structural MRI) and/or using contextualization findings as implemented in eg hippomaps.readthedocs.io

    (2) Can the authors clarify why they did not replicate based on cohorts that are more widely used in the community and open access, such as CamCAN and/or HCP-Aging? It might connect their results with other studies if an attempt was made to also show that findings persist in either of these repositories.

    (3) The authors applied TSM and related these parameters to topographic changes in the gradients. I was wondering whether and how such an approach controls for autocorrelation present in both the PET map and gradients. Could the authors clarify?

    (4) The TSM approach quantifies the gradients in terms of x/y/z direction in a cartesian coordinate system. Wouldn't a shape intrinsic coordinate system in the hippocampus also be interesting, and perhaps even be more efficient to look at here (see eg DeKraker 2022 eLife or Paquola et al 2020 eLife)?

  4. Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

    Summary:

    This paper derives the first three functional gradients in the left and right hippocampus across two datasets. These gradient maps are then compared to dopamine receptor maps obtained with PET, associated with age, and linked to memory. Results reveal links between dopamine maps and gradient 2, age with gradients 1 and 2, and memory performance.

    Strengths:

    This paper investigates how hippocampal gradients relate to aging, memory, and dopamine receptors, which are interesting and important questions. A strength of the paper is that some of the findings were replicated in a separate sample.

    Weaknesses

    The paper would benefit from added clarification on the number of models/comparisons for each test. Furthermore, it would be helpful to clarify whether or not multiple comparison correction was performed and - if so - what type or - if not - to provide a justification. The manuscript would furthermore benefit from code sharing and clarifying which results did/did not replicate.

  5. Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

    Summary:

    In this study, the authors analyzed the complex functional organization of the hippocampus using two separate adult lifespan datasets. They investigated how individual variations in the detailed connectivity patterns within the hippocampus relate to behavioral and molecular traits. The findings confirm three overlapping hippocampal gradients and reveal that each is linked to established functional patterns in the cortex, the arrangement of dopamine receptors within the hippocampus, and differences in memory abilities among individuals. By employing multivariate data analysis techniques, they identified older adults who display a hippocampal gradient pattern resembling that of younger individuals and exhibit better memory performance compared to their age-matched peers. This underscores the behavioral importance of maintaining a specific functional organization within the hippocampus as people age.

    Strengths:

    The evidence supporting the conclusions is overall compelling, based on a unique dataset, rich set of carefully unpacked results, and an in-depth data analysis. Possible confounds are carefully considered and ruled out.

    Weaknesses:

    No major weaknesses. The transparency of the statistical analyses could be improved by explicitly (1) stating what tests and corrections (if any) were performed, and (2) justifying the elected statistical approaches. Further, some of the findings related to the DA markers are borderline statistically significant and therefore perhaps less compelling but they line up nicely with results obtained using experimental animals and I expect the small effect sizes to be largely related to the quality and specificity of the PET data rather than the derived functional connectivity gradients.