Cited by 58Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsCognitive Abilities and TestingGenetic Associations and Epidemiology

Heritability of white matter microstructure in late middle age: A twin study of tract‐based fractional anisotropy and absolute diffusivity indices

Open access
Vuoksimaa, Eero, Panizzon, Matthew S., Hagler Jr, Donald J., Hatton, Sean N., Fennema‐Notestine, Christine, Rinker, Daniel, Eyler, Lisa T., Franz, Carol E. +5 more·2017·Human Brain Mapping

Abstract

There is evidence that differences among individuals in white matter microstructure, as measured with diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), are under genetic control. However, little is known about the relative contribution of genetic and environmental effects on different diffusivity indices among late middle‐aged adults. Here, we examined the magnitude of genetic influences for fractional anisotropy (FA), and mean (MD), axial (AD), and radial (RD) diffusivities in male twins aged 56–66 years old. Using an atlas‐based registration approach to delineate individual white matter tracts, we investigated mean DTI‐based indices within the corpus callosum, 12 bilateral tracts and all these regions of interest combined. All four diffusivity indices had high heritability at the global level (72%–80%). The magnitude of genetic effects in individual tracts varied from 0% to 82% for FA, 0% to 81% for MD, 8% to 77% for AD, and 0% to 80% for RD with most of the tracts showing significant heritability estimates. Despite the narrow age range of this community‐based sample, age was correlated with all four diffusivity indices at the global level. In sum, all diffusion indices proved to have substantial heritability for most of the tracts and the heritability estimates were similar in magnitude for different diffusivity measures. Future studies could aim to discover the particular set of genes that underlie the significant heritability of white matter microstructure. Hum Brain Mapp 38:2026–2036, 2017. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/hbm.23502

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Cortical thickness and surface area have considerable genetic influences that vary by cortical region but share little genetic variance, indicating regulation by different sets of genetic influences.

    “Cortical thickness and surface area also have considerable genetic influences that vary by cortical region, but interestingly share little shared genetic variance between them, indicating that these two aspects of cortical volume are regulated by different sets of genetic influences 144, 145.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vuoksimaa, E., Panizzon, M. S., Hagler Jr, D. J., Hatton, S. N., Fennema‐Notestine, C., Rinker, D., Eyler, L. T., Franz, C. E., Lyons, M. J., Neale, M. C., Tsuang, M. T., Dale, A. M., & Kremen, W. S.
Affiliations
  • University of Helsinki (FI)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • Department of Radiology University of California, San Diego La Jolla California
  • University of Southern California (US)
  • Boston University (US)
  • Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
Corresponding author
Vuoksimaa, Eero
Venue
Human Brain Mapping
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-12-29
Volume
38
Issue
4
Pages
2026-2036
ISSN
  • 1065-9471 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0193
OpenAlex
W2567177920
Cited by
58
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6
FWCI
2.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Human Brain Mapping (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Aging (R01 AG022381, R01 AG018384, R01 AG018386, R01 AG022982, K08 AG047903)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
Keywords
white matter microstructure, heritability, genetic factors, fractional anisotropy, mean diffusivity, axial diffusivity, radial diffusivity, white matter tracts, corpus callosum, late middle age, twin studies, diffusion tensor imaging, age effects
MeSH terms
Aged, Corpus Callosum, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Male, Middle Aged, Residence Characteristics, Retrospective Studies, Twins, Dizygotic, Twins, Monozygotic, Anisotropy, Inheritance Patterns, Diffusion Tensor Imaging, Gene-Environment Interaction, White Matter

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review