Alessandro Arrigo, MD
Department of Biomedical Sciences, Morphological and Functional Imaging, Via Consolare Valeria
1 Messina 98125, Italy; E-mail: alessandro.arrigo@hotmail.com
The limbic system includes cortical and subcortical brain structures involved in several functions, first of all emotional and memory processes and integration. Two key structures of the limbic network are hippocampus and amygdala; their connections with the other brain regions are allowed through a number of white matter pathways, including cingulum, uncinate fasciculus and fornix.1 All these pathways were studied by means of invasive approaches in animals as well as by means of MRI techniques, e.g. diffusion based tractography. These methods resulted very useful for the non-invasive study, in vivo, of these limbic brain connections,1 as well as to show new possible pathways, e.g. the cerebellar limbic one.2 Recently, new insights regarding possible limbic functions came from a study conducted by means of advanced tractographic algorithms.3 The main goal of the latter paper was to investigate subtentorial limbic connections in healthy humans; this was an interesting point, since these connections were previously investigated only in animals by means of viral tracing techniques.4 These previous studies revealed extensive connections of both amygdala and hippocampus with brainstem nuclei, as well as connections with the periphery of the body through spinal projections.5,6 By means of constrained spherical deconvolution (CSD)7 based tractography, Arrigo and colleagues3 reported and described hippocampal and amygdalar connections with midbrain, pons and bulb as well as connections with cervical spinal cord (Figure 1). These represented novel findings in humans, suggesting that functional speculation based on animals studies might be adopted also in human brain. Amygdalar connections with brainstem were proposed to be related with faster answers to fear stimuli, in order to establish a more efficient alerting mechanism.8,9,10 Based on findings provided by animal studies, other authors proposed a role of amygdalar-brainstem pathways in the visceral control as well as in the control of the appetite.11,12 With respect to hippocampal-brainstem pathways, these were previously reported in animals13,14; those results allowed to advance the hypothesis of a larger learning and memory connectivity network, involving also brainstem structures, which might influence the limbic system during memory and learning elaboration.15 In this context we might advance the hypothesis that information regarding the visceral state in a given moment might influence or take a role in memory and learning processing.16 Regarding spinal-limbic connections, very little is known about their functional involvement in brain processes. Also in this case, these pathways were supported by previous studies conducted in animals.5,6 A number of hypotheses might be advanced about the functional meaning of these bundles; an interesting point is related with the possibility that these connections represent a faster way of transmission of nociceptive information and visceral ones, thus making possible faster responses to dangerous or noxious stimuli.
Figure 1: Sagittal view of amygdalar (a) and hippocampal (b) connections with cervical spinal cord. Amygdala and hippocampus are represented by brown and white regions of interest respectively.
Although, further studies are needed definitely to demonstrate the existence of these connections, i.e. dissection studies, as well as to define their functional meaning, these white matter bundles open new interesting perspectives both in physiological and pathological contexts. Indeed, it might be interesting to study the role of brainstem and the periphery of the body in learning and memory processes, as well as in emotional state integration. Moreover, these pathways might provide further anatomical basis to better define pathophysiological features of a number of psychiatric and syndromic conditions, e.g. bipolar disorder17,18 and anti-Ma2-associated syndrome.19,20 In these kind of patients a strong involvement of the limbic system was demonstrated, with concurrent alterations of brainstem nuclei. Furthermore, another interesting future perspective might regard the deeper study of what is known as gut-brain axis, i.e. a bilateral network connecting the periphery of the body both with central and enteric nervous systems.21 This bidirectional path of connections was described to influence and/or stimulate a number of responses involving nervous, immune and endocrine systems21; its alterations was hypothesized to have a role in the pathophysiology of a number of disorders, including functional and inflammatory gastrointestinal disorders, and eating disorders.16 In particular, with respect to irritable bowel syndrome, previous studies demonstrated alterations of brain functional connectivity, including supra-tentorial limbic circuits.22,23 Future studies should be conducted in order to understand if an involvement of subtentorial limbic connections occurs in all these contexts.
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
1. Catani M, Dell’acqua F, Thiebaut de Schotten M. A revised limbic system model for memory, emotion and behaviour. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2013; 37(8): 1724-1737. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.07.001
2. Arrigo A, Mormina E, Anastasi GP, et al. Constrained spherical deconvolution analysis of the limbic network in human, with emphasis on a direct cerebello-limbic pathway. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014; 8: 987. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00987
3. Arrigo A, Mormina EM, Calamuneri A, et al. Amygdalar and hippocampal connections with brainstem and spinal cord: A diffusion MRI study inhuman brain. Neuroscience. 2016. pii: S0306-4522(16)30706-0. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2016.12.016
4. Castle M, Comoli E, Loewy AD. Autonomic brainstem nuclei are linked to the hippocampus. Neuroscience. 2005; 134(2): 657-669. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2005.04.031
5. Giesler GJ Jr, Katter JT, Dado RJ. Direct spinal pathways to the limbic system for nociceptive information. Trends Neurosci. 1994; 17(6): 244-250. doi: 10.1016/0166-2236(94)90007-8
6. Newman HM, Stevens RT, Apkarian AV. Direct spinal projections to limbic and striatal areas: Anterograde transport studies from the upper cervical spinal cord and the cervical enlargement in squirrel monkey and rat. J Comp Neurol. 1996; 365(4): 640-658. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9861(19960219)365:4<640::AID-CNE10>3.0.CO;2-L
7. Tournier JD, Calamante F, Connelly A. Robust determination of the fibre orientation distribution in diffusion MRI: Non-negativity constrained super-resolved spherical deconvolution. Neuroimage. 2007; 35(4): 1459-1472. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.02.016
8. Usunoff KG, Itzev DE, Rolfs A, Schmitt O, Wree A. Brain stem afferent connections of the amygdala in the rat with special references to a projection from the parabigeminal nucleus: A fluorescent retrograde tracing study. Anat Embryol (Berl). 2006; 211(5): 475-496. doi: 10.1007/s00429-006-0099-8
9. Deboer T, Ross RJ, Morrison AR, Sanford LD. Electrical stimulation of the amygdala increases the amplitude of elicited ponto-geniculo-occipital waves. Physiol Behav. 1999; 66(1): 119-124. doi: 10.1016/s0031-9384(98)00281-9
10. Liddell BJ, Brown KJ, Kemp AH, et al. A direct brainstem–amygdala–cortical ‘alarm’ system for subliminal signals of fear. Neuroimage. 2005; 24(1): 235-243. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.08.016
11. García-Medina NE, Miranda MI. Nucleus of the solitary tract chemical stimulation induces extracellular norepinephrine release in the lateral and basolateral amygdala. Brain Stimul. 2013; 6(2): 198-201. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2012.03.020
12. Carter ME, Soden ME, Zweifel LS, Palmiter RD. Genetic identification of a neural circuit that suppresses appetite. Nature. 2013; 503(7474): 111-114. doi: 10.1038/nature12596
13. Gasbarri A, Packard MG, Campana E, Pacitti C. Anterograde and retrograde tracing of projections from the ventral tegmental area to the hippocampal formation in the rat. Brain Res Bull. 1994; 33(4): 445-452. doi: 10.1016/0361-9230(94)90288-7
14. Gasbarri A, Sulli A, Packard MG. The dopaminergic mesencephalic projections to the hippocampal formation in the rat. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 1997; 21(1): 1-22. doi: 10.1016/S0278-5846(96)00157-1
15. Kirk IJ, McNaughton N. Mapping the differential effects of procaine on frequency and amplitude of reticularly elicited hippocampal rhythmical slow activity. Hippocampus. 1993; 3(4): 517-525. doi: 10.1002/hipo.450030411
16. Mayer EA. Gut feelings: the emerging biology of gut-brain communication. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2011; 12(8): 453-466. doi: 10.1038/nrn3071
17. Krogias C, Hoffmann K, Eyding J, et al. Evaluation of basal ganglia, brainstem raphe and ventricles in bipolar disorder by transcranial sonography. Psychiatry Res. 2011; 194(2): 190-197. doi: 10.1016/j.pscychresns.2011.04.002
18. Sköld M, Källstrand J, Nehlstedt S, et al. Thalamocortical abnormalities in auditory brainstem response patterns distinguish DSM-IV bipolar disorder type I from schizophrenia. J Affect Disord. 2014; 169: 105-111. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2014.08.002
19. Yamamoto T, Tsuji S. Anti-Ma2-associated encephalitis and paraneoplastic limbic encephalitis [In Japanese]. Brain Nerve. 2010; 62(8): 838-851. doi: 10.11477/mf.1416100733
20. Waragai M, Chiba A, Uchibori A, Fukushima T, Anno M, Tanaka K. Anti-Ma2 associated paraneoplastic neurological syndrome presenting as encephalitis and progressive muscular atrophy. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2006; 77(1): 111-113. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.2005.068775
21. Carabotti M, Scirocco A, Maselli MA, Severi C. The gut-brain axis: Interactions between enteric microbiota, central and enteric nervous systems. Ann Gastroenterol. 2015; 28(2): 203-209. Web site. http://annalsgastro.gr/index.php/annalsgastro/article/view/1959/1537. Accessed December 23, 2016
22. Qi R, Liu C, Weng Y, et al. Disturbed interhemispheric functional connectivity rather than structural connectivity in irritable bowel syndrome. Front Mol Neurosci. 2016; 9: 141. doi: 10.3389/fnmol.2016.00141
23. Weng Y, Qi R, Liu C, et al. Disrupted functional connectivity density in irritable bowel syndrome patients. Brain Imaging Behav. 2016. doi: 10.1007/s11682-016-9653-z
© 2014-2024 I Openventio Publisher is licensed by Creative Commons Attribution, unless otherwise indicated.
