4.2 Article

Olfactory sulcus morphology in patients with current and past major depression

Journal

PSYCHIATRY RESEARCH-NEUROIMAGING
Volume 255, Issue -, Pages 60-65

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pscychresns.2016.07.008

Keywords

Depressive disorder; Magnetic resonance imaging; Olfaction; State factors; Trait factors

Funding

  1. Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science [26461739, 24390281]
  2. Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED)
  3. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (NHMRC) [APP1021973]
  4. NHMRC [1007716, 628386, 1105825]
  5. Neurosciences Victoria
  6. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [26461739, 24390281] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Olfactory deficits have been reported in major depressive disorder (MDD). However, it remains largely unknown whether MDD is associated with abnormalities in olfactory sulcus morphology, a potential marker of olfactory system development This magnetic resonance imaging study investigated the length and depth of the olfactory sulcus in 29 currently depressed patients, 27 remitted depressed patients, and 33 age- and gender-matched healthy control subjects. Both current and remitted MDD patients had significantly shallower olfactory sulci bilaterally as compared with controls. Only for male subjects, the right olfactory sulcus was significantly shorter in remitted MDD patients than in controls. The right sulcus depth was negatively correlated with number of depressive episodes in the entire MDD group and with residual depressive symptoms in the remitted MDD group. Medication status, presence of melancholia, and comorbidity with anxiety disorders did not affect the sulcus morphology. These findings suggest that abnormality of the olfactory sulcus morphology, especially its depth, may be a trait-related marker of vulnerability to major depression. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available