Impaired striatal Glutamate/GABA regulation in violent offenders with antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3433118/v1

Men with antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) with or without psychopathy (+/-P) are responsible for most violent crime in society. Development of effective treatments is hindered by poor understanding of the neurochemical underpinnings of the condition. Men with ASPD with and without psychopathy demonstrate impulsive decision-making, associated with striatal abnormalities in functional neuroimaging studies. However, to date, no study has directly examined the potential neurochemical underpinnings of such abnormalities. We therefore investigated striatal glutamate: GABA ratio using Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy in 30 violent offenders (16 ASPD-P, 14 ASPD+P) and 21 healthy non-offenders. Men with ASPD+/-P had a highly significant reduction in striatal glutamate : GABA ratio compared to non-offenders. We report, for the first time, striatal Glutamate/GABA dysregulation in ASPD+/-P, and discuss how this may be related to core behavioral abnormalities in the disorders.

Biological sciences/Neuroscience

Biological sciences/Molecular biology

A small group of men meet diagnostic criteria for Conduct Disorder (CD) in childhood and Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD) in adulthood. They are responsible for most violent crime, (1, 2) resulting in a substantial negative impact on society.(3, 4) One-third of this group exhibit callous-unemotional traits in childhood(5, 6) and meet additional diagnostic criteria for psychopathy (ASPD + P) in adulthood.(7) The ASPD + P group have an earlier onset and greater density of offending behaviours(8) and respond less well to therapeutic strategies(9, 10) than those without psychopathy (ASPD-P).

Such life course persistent antisocial behaviour is associated with dysfunctional empathic processing and impaired decision making. While empathic processing deficits, such as a deficient response to others’ fear(11–13) and distress,(14) appear to be relatively specific to ASPD + P, it is less clear to what extent decision-making abnormalities are shared by or specific to ASPD + P and/or ASPD-P. Most studies in antisocial adults have focused on those with ASPD + P, who demonstrate abnormalities in tasks measuring passive avoidance,(15) extinction, (16) and reversal learning.(17–19) However, at least one set of neuropsychological studies has suggested that violent offenders with ASPD + P and ASPD-P demonstrate similar deficits in reversal learning, decision-making under risk, and stimulus-reinforcement-based decision-making.(20) Both groups of violent offenders failed to learn from punishment cues, to change their behavior in the face of changing contingencies, and made poorer quality decisions despite longer periods of deliberation.

The striatum, the principal input structure of the basal ganglia, may be a key neural substrate of such decision-making deficits. Both the ventral striatum (nucleus accumbens and olfactory tubercle) and the dorsal striatum (caudate and putamen) play crucial, partly dissociable roles in decision-making in healthy populations. The ventral striatum is thought to primarily process social reward and to underpin the reinforcement learning which helps to predict future outcomes.(21) The dorsal striatum predominantly mediates choice impulsivity, evaluating action-contingent outcomes to better select future goal-directed actions.(22) The function of the striatum is controlled by a complex array of neurotransmitters and neuromodulators.(23, 24) Dopamine, released in striatum by long-range axons arising from midbrain ventral tegmental area (VTA) and substantia nigra pars compacta (SNc), is thought to drive reinforcement learning by encoding reward prediction error (RPE), the difference between experienced and expected reward, by regulating multiple aspects of neuronal and synaptic function.(25–28)

The mesostriatal dopaminergic reward prediction error signal operates in the context of, and interacts with, striatal excitatory/inhibitory (E/I) balance. The critical balance between the strength of excitatory and inhibitory transmission is responsible for setting the local level of striatal excitability and is determined by glutamate and GABA. Hence, regulation of dopaminergic function by glutamate-GABA mediated E/I balance is likely a critical factor in controlling the ability of striatal circuits to optimize their computational reward behavior functions. Evidence from preclinical studies provides insights into how this occurs at a molecular level. Striatal cholinergic interneurons reduce or ‘pause’ their firing in response to both rewarding and punishing stimuli over the course of learning, serving to modulate reinforcement learning.(29) This cholinergic signal is in turn regulated by thalamo- and corticostriatal glutamatergic inputs.(30) Striatal dopamine release is inhibited by GABA-A or GABA-B receptor agonists, enhanced by of GABA-A and GABA-B receptor antagonists acting together, and enhanced by GABA-B antagonists acting alone.(31)

Impaired valence-based modulation of dopaminergic prediction error signaling in the striatum has been hypothesized to underpin the abnormalities of reinforcement-based decision making observed in ASPD+/-P.(32) Functional MRI studies have provided evidence for ventral and dorsal striatal abnormalities in antisocial groups across the lifespan. In childhood, youths with Disruptive Behaviour Disorders (DBD: Conduct Disorder and Oppositional Defiant Disorder, both precursors of ASPD in adulthood) show decreased ventral striatal response during reward anticipation,(33) reduced responsiveness to positive prediction errors and increased responsiveness to negative prediction errors within the dorsal striatum during feedback,(34) and reduced dorsal striatal response to early stimulus-reinforcement exposure.(35) Youths with persistent DBD demonstrate reduced responsivity in the ventral striatum during reward outcome processing, compared to youths who had desisted from DBD and healthy youth.(36) In adulthood, high psychopathy scores in incarcerated men are related to stronger subjective value-related activity within the ventral striatum during inter-temporal choice(37) but a reduced response in the ventral striatum to monetary loss.(38) Other studies in male prisoners with psychopathy (or high levels of psychopathic traits) have found increased responses to reward anticipation in the ventral striatum.(37, 39) Taken together, the evidence suggests that striatal dysfunction in both reward anticipation and reinforcement may underpin dysfunctional decision-making in antisocial populations. To date, however, there is insufficient evidence in youth and adult samples to determine whether neural correlates of decision-making deficits are shared across all antisocial individuals or are unique to severe and persistent forms of DBD in youth and psychopathy in adulthood.

These functional neuroanatomical studies were important first steps, but are ‘mute’ with respect to the potential neurochemical underpinnings of the decision making abnormalities. To date, no study to our knowledge has examined the role of glutamate/GABA mediated E/I balance in ASPD+/-P. Furthermore, despite the importance of striatal deficits in decision-making processes in antisocial populations, no study has specifically explored E/I balance in the striatum in antisocial groups. Hence, in a group of violent offenders with ASPD+/-P, and healthy non-offenders (NO), we measured the striatal glutamate : GABA ratio using proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (¹H-1H-MRS). We hypothesized that the glutamate : GABA ratio would be dysregulated in both ASPD + P and ASPD-P compared to healthy non-offenders, given the similar decision making abnormalities previously demonstrated in the violent offending groups.

Participants and assessment

Between September 2017 and March 2020, we enrolled 51 men (21 healthy non-offenders, 30 offenders with antisocial personality disorder with (n= 14) or without (n=16) psychopathy), aged 20 to 58 years, with an IQ in the normal range as defined by the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI-II).(40) Offenders with convictions for violent crimes (murder, rape, attempted murder, grievous and actual bodily harm) who met DSM-5 criteria for antisocial personality disorder (Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 Personality Disorders (SCID-5 PD;(41)) were recruited via the National Probation Service of England and Wales and local forensic personality disorder services. Healthy non-offenders were recruited from the general population using online adverts and fliers in job centres and local recreational centres. All participants completed diagnostic (SCID) and Psychopathy Checklist- Revised (PCL-R;(42)) interviews and authorized access to their criminal records. A cross-cultural validation study(43) of the PCL-R demonstrated that cut off scores for psychopathy in men vary between North America (30 out of a possible 40 points) and Europe (25 out of a possible 40 points). In line with previous research in UK samples,(44, 45) we used a score of 25 as the threshold for psychopathy in this English population. We calculated total, factor 1 and factor 2 PCL-R scores for all participants. Factor 1 scores are a total of facet 1 (interpersonal traits, such as pathological lying) plus facet 2 traits (affective traits, such as lack of empathy), while factor 2 scores are a total of facet 3 (antisocial lifestyle traits, such as impulsivity) plus facet 4 traits (overt antisocial behaviors, such as criminal versatility). Exclusion criteria were: history of major mental disorders (bipolar 1, bipolar 2, major depression or psychotic disorders) or self-reported neurological disorders, head injury resulting in loss of consciousness for 1 hour or longer, severe visual or hearing impairments, or contraindications to MRI.

After receiving a complete description of the study, all participants provided written consent. Ethical approval was obtained from the national UK research authority (National Health Service Health Research Authority Research and Ethics Committee, project number 15/LO/1083). All assessments were conducted by an experienced forensic psychiatrist (JT). Participants completed the reactive-proactive aggression questionnaire.(46) On the day of each MRI scan, participants provided a urine sample to assess for substance misuse.

Statistical analysis of Demographic and Psychometric Data

Continuous variables were checked for normal distribution using the Shapiro-Wilk test (all datasets smaller than 2000 elements) and analyzed using independent sample t tests (for NO vs All ASPD, post-hoc comparisons of ASPD-P and ASPD+P). Categorical variables were analyzed using Chi-Squared tests, or Fisher’s exact test where there were less than 5 subjects in a cell. Significance level of p <0.05 was used in all instances, with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons where indicated. All analyses were conducted using Statistical Package for Social Sciences, Version 25.0 for Windows.(47) Graphs displaying results were produced using GraphPad Prism version 7 for Mac (GraphPad Software, La Jolla, CA, USA, www.graphpad.com).

Proton Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy (¹H-MRS)

Scanning session and data acquisition

Participants underwent a ¹H-MRS scan in a 3 Tesla General Electric MR750 Discovery scanner using a 32-channel head coil. A T₁-weighted high resolution sagittal ADNI Go Spoiled Gradient Recalled (SPGR) anatomical with repetition time (TR) = 7.312 ms, echo time (TE) = 3.016 ms, inversion time (TI) = 400 ms, flip angle (FA) 11°, field of view 270 mm, 256 x 256 matrix, 196 slices, voxel dimensions: 1.055 x 1.055 x 1.2 mm was used for spectroscopy voxel positioning and further voxel tissue segmentation. A single-voxel (35 x 30 x 25 mm) was positioned to include the left striatum region of interest (ROI) using the anatomical scan (see Supplementary Figure 1) and a Mescher-Garwood Point-Resolved Spectroscopy (MEGA-PRESS)(48) sequence (TR = 2000 ms, TE = 68 ms, bandwidth = 5 kHz; number of data points = 4096; 320 averages (160 ON and 160 OFF); phase cycle length of two; FA 90° (excitation pulses); CHESS water suppression) was used to quantify GABA+ (i.e. GABA + macromolecules) and glutamate. Additionally, 16 unsuppressed water scans were acquired for further water scaled metabolite quantification.

Metabolite Quantification and Quality Assessment

Raw ¹H-MRS data were pre-processed using in house scripts adapted from FID Appliance (FID-A) pipeline (www.github.com/CIC-methods/FID-A) running in MATLAB 9.2.0 (The Mathworks Inc., Natick, Massachusetts, USA) to prepare them for further analysis with LCModel(49) (Stephen Provencher Inc., Oakville, Canada). GABA+ and glutamate were then quantified from the difference spectrum(50) using LCModel version 6.3-1L (http://s-provencher.com/lcmodel.shtml) (see Supplementary Figure 2). The unsuppressed water signal was used to obtain water-scaled metabolite values and perform eddy-current correction. The ¹H-MRS voxel was segmented to extract the proportion of grey matter, white matter and cerebrospinal fluid (see Supplementary Figure 3) for further metabolite voxel tissue correction (in institutional units). Spectra were visually inspected for data and fitting quality. Visual inspection and quality control followed published guidelines(51, 52) Please see Supplementary Materials (S1) for metabolite quantification and quality assessment details.

Demographic and clinical variables

Table 1 shows the demographic and clinical variables. As expected, the three groups differed significantly in years of education (offenders had fewer years of education than non-offenders) and PCL-R total and facet scores. There were also some differences in rates of comorbid personality disorders: offenders had a significantly higher rate of comorbid Cluster A personality disorder diagnosis compared to healthy non-offenders, and those with ASPD+P had a higher rate than those ASPD-P. Offenders had a significantly higher rate of comorbid Cluster B personality disorder diagnosis compared to healthy non-offenders, and those offenders with ASPD+P had a higher rate than those with ASPD-P. This is in keeping with the normal range of variation in clinical profiles of ASPD+/-P and we did not adjust our analyses based on these findings. Urinary drug screening on the day of scanning revealed some significant differences in active illicit substance misuse (see Supplementary Table 1) and this was included as a covariate in supplementary analyses (Supplementary Materials Table 2).

Glutamate : GABA ratio

Independent sample t-test for NO vs All ASPD revealed a significant effect of striatal glutamate : GABA ratio between groups (SE 0.081, CI .153 – 0.48, p = <0.001), with a lower mean ratio in All ASPD (2.847) compared to NO (3.164). Post-hoc comparison of ASPD-P and ASPD+P revealed no significant within ASPD group difference for striatal glutamate : GABA ratio (SE 0.113, CI -0.255 – 0.231, p= 0.979). Boxplots for the individual subject data for glutamate : GABA ratio are presented in Figure 1. ANCOVA, covarying for illicit drug use, did not lead to any changes in direction or significance of effect (striatal glutamate : GABA ratio group difference (η² = 0.223, F_1,48= 6.876, p = 0.002)).

Table 1. Demographic and clinical characteristics

	*Group*				*Group comparison (NO vs All ASPD)*		*Post hoc analysis (ASPD-P vs ASPD+P)*
Demographic/ Clinical Characteristic^a	NO (n =21)	All ASPD (n =30)	ASPD-P (n= 16)	ASPD+P (n= 14)	Statistic^b	p value	Statistic^c	p value
Age	35.1 (± 9.8)	38.0 (± 10.1)	39.1 (± 11)	36.7 (± 9.3)	0.993	0.324	0.621	0.539
IQ	100.3 (± 9.8)	94.8 (± 11.7)	97.7 (± 11.9)	91.3 (± 10.9)	3.017	0.089	1.494	0.147
Age at first violent conviction	n/a	17.6 (± 7.5)	17.7 (± 8.3)	17.5 (± 6.9)	n/a	n/a	0.090	0.929
Number of violent convictions	n/a	6.1 (± 6.8)	5.6 (± 7.9)	6.7 (± 5.6)	n/a	n/a	-0.413	0.683
Years education	14.6 (±3.3)	10.5 (±2.4)	11.1 (±2.6)	9.8 (±1.9)	25.08	<0.001**	1.581	0.125
PCL-R Facet 1 (Interpersonal)	0.61 (± 0.92)	2.93 (± 1.87)	1.87 (± 1.36)	4.14 (± 1.65)	26.93	0.001**	-4.061	<0.001**
PCL-R Facet 2 (Affective)	0.61 (± 0.92)	4.00 (± 2.01)	2.93 (± 1.52)	5.21 (± 1.84)	51.27	<0.001**	-3.649	0.001*
PCL-R Facet 3 (Lifestyle)	1.14 (± 1.27)	6.50 (± 1.77)	5.56 (± 1.67)	7.57 (± 1.22)	140.01	<0.001**	-3.786	0.001*
PCL-R Facet 4 (Antisocial)	0.42 (± 0.67)	6.86 (± 2.28)	5.62 (± 2.21)	8.28 (± 1.38)	156.21	<0.001**	-3.994	<0.001**
PCL-R Total	3.14 (± 3.07)	22.44 (± 6.27)	17.51 (± 3.63)	28.07 (± 2.91)	169.54	<0.001**	-8.825	<0.001**
*Comorbid Personality Disorder Diagnosis*
Cluster A	0 (0%)	4 (13.3%)	0 (0%)	4 (28.5%)	-	0.134	-	0.0365*
Cluster B	0 (0%)	9 (30%)	1 (6.25%)	8 (57.1%)	-	0.007*	-	0.0043*
Cluster C	0 (0%)	2 (6.6%)	1 (6.25%)	1 (7.1%)	-	0.039*	-	1.0
Lifetime Substance Misuse Disorder	2 (9.5%)	8 (26.6%)	5 (31.2%)	3 (21.4%)	-	0.167	-	0.6887

^{a =}Continuous data reported as mean (± standard deviation), categorical variables as raw values with (%). ^{b =}F_(1,49) for continuous variables; Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables (as all crosstab tables had at least one cell with less than 5). ^c=t statistic for continuous variables; Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables (as all crosstab tables had at least one cell with less than 5). *= statistically significant at p <0.05 level **= statistically significant at p <0.001 level.

In a sample of violent male offenders with ASPD with and without psychopathy (ASPD+/-P), we investigated excitatory/inhibitory (E/I) striatal regulation, as measured by striatal glutamate: GABA ratio. We demonstrated a reduction in striatal glutamate : GABA ratio — and hence impaired excitatory/inhibitory (E/I) balance — in ASPD+/-P, compared to healthy non-offenders (NO). This finding suggests that abnormal striatal E/I balance is a shared characteristic of offenders with ASPD, and a potential cross-cutting mechanism for those with and without psychopathy. This represents a novel and important step forward towards developing a model of the neurochemical underpinnings of neurocognitive dysfunction in ASPD+/-P.

Striatal dysfunction has previously been associated with decision-making abnormalities in ASPD+/-P (37, 39, 53, 54). Our finding of relatively increased striatal inhibitory tone in ASPD+/-P therefore provides a novel insight into potential mechanisms. For instance, inhibitory GABA-ergic spiny projection neurons likely control output from the striatum to cortical connections by their relative excitatory state (55, 56). Increased inhibitory tone could critically impair this process. Such neuronal abnormalities would in turn have consequences at the higher cognitive level, particularly in processes related to reinforcement-based decision making. For example, should E/I regulation of ventral striatum become dysfunctional, this may lead to impaired neural reward prediction error signalling(57) and aberrant salience attribution.(58) In keeping with this, both antisocial youth(36) and adults(38) demonstrated decreased ventral striatal response during reward outcome processing, compared to controls. Should dorsal striatum become dysfunctional, this would interfere with integration of information processing involved in goal-directed action and the selection of actions on the basis of their currently expected reward value.(59, 60) Supporting this, previous work in antisocial youths has demonstrated aberrant responsiveness to positive and negative prediction errors within the dorsal striatum during feedback,(34) and reduced dorsal striatal response to early stimulus-reinforcement exposure.(35) Hence, impairments in both ventral and dorsal striatal function, driven by impaired E/I regulation (increased inhibitory tone), may partially explain reinforcement-based decision making deficits in ASPD+/-P.

A related consideration is whether striatal glutamate : GABA abnormalities in ASPD+/-P are primary, or if they are secondary to other factors at synaptic, circuit, or neurochemical levels. At the synaptic level, E/I balance is influenced by a number of factors, including excitatory/inhibitory synapse development, synaptic transmission, homeostatic synaptic plasticity, and intrinsic neuronal excitability. At the circuit level, E/I balance is influenced by the interplay between GABAergic interneurons and target pyramidal neurons,(61) and may be related to abnormal thinning of neocortical minicolumns.(62) At a neurochemical level, glutamate and GABA’s release in vitro in the striatum are modulated by other neurochemical systems, most notably dopaminergic and cholinergic. The principal neurons in both ventral and dorsal striatum are medium-sized spiny GABA projection neurons (medium spiny neurons) that receive convergent synaptic inputs from glutamatergic and dopaminergic afferents.(63) Animal models demonstrate that activation of dopamine (D2) receptors in striatal GABAergic terminals inhibits GABA release onto cholinergic interneurons by selective blockade of N-type calcium channels,(64) while dopamine modulates the excitatory glutamate corticostriatal transmission to GABA neurons.(65) Given this evidence, it is likely that synaptic and circuit factors, as well as dopaminergic and cholinergic modulation, influence the glutamate : GABA abnormalities we have demonstrated in ASPD. However, whether these interactions regulate neuromodulator levels in vivo, particularly during decision making, remains largely unknown.

Nonetheless, our findings may have implications for therapeutics in ASPD. If E/I imbalance in the striatum could be corrected, this may compensate for related neuronal dysfunction, and have beneficial effects on downstream behavioral outcomes, including aggression and sub-optimal decision-making under uncertainty. One option is to target the activity of glutamate decarboxylase (GAD), whose two isoforms convert glutamate to GABA, playing a key role in maintaining their homeostasis. Aberrant activity of GAD has been implicated in aggressive(66, 67) and social(68) behaviors(69) in animal models, and in autism,(70, 71) schizophrenia,(72, 73) mood disorders,(73, 74) addictions,(75–77) and ADHD (78, 79) in humans. GAD has also been a target of pharmacological manipulation in animal models (80) and used as a potential candidate for gene therapy in Parkinson’s disease.(81) A separate promising approach may be drugs such as N-acetylcysteine and Ceftriaxone, which have been shown to normalize glutamatergic function in cocaine(82) and opiate(83) users. They do so by restoring brain production of the cystine-glutamate exchanger (xCT), which is rendered scarce by chronic drug use and leads to diminished supply of extracellular glutamate. This mechanism may be especially relevant in subjects with ASPD, who have high rates of substance dependence and abuse.(84) Similarly, psychostimulant medication may have value in ASPD. Preclinical work has demonstrated that methamphetamine may increase striatal glutamate(85) and glutamate vesicular protein concentration in dorsolateral striatum.(86) In keeping with this, recent evidence in healthy humans shows both methamphetamine and d-amphetamine significantly increased glutamate (though in this case, in the anterior cingulate cortex(87)). Such an effect, should it be replicated in the striatum in ASPD, would help to normalize striatal glutamate : GABA ratio, and may have implications in attenuating related decision-making abnormalities in the condition. Future pharmacoimaging studies trialing the effect of these drugs on E/I balance may be beneficial.

This work represented a methodological step forward in ¹H-MRS studies in ASPD, in that use of 3T MRI scanner with MEGA-PRESS allowed for a direct measure of GABA (‘GABA+’), and hence a metric of E/I balance in the form of glutamate : GABA ratio, which has not been reported in this group before. Of the two previous ¹H-MRS studies in ASPD+/-P subjects, one(88) was limited by the use of 1.5T MRI, and did not report neither glutamate or GABA levels, while the other(89) used a conventional unedited spectroscopy sequence to report only glutamate and its precursor glutamine (Glx) levels. Ever-increasing MRI resolution and quantification procedures are making detection of individual metabolite signals using ¹H-MRS increasingly precise and reliable(90–93), while efforts are also being made to improve regional specification through better localization.(93, 94) These developments mean that future work will be able to investigate the neurochemistry of different brain regions in ASPD with increasing precision, contributing to a more granular model of neurochemical dysfunction in the disorder. Application of ¹H-MRS to other brain regions of interest in ASPD, including ventromedial prefrontal cortex, insula, anterior cingulate cortex, and amygdala will also be valuable. Selecting which specific ASPD subjects should be included in the pharmacoimaging studies discussed above, and subsequent clinical trials, is also an important consideration. A priori selection of subjects with established reduction in glutamate: GABA ratio would be the most valid approach for interventional studies. Due to its cost however, using ¹H-MRS to do this may not be feasible. Alternative methods are discussed in Box 1.

The other key strengths of the study include clinical diagnoses and PCL-R ratings made by an experienced clinician, the use of official criminal records to classify participants, measurements of illicit substance misuse before the scan and the use of a non-offender control group. This was a representative sample of violent offenders, with high rates of serious violence, lower than normal IQ and educational attainment, and representative histories of substance misuse.

This study has however several limitations. Firstly, there were high levels of illicit drug use in the antisocial men, and the documented drugs such as cocaine have been previously found to impact on both GABA and glutamatergic systems.(95–98) However, active substance misuse was controlled for in our analyses, and the difference between the violent and non-offending populations remained highly significant. Secondly, the relatively small sample size may have resulted in smaller but important subgroup differences (i.e., between ASPD-P and ASPD + P) being undetected. Future studies will benefit from larger samples in order to determine the utility of this metric in antisocial men. Thirdly, although MEGA-PRESS has been demonstrated to be an acceptable means of estimating brain glutamate, this method was not designed for this purpose, and there remains contention as to the best means of estimating the excitatory component of the glutamatergic pool.(50, 99, 100) More general limitations of ¹H-MRS are also applicable. Although 3T MRI has facilitated increased precision in spectroscopic analysis, it does not provide the level of precision offered by 7T, which has yielded high quality data in similar studies in other clinical groups(93, 101). A further limitation of existing ¹H-MRS procedures utilized is the relatively large voxel size: striatal metabolite measures may be confounded by levels from surrounding tissue, and no distinction can be made between functional subdivisions of the striatum. Smaller voxel size however is likely to reduce signal : noise ratio of the data.(102, 103)

In conclusion, we have demonstrated for the first time abnormal striatal E/I regulation in violent offenders with ASPD+/-P. This cross-cutting deficit may be a key contributor to a wider range of striatum-mediated decision-making abnormalities seen in both conditions at a behavioral level. Future studies will benefit from directly examining the relationship between Glutamate : GABA ratio and discrete decision-making metrics using neuropsychological tasks. Further work will also benefit from using larger samples sizes and increasing precision from improved ¹H-MRS technology to extend our understanding of E/I balance in ASPD+/-P to other brain regions. Considering the interplay of multiple neurochemical systems will be important in developing an understanding of the neuronal and pharmacological mechanisms involved.

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by Wellcome Clinical Research Training Fellowship grant for Dr John Tully, grant no. 200099/S/15/S. Additional funding of research team by National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London, Medical Research Council, Autism Research for Europe (AIMS-2 Trials). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Wellcome Trust, MRC, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health and Social Care. All authors declare no financial relationships or commercial interests in this work.

Conflict of interest

All authors declare no financial relationships or commercial interests in this work. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Wellcome Trust, AIMS-2, NHS or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Falk Ö, Wallinius M, Lundström S, Frisell T, Anckarsäter H, Kerekes N. The 1% of the population accountable for 63% of all violent crime convictions. Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology. 2014;49(4):559-71.
Piquero AR, Moffitt TE. Moffitt’s developmental taxonomy of antisocial behavior. Encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice: Springer; 2014. p. 3121-7.
Heeks M, Reed S, Tafsiri M, Prince S. The economic and social costs of crime Second edition. 2018.
Wickramasekera N, Wright J, Elsey H, Murray J, Tubeuf S. Cost of crime: A systematic review. Journal of Criminal Justice. 2015;43(3):218-28.
Viding E, McCrory EJ. Genetic and neurocognitive contributions to the development of psychopathy. Development and Psychopathology. 2012;24(3):969-83.
Lynam DR, Derefinko KJ, Caspi A, Loeber R, Stouthamer-Loeber M. The content validity of juvenile psychopathy: An empirical examination. Psychological Assessment. 2007;19(3):363.
Coid J, Ullrich S. Antisocial personality disorder is on a continuum with psychopathy. Comprehensive psychiatry. 2010;51(4):426-33.
Kosson DS, Lorenz AR, Newman JP. Effects of comorbid psychopathy on criminal offending and emotion processing in male offenders with antisocial personality disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2006;115(4):798.
Frick PJ, Ray JV, Thornton LC, Kahn RE. Can callous-unemotional traits enhance the understanding, diagnosis, and treatment of serious conduct problems in children and adolescents? A comprehensive review. Psychological bulletin. 2014;140(1):1.
Guy LS, Edens JF, Anthony C, Douglas KS. Does psychopathy predict institutional misconduct among adults? A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology. 2005;73(6):1056.
Tully J, Sethi A, Griem J, Paloyelis Y, Craig MC, Williams SC, et al. Oxytocin normalizes the implicit processing of fearful faces in psychopathy: a randomized crossover study using fMRI. Nature Mental Health. 2023:1-8.
Dolan M, Fullam R. Face affect recognition deficits in personality-disordered offenders: association with psychopathy. Psychological Medicine. 2006;36(11):1563-9.
Blair R, Mitchell D, Peschardt K, Colledge E, Leonard R, Shine J, et al. Reduced sensitivity to others’ fearful expressions in psychopathic individuals. Personality and Individual Differences. 2004;37(6):1111-22.
Decety J, Chen C, Harenski C, Kiehl KA. An fMRI study of affective perspective taking in individuals with psychopathy: imagining another in pain does not evoke empathy. Frontiers in human neuroscience. 2013;7:489.
Newman JP, Kosson DS. Passive avoidance learning in psychopathic and nonpsychopathic offenders. Journal of abnormal psychology. 1986;95(3):252.
Newman JP, Patterson CM, Kosson DS. Response perseveration in psychopaths. Journal of abnormal psychology. 1987;96(2):145.
Brazil IA, Maes JH, Scheper I, Bulten BH, Kessels RP, Verkes RJ, et al. Reversal deficits in individuals with psychopathy in explicit but not implicit learning conditions. Journal of psychiatry & neuroscience: JPN. 2013;38(4):E13.
Budhani S, Richell RA, Blair RJR. Impaired reversal but intact acquisition: probabilistic response reversal deficits in adult individuals with psychopathy. Journal of abnormal psychology. 2006;115(3):552.
Von Borries A, Brazil IA, Bulten B, Buitelaar J, Verkes R, De Bruijn E. Neural correlates of error-related learning deficits in individuals with psychopathy. Psychological medicine. 2010;40(9):1559-68.
De Brito SA, Viding E, Kumari V, Blackwood N, Hodgins S. Cool and hot executive function impairments in violent offenders with antisocial personality disorder with and without psychopathy. PloS one. 2013;8(6):e65566.
Rilling JK, Sanfey AG. The neuroscience of social decision-making. Annual review of psychology. 2011;62:23-48.
Kim B, Im HI. The role of the dorsal striatum in choice impulsivity. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2019;1451(1):92-111.
Kreitzer AC, Malenka RC. Striatal plasticity and basal ganglia circuit function. Neuron. 2008;60(4):543-54.
Bolam JP, Hanley J, Booth P, Bevan M. Synaptic organisation of the basal ganglia. The Journal of Anatomy. 2000;196(4):527-42.
Schultz W. Predictive reward signal of dopamine neurons. Journal of neurophysiology. 1998.
Schultz W, Dayan P, Montague PR. A neural substrate of prediction and reward. Science. 1997;275(5306):1593-9.
Reynolds JN, Hyland BI, Wickens JR. A cellular mechanism of reward-related learning. Nature. 2001;413(6851):67-70.
Fisher SD, Robertson PB, Black MJ, Redgrave P, Sagar MA, Abraham WC, et al. Reinforcement determines the timing dependence of corticostriatal synaptic plasticity in vivo. Nature communications. 2017;8(1):334.
Apicella P, Ravel S, Deffains M, Legallet E. The role of striatal tonically active neurons in reward prediction error signaling during instrumental task performance. Journal of Neuroscience. 2011;31(4):1507-15.
Chantranupong L, Beron CC, Zimmer JA, Wen MJ, Wang W, Sabatini BL. Dopamine and glutamate regulate striatal acetylcholine in decision-making. Nature. 2023:1-3.
Lopes EF, Roberts BM, Siddorn RE, Clements MA, Cragg SJ. Inhibition of nigrostriatal dopamine release by striatal GABAA and GABAB receptors. Journal of Neuroscience. 2019;39(6):1058-65.
Blair R. Psychopathic traits from an RDoC perspective. Current opinion in neurobiology. 2015;30:79-84.
Holz NE, Boecker-Schlier R, Buchmann AF, Blomeyer D, Jennen-Steinmetz C, Baumeister S, et al. Ventral striatum and amygdala activity as convergence sites for early adversity and conduct disorder. Social cognitive and affective neuroscience. 2017;12(2):261-72.
White SF, Pope K, Sinclair S, Fowler KA, Brislin SJ, Williams WC, et al. Disrupted expected value and prediction error signaling in youths with disruptive behavior disorders during a passive avoidance task. American Journal of Psychiatry. 2013;170(3):315-23.
Finger EC, Marsh AA, Blair KS, Reid ME, Sims C, Ng P, et al. Disrupted reinforcement signaling in the orbitofrontal cortex and caudate in youths with conduct disorder or oppositional defiant disorder and a high level of psychopathic traits: American Journal of Psychiatry. 168 (2) (pp 152-162), 2011. Date of Publication: February 2011.; 2011.
Cohn MD, Veltman DJ, Pape LE, van Lith K, Vermeiren RR, van den Brink W, et al. Incentive processing in persistent disruptive behavior and psychopathic traits: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study in adolescents. Biological Psychiatry. 2015;78(9):615-24.
Hosking JG, Kastman EK, Dorfman HM, Samanez-Larkin GR, Baskin-Sommers A, Kiehl KA, et al. Disrupted prefrontal regulation of striatal subjective value signals in psychopathy. Neuron. 2017;95(1):221-31. e4.
Pujara M, Motzkin JC, Newman JP, Kiehl KA, Koenigs M. Neural correlates of reward and loss sensitivity in psychopathy. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. 2014;9(6):794-801.
Geurts DE, Von Borries K, Volman I, Bulten BH, Cools R, Verkes R-J. Neural connectivity during reward expectation dissociates psychopathic criminals from non-criminal individuals with high impulsive/antisocial psychopathic traits. Social cognitive and affective neuroscience. 2016;11(8):1326-34.
Wechsler D. Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Fourth Edition (WAIS–IV): San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation; 2008.
First MB, Williams JB, Benjamin LS, Spitzer RL. SCID-5-PD: Structured clinical interview for DSM-5® personality disorders: American Psychiatric Association Publishing; 2016.
Hare RD. The psychopathy checklist–Revised: Toronto: ON; 2003.
Cooke DJ, Michie C. Psychopathy across cultures: North America and Scotland compared. Journal of abnormal psychology. 1999;108(1):58.
Gregory S, Ffytche D, Simmons A, Kumari V, Howard M, Hodgins S, et al. The antisocial brain: Psychopathy matters: A structural mri investigation of antisocial male violent offenders. Archives of General Psychiatry. 2012;69(9):962-72.
Gregory S, Blair RJ, Simmons A, Kumari V, Hodgins S, Blackwood N. Punishment and psychopathy: a case-control functional MRI investigation of reinforcement learning in violent antisocial personality disordered men. The Lancet Psychiatry. 2015;2(2):153-60.
Raine A, Dodge K, Loeber R, Gatzke‐Kopp L, Lynam D, Reynolds C, et al. The reactive–proactive aggression questionnaire: Differential correlates of reactive and proactive aggression in adolescent boys. Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression. 2006;32(2):159-71.
IBM. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version Q3 25.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp. 2017.
Mescher M, Merkle H, Kirsch J, Garwood M, Gruetter R. Simultaneous in vivo spectral editing and water suppression. NMR in Biomedicine: An International Journal Devoted to the Development and Application of Magnetic Resonance In Vivo. 1998;11(6):266-72.
Provencher SW. Automatic quantitation of localized in vivo 1H spectra with LCModel. NMR in Biomedicine. 2001;14(4):260-4.
van Veenendaal TM, Backes WH, van Bussel FC, Edden RA, Puts NA, Aldenkamp AP, et al. Glutamate quantification by PRESS or MEGA-PRESS: Validation, repeatability, and concordance. Magnetic resonance imaging. 2018;48:107-14.
Kreis R. Issues of spectral quality in clinical 1H‐magnetic resonance spectroscopy and a gallery of artifacts. NMR in Biomedicine. 2004;17(6):361-81.
Wilson M, Andronesi O, Barker PB, Bartha R, Bizzi A, Bolan PJ, et al. Methodological consensus on clinical proton MRS of the brain: Review and recommendations. Magnetic resonance in medicine. 2019;82(2):527-50.
Glenn AL, Yang Y. The potential role of the striatum in antisocial behavior and psychopathy. Biological Psychiatry. 2012;72(10):817-22.
Pujara M, Motzkin JC, Newman JP, Kiehl KA, Koenigs M. Neural correlates of reward and loss sensitivity in psychopathy. Social Cognitive & Affective Neuroscience. 2014;9(6):794-801.
Wickens JR, Arbuthnott GW, Shindou T. Simulation of GABA function in the basal ganglia: computational models of GABAergic mechanisms in basal ganglia function. Progress in brain research. 2007;160:313-29.
Wickens JR, Budd CS, Hyland BI, Arbuthnott GW. Striatal contributions to reward and decision making. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2007;1104(1):192-212.
Rothkirch M, Tonn J, Köhler S, Sterzer P. Neural mechanisms of reinforcement learning in unmedicated patients with major depressive disorder. Brain. 2017;140(4):1147-57.
Boehme R, Deserno L, Gleich T, Katthagen T, Pankow A, Behr J, et al. Aberrant salience is related to reduced reinforcement learning signals and elevated dopamine synthesis capacity in healthy adults. Journal of Neuroscience. 2015;35(28):10103-11.
Sharpe MJ, Stalnaker T, Schuck NW, Killcross S, Schoenbaum G, Niv Y. An integrated model of action selection: distinct modes of cortical control of striatal decision making. Annual review of psychology. 2019;70:53-76.
Balleine BW, Delgado MR, Hikosaka O. The role of the dorsal striatum in reward and decision-making. Journal of Neuroscience. 2007;27(31):8161-5.
Lee E, Lee J, Kim E. Excitation/inhibition imbalance in animal models of autism spectrum disorders. Biological psychiatry. 2017;81(10):838-47.
Tatti R, Haley MS, Swanson OK, Tselha T, Maffei A. Neurophysiology and regulation of the balance between excitation and inhibition in neocortical circuits. Biological psychiatry. 2017;81(10):821-31.
Mora F, Segovia G, del Arco A. Glutamate–dopamine–GABA interactions in the aging basal ganglia. Brain research reviews. 2008;58(2):340-53.
Momiyama T, Nishijo T. Dopamine and serotonin-induced modulation of GABAergic and glutamatergic transmission in the striatum and basal forebrain. Frontiers in Neuroanatomy. 2017;11:42.
Bamford NS, Zhang H, Schmitz Y, Wu N-P, Cepeda C, Levine MS, et al. Heterosynaptic dopamine neurotransmission selects sets of corticostriatal terminals. Neuron. 2004;42(4):653-63.
Grimes JM, Ricci LA, Melloni Jr RH. Glutamic acid decarboxylase (GAD65) immunoreactivity in brains of aggressive, adolescent anabolic steroid-treated hamsters. Hormones and behavior. 2003;44(3):271-80.
Stork O, Ji F-Y, Kaneko K, Stork S, Yoshinobu Y, Moriya T, et al. Postnatal development of a GABA deficit and disturbance of neural functions in mice lacking GAD65. Brain research. 2000;865(1):45-58.
Sandhu K, Lang D, Müller B, Nullmeier S, Yanagawa Y, Schwegler H, et al. Glutamic acid decarboxylase 67 haplodeficiency impairs social behavior in mice. Genes, Brain and Behavior. 2014;13(4):439-50.
Fujihara K, Miwa H, Kakizaki T, Kaneko R, Mikuni M, Tanahira C, et al. Glutamate decarboxylase 67 deficiency in a subset of GABAergic neurons induces schizophrenia-related phenotypes. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2015;40(10):2475.
Blatt GJ, Fatemi SH. Alterations in GABAergic biomarkers in the autism brain: research findings and clinical implications. The Anatomical Record. 2011;294(10):1646-52.
Fatemi SH, Halt AR, Stary JM, Kanodia R, Schulz SC, Realmuto GR. Glutamic acid decarboxylase 65 and 67 kDa proteins are reduced in autistic parietal and cerebellar cortices. Biological psychiatry. 2002;52(8):805-10.
Akbarian S, Kim JJ, Potkin SG, Hagman JO, Tafazzoli A, Bunney WE, et al. Gene expression for glutamic acid decarboxylase is reduced without loss of neurons in prefrontal cortex of schizophrenics. Archives of general psychiatry. 1995;52(4):258-66.
Fatemi SH, Stary JM, Earle JA, Araghi-Niknam M, Eagan E. GABAergic dysfunction in schizophrenia and mood disorders as reflected by decreased levels of glutamic acid decarboxylase 65 and 67 kDa and Reelin proteins in cerebellum. Schizophrenia research. 2005;72(2-3):109-22.
Guidotti A, Auta J, Davis JM, Gerevini VD, Dwivedi Y, Grayson DR, et al. Decrease in reelin and glutamic acid decarboxylase67 (GAD67) expression in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder: a postmortem brain study. Archives of general psychiatry. 2000;57(11):1061-9.
Wu W, Zhu Y, Li S. Polymorphisms in the glutamate decarboxylase 1 gene associated with heroin dependence. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications. 2012;422(1):91-6.
Terranova C, Tucci M, Forza G, Barzon L, Palù G, Ferrara SD. Alcohol dependence and glutamate decarboxylase gene polymorphisms in an Italian male population. Alcohol. 2010;44(5):407-13.
Levran O, Peles E, Randesi M, da Rosa JC, Ott J, Rotrosen J, et al. Glutamatergic and GABAergic susceptibility loci for heroin and cocaine addiction in subjects of African and European ancestry. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry. 2016;64:118-23.
Bruxel EM, Akutagava‐Martins GC, Salatino‐Oliveira A, Genro JP, Zeni CP, Polanczyk GV, et al. GAD1 gene polymorphisms are associated with hyperactivity in Attention‐Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part B: Neuropsychiatric Genetics. 2016;171(8):1099-104.
Rout UK, Mungan NK, Dhossche DM. Presence of GAD65 autoantibodies in the serum of children with autism or ADHD. European child & adolescent psychiatry. 2012;21:141-7.
Cunha JM, Zanoveli JM, Ledvinka-Filho E, Brandão ML. L-allylglycine dissociates the neural substrates of fear in the periaqueductal gray of rats. Brain research bulletin. 2010;81(4-5):416-23.
LeWitt PA, Rezai AR, Leehey MA, Ojemann SG, Flaherty AW, Eskandar EN, et al. AAV2-GAD gene therapy for advanced Parkinson's disease: a double-blind, sham-surgery controlled, randomised trial. The Lancet Neurology. 2011;10(4):309-19.
Knackstedt LA, Melendez RI, Kalivas PW. Ceftriaxone restores glutamate homeostasis and prevents relapse to cocaine seeking. Biological psychiatry. 2010;67(1):81-4.
Zhou W, Kalivas PW. N-acetylcysteine reduces extinction responding and induces enduring reductions in cue-and heroin-induced drug-seeking. Biological psychiatry. 2008;63(3):338-40.
NCCfM NCCfMH-, editor Antisocial personality disorder: Treatment, management and prevention2010: British Psychological Society.
Mark KA, Soghomonian J-J, Yamamoto BK. High-dose methamphetamine acutely activates the striatonigral pathway to increase striatal glutamate and mediate long-term dopamine toxicity. Journal of Neuroscience. 2004;24(50):11449-56.
Furlong TM, Corbit LH, Brown RA, Balleine BW. Methamphetamine promotes habitual action and alters the density of striatal glutamate receptor and vesicular proteins in dorsal striatum. Addiction biology. 2018;23(3):857-67.
White TL, Monnig MA, Walsh EG, Nitenson AZ, Harris AD, Cohen RA, et al. Psychostimulant drug effects on glutamate, Glx, and creatine in the anterior cingulate cortex and subjective response in healthy humans. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2018;43(7):1498.
Basoglu C, Semiz U, Oner O, Gunay H, Ebrinc S, Cetin M, et al. A magnetic resonance spectroscopy study of antisocial behaviour disorder, psychopathy and violent crime among military conscripts. Acta neuropsychiatrica. 2008;20(2):72-7.
Smaragdi A, Chavez S, Lobaugh NJ, Meyer JH, Kolla NJ. Differential levels of prefrontal cortex glutamate+ glutamine in adults with antisocial personality disorder and bipolar disorder: A proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy study. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry. 2019;93:250-5.
Dobberthien BJ, Tessier AG, Yahya A. Improved resolution of glutamate, glutamine and γ‐aminobutyric acid with optimized point‐resolved spectroscopy sequence timings for their simultaneous quantification at 9.4 T. NMR in Biomedicine. 2018;31(1):e3851.
Chan KL, Ouwerkerk R, Barker PB. Water suppression in the human brain with hypergeometric RF pulses for single‐voxel and multi‐voxel MR spectroscopy. Magnetic resonance in medicine. 2018.
Verma G, Chawla S, Nagarajan R, Iqbal Z, Thomas MA, Poptani H. Non-uniformly weighted sampling for faster localized two-dimensional correlated spectroscopy of the brain in vivo. Journal of Magnetic Resonance. 2017;277:104-12.
Wijtenburg SA, Rowland LM, Edden RA, Barker PB. Reproducibility of brain spectroscopy at 7T using conventional localization and spectral editing techniques. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2013;38(2):460-7.
Deelchand DK, Kantarci K, Öz G. Improved localization, spectral quality, and repeatability with advanced MRS methodology in the clinical setting. Magnetic resonance in medicine. 2018;79(3):1241-50.
Ye J-H, Ren J. Cocaine inhibition of GABA A current: role of dephosphorylation. Critical Reviews™ in Neurobiology. 2006;18(1-2).
Kupchik YM, Scofield MD, Rice KC, Cheng K, Roques BP, Kalivas PW. Cocaine dysregulates opioid gating of GABA neurotransmission in the ventral pallidum. Journal of Neuroscience. 2014;34(3):1057-66.
Kalivas PW. Glutamate systems in cocaine addiction. Current opinion in pharmacology. 2004;4(1):23-9.
Schmidt HD, Pierce RC. Cocaine-induced neuroadaptations in glutamate transmission: potential therapeutic targets for craving and addiction. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2010;1187:35.
Goryawala MZ, Sheriff S, Maudsley AA. Regional distributions of brain glutamate and glutamine in normal subjects. NMR in biomedicine. 2016;29(8):1108-16.
Ramadan S, Lin A, Stanwell P. Glutamate and glutamine: a review of in vivo MRS in the human brain. NMR in Biomedicine. 2013;26(12):1630-46.
Thakkar KN, Rösler L, Wijnen JP, Boer VO, Klomp DW, Cahn W, et al. 7T proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy of gamma-aminobutyric acid, glutamate, and glutamine reveals altered concentrations in patients with schizophrenia and healthy siblings. Biological psychiatry. 2017;81(6):525-35.
Bai X, Harris AD, Gong T, Puts NA, Wang G, Schär M, et al. Voxel placement precision for GABA-edited magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Open journal of radiology. 2017;7(1):35.
Blüml S. Magnetic resonance spectroscopy: basics. MR spectroscopy of pediatric brain disorders: Springer; 2013. p. 11-23.

The authors have declared there is NO conflict of interest to disclose

Impaired striatal Glutamate/GABA regulation in violent offenders with antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1