Table 2 Effects of ADHD and ADGRL3 haplotypes on gray matter volume (Contrasts Patients < controls, Protective > other haplotypes, and Patients with Risk > or < Controls with other haplotypes, did not returned significant results).

From: Brain structural and functional substrates of ADGRL3 (latrophilin 3) haplotype in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

  

Peak MNI

Peak t-value

Cluster size

Cluster breakdown

Gray matter decreases in individuals with protective haplotypea,b

Modulated

R supramarginal

60, -20, 24

4.116

116

R supramarginal (112)

Gray matter increases in individuals with risk haplotypea,b

Unmodulated

Median cingulate

4, − 2, 32

4.285

99

Median cingulate (67)

L precentral

− 30, − 14, 58

4.331

81

L precentral (72)

Modulated

R inf. temporal

52, − 18, − 38

4.668

197

R inf. temporal (123)

R mid. frontal

38, 24, 30

3.563

76

R mid. frontal (15)

L inf. frontal

− 42, 30, 28

3.734

72

L inf. frontal (33)

L mid. frontal (29)

Gray matter decreases in individuals with risk haplotypea,b

Modulated

L inf. temporal

− 56, − 52, − 12

4.004

269

L inf. temporal (165)

L mid. temporal (89)

R fusiform

40, − 58, − 20

3.549

100

R fusiform (54)

R cerebellum (39)

Gray matter increases in patients

Unmodulated:

L putamen

− 18, 8, − 4

3.613

61

L putamen (13)

Modulated:

L putamen

− 18, 6, − 2

3.678

53

L putamen (10)

Interaction: gray matter increases in patients with protective haplotypeb,c

Unmodulated

L mid. frontal

− 32, 22, 32

4.545

50

L mid. frontal (9)

Interaction: gray matter decreases in patients with protective haplotypeb,d

Unmodulated

L orbitofrontal

− 16, 16, − 24

3.787

98

L orbitofrontal (29)

L sup. temporal (22)

L mid. temporal (16)

L fusiform

− 34, − 78, − 16

3.956

71

L fusiform (39)

L parahippocampal

− 18, − 32, − 10

3.920

54

L parahippocampal (3)

Modulated

Precuneus

2, − 50, 50

3.478

90

Precuneus (90)

  1. Inf. Inferior, L left, mid. Middle, R right, sup. superior.
  2. aIn the absence of disorder-haplotype interactions.
  3. bWe compared risk and protective haplotype to other haplotypes.
  4. cTrend-level increase in individuals with protective haplotype, trend-level increase in patients, and extra increase in patients with protective haplotype.
  5. dNo overall effects of protective haplotype or disorder, but decrease in patients with protective haplotype.