Close friendships are crucial during the transition from late childhood to adolescence as children become more independent from their parents and influenced by their peers. The brain undergoes a tremendous amount of development during this period, and it is also a time when mental health disorders often begin to emerge.

Scientists are still learning about how friendships shape brain development and mental health during this transition. Maintaining friendships takes time and mental resources so there may be limits on how many friends are beneficial. Here, Shen, Rolls et al. show that the having more friends is not always directly related to better mental health and cognitive abilities.

In the study, Shen, Rolls et al. analyzed data from nearly 7,500 young people between around 10 to 12 years old: this included, their number of close friends, their mental health and cognitive abilities such as working memory, attention and processing speed, and images of their brains. Data from a second set of about 16,000 young people were then analyzed to confirm the results.

Shen, Rolls et al. found having a higher number of close friends was associated with improved mental health and cognitive ability. However, this association stopped once around five friends had been reached, after which having more friends was no longer linked to better mental health and was even correlated with lower cognition. Additionally, individuals with too few or too many friends had more symptoms of Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and were less able to learn from their experiences.

This non-linear relationship between number of friends and mental health and cognitive abilities can be partly explained by the structure of the brain. Shen, Rolls et al. found that brain regions associated with friendship were larger in individuals with more close friends, but did not increase any further once the number of friends a person had exceeded five individuals with around five close friends also had more of a receptor that is part of the opioid system, which may make them more responsive to laughter, friendly touch, or other positive social interactions.

These findings challenge the idea that having more friends is always better. It also provides insights into how friendships affect brain health during the transition from late childhood to adolescence. Insights from this study may aid the development of interventions to support healthy brain development during youth.

Late childhood and its transition toward adolescence is a period marked by decreasing parental influence alongside increasing peer influence. It is a period critical for social interaction, during which friendships are especially important (Blakemore and Mills, 2014). During this period, the social brain is still undergoing significant development, in parallel with changes in social cognition (Mills et al., 2014). Meanwhile, evidence suggests that psychiatric disorders often have an onset in adolescence (Kessler et al., 2005), which may be partly influenced by the concurrent changes in the social environment and brain (Paus et al., 2008). Therefore, understanding the relationship between friendship, mental health, and cognition during this period, and the underlying brain mechanisms, is of considerable clinical and public health importance.

It has been well established that positive social relationships such as close friendships are essential for mental health and cognition in children and adolescents (Marion et al., 2013; Narr et al., 2019; Wentzel et al., 2018). However, it remains unclear whether having more close friends is necessarily better. Cognitive constraints and time resources limit the number of close social ties that an individual can maintain simultaneously (Dunbar, 2018). The innermost layer of the friendship group with the highest emotional closeness is around five close friends (the so-called Dunbar’s number) (Zhou et al., 2005). For now, only a few empirical studies have examined the nonlinear association between social relationships, mental health, and cognition in children and adolescents. For instance, a large study of a nationally representative sample in the United States reported that adolescents with either too many or too few friends had higher levels of depressive symptoms (Falci and McNeely, 2009). Two large-scale studies reported that the benefits of social interactions for well-being were nearly negligible once the quantity reached a moderate level (Kushlev et al., 2018; Ren et al., 2022). Additionally, a significant U-shaped effect was detected between positive relations with others and cognitive performance (Brown et al., 2021). Overall, the assumption of linearity still dominates studies of social relationships, and the effect of the friendship network size at the high end remains largely unexplored.

Despite a large body of evidence linking friendships to mental health and cognition, we know relatively little about the underlying mechanisms involved (Pfeifer and Allen, 2021). The social brain hypothesis proposes that the evolution of brain size is driven by complex social selection pressures (Dunbar and Shultz, 2007). Animal studies have shown that social network size can predict the volume of the mid-superior temporal sulcus (Sallet et al., 2011; Testard et al., 2022), a region in which neurons respond to socially relevant stimuli such as face expression and head movement to make or break social contact (Hasselmo et al., 1989a; Hasselmo et al., 1989b). In human neuroimaging studies, several key brain regions, including the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC, i.e. orbitofrontal [OFC] and anterior cingulate cortex [ACC]), the cortex in the superior temporal sulcus (STS), the temporoparietal junction (TPJ), amygdala, and the anterior insula, have been implicated in social cognitive processes (Frith and Frith, 2007). Moreover, there has been an increasing number of studies dedicated to investigating the social brain in children and adolescents over the past decade (Andrews et al., 2021; Burnett et al., 2011).

At the molecular level, the μ-opioid receptor is widely distributed in the brain, particularly in regions associated with social pain such as the ACC and anterior insula (Baumgärtner et al., 2006). Recent studies have identified the crucial role of μ-opioid receptors in forming and maintaining friendships (Dunbar, 2018), and variations in the μ-opioid receptor gene have been related to individual differences in rejection sensitivity (Way et al., 2009). In addition, other neurotransmitters, including dopamine, serotonin, GABA, and noradrenaline, may interact with the opioids, and are involved in social affiliation and social behavior (Machin and Dunbar, 2011). Dysregulation of the social brain and neurotransmitter systems is also implicated in the pathophysiology of major psychiatric disorders (Porcelli et al., 2019). Taken together, it is suggested that changes in the social brain might explain the relationship between social connections and mental health (Lamblin et al., 2017). However, the empirical evidence on this topic is limited in late childhood and adolescence.

In this study, we aimed to investigate the relationship between the number of close friends, mental health, and cognitive outcomes, with a focus on potential nonlinear associations. We used data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Developmental (ABCD) study (Karcher and Barch, 2021) and an independent social network dataset (Paluck et al., 2016). These datasets provided reliable measures of close friend quantity, mental health, and cognition, and included a combined total of more than 23,000 participants (Figure 1a). To evaluate the potential nonlinear relation between friendship quantity (predictor) and mental health and cognition (outcome), two different analytic approaches were utilized. Specifically, we examined the presence of a significant quadratic term as an indicator of nonlinearity, and subsequently conducted a two-lines test (Simonsohn, 2018) to estimate an interrupted regression and identify the breakpoint (Figure 1b). To explore the underlying neurobiological mechanisms, we further tested the nonlinear association between the number of close friends and brain structure. We then correlated the related brain differences with the density of eight neurotransmitter systems, as well as the expression of the μ-opioid receptor gene (OPRM1) and the κ-opioid receptor gene (OPRK1) (Figure 1c). Finally, longitudinal and mediation analyses were conducted to uncover the direction and direct association between the number of close friends, mental health, cognition, and brain structure (Figure 1d). Based on the existing literature, we hypothesized that the number of close friends was nonlinearly related to mental health, cognition, and the social brain; and that this relationship could potentially be explained by brain differences and molecular mechanisms.

Figure 1

Download asset Open asset

The present study showed that close friendship quantity was associated with better mental health and higher cognitive functions in late childhood, and that the beneficial association diminished or reversed when increasing the number of close friends beyond a moderate level. The results also support the hypothesis that a quadratic association exists between the number of close friends and the areas of social brain regions such as the OFC, the ACC, insula, the anterior temporal cortex, and the TPJ. These regions mediated the nonlinear association between close friendship quantity and behavior. Furthermore, the brain differences related to the number of close friends were correlated with measures of the endogenous opioid involvement of the brain regions.

Social relationships play a double-edged role for mental health. Previous research has primarily focused on the positive aspects of social relationships, while the negative effects have received comparatively less attention (Song et al., 2021). In our study, we identified a robust nonlinear association of close friend quantity with various mental health and cognitive outcomes in the ABCD study at baseline and 2-year follow-up, and an independent social network dataset. This result demonstrates the persistence of the findings. The findings are in line with past studies, which showed that too large a social network size or too frequent social contacts were not positively correlated with well-being in adults (Kushlev et al., 2018; Ren et al., 2022; Stavrova and Ren, 2021) and were even negatively correlated with mental health in adolescents (Falci and McNeely, 2009). One explanation is that an individual’s cognitive capacity and time limit the size of the social network that an individual can effectively maintain (Dunbar, 2018). People devote about 40% of their total social efforts (e.g., time and emotional capital) to just their five most important people (Bzdok and Dunbar, 2020). In a phone-call dataset of almost 35 million users and 6 billion calls, a layered structure was found with the innermost layer having an average of 4.1 people (Mac Carron et al., 2016). There is a trade-off between the quantity and quality of friendships, with an increased number of close friends potentially leading to less intimacy. Meanwhile, spending too much time on social activities may lead to insufficient time for study and thereby to lower academic performance. Second, adolescents are particularly susceptible to peer influence (Berndt, 1979). Researchers have found that the presence of a peer may increase risk-taking behaviors that can be detrimental to mental health (Chein et al., 2011) and reduce cognitive performance (Wolf et al., 2015). Having more close friends may increase the possibility of this kind of influence.

Our study revealed a significant link between the number of close friends and the cortical areas of social brain regions in the largest sample of children to date. Studies suggest that two major systems in the brain related to social behavior include the affective system of the ACC, the anterior insula, and the OFC, and the mentalizing system typically involving the TPJ (Güroğlu, 2022; Schmälzle et al., 2017). The dorsal ACC and anterior insula play an important role in social pain (i.e., painful feelings associated with social disconnection) (Eisenberger, 2012). The OFC receives information about socially relevant stimuli such as face expression and gesture from the cortex in the superior temporal sulcus (Hasselmo et al., 1989a; Pitcher and Ungerleider, 2021), and is involved in social behavior by representing social stimuli in terms of their reward value (Rolls, 2019b; Rolls, 2019a; Rolls et al., 2006). The volume of the OFC is associated with social network size, partly mediated by mentalizing competence (Powell et al., 2012). Previous meta-analysis studies report an overlap in brain activation between all mentalizing tasks in the mPFC and posterior TPJ (Schurz et al., 2014). Notably, in our study, the positive relationship at the brain level only held for the children with no more than approximately five close friends, which is consistent with the behavioral findings. Furthermore, in these children, the areas of social brain regions partly mediated the relationship of the close friend quantity with ADHD symptoms and crystalized intelligence. Research also indicates that the brain regions regulating social behavior undergo structural development during adolescence (Blakemore, 2008; Lamblin et al., 2017; Mills et al., 2014). Animal studies provide evidence for the causal effect of social relationships on brain development. For instance, adolescent rodents with deprivation of peer contacts showed brain level changes including reduced synaptic pruning in the prefrontal cortex (Orben et al., 2020).

Moreover, the brain associative pattern of close friend quantity in children with no more than five close friends was correlated with the density of the μ-opioid receptor, as well as the expression of OPRM1 and OPRK1 genes. It is known that the endogenous opioid system has a vital role in social affiliative processes (Machin and Dunbar, 2011). Positron emission tomography studies in human revealed that μ-opioid receptor regulation in brain regions such as the amygdala, anterior insula, and the ACC may preserve and promote emotional well-being in the social environment (Hsu et al., 2013). Variation in the OPRM1 gene was associated with individual differences in rejection sensitivity, which was mediated by dorsal ACC activity in social rejection (Way et al., 2009). OPRM1 variation was also related to social hedonic capacity (Troisi et al., 2011). Pain tolerance, which is associated with activation of the μ-opioid receptor, was correlated with social network size in humans (Johnson and Dunbar, 2016). Social behaviors like social laughter and social touch increase pleasurable sensations and triggered endogenous opioid release to maintain social relationships (Dunbar, 2010; Manninen et al., 2017; Nummenmaa et al., 2016). Additionally, the opioid system has found to be associated with major psychiatric disorders especially depression (Peciña et al., 2019), which may help explain the association between social relationships and mental health problems.

Several issues should be taken into account when considering our findings. First, as an association study, no causal conclusion should be made in this study. It is unclear whether the number of close friends drives the social brain development or whether children with larger social brains tend to have more close friends. A bidirectional relationship has been reported in the literature (Dunbar and Shultz, 2007). Second, it is worth noting that the measures used in the ABCD study and the social network dataset differed, and the breakpoints identified in each dataset were not equivalent. However, relative to the optimal number of close friends, the primary objective of the current study was to examine the nonlinear relationship between the number of close friend and different behavioral outcomes and brain structure. In this sense, the findings from both datasets were similar, and the social network dataset provided valuable information regarding friendship measures and objective cognitive index that extended the results obtained from the ABCD study. Third, the quality of close friendships was not considered in the ABCD study. However, reciprocal degree is an indirect measure of friendship quality, which was found to be linearly associated with well-being and nonlinearly related to the GPA in the social network dataset. It has been reported that the relationship between having more friends and fewer depressive symptoms in adolescence is mediated by a sense of belonging (Ueno, 2005). Although current findings on the relative importance of friendship quantity and quality are inconsistent (Bruine de Bruin et al., 2020; Platt et al., 2014), it is essential for future studies to incorporate measures of close friendship quality and to test the potential interaction between quantity and quality. Finally, the interpretation of this study should be limited to the particular age range of late childhood and early adolescence, as well as Western culture. Further research is needed to explore whether the nonlinear relationship between the number of close friends and mental health and cognition, and the idea of having around five close friends as a breakpoint, can be generalized to other age ranges and cultures.

In conclusion, this study provides new evidence going beyond previous research that a larger number of close friends up to a moderate level in late childhood is associated with better mental health and higher cognitive functions, and that this can be partly explained by the size of the social brain including the OFC and TPJ, and the endogenous opioid system. This study may have implications for targeted friendship interventions in the transition from late childhood to early adolescence.

The ABCD dataset is administered by the National Institutes of Mental Health Data Archive and is freely available to all qualified researchers upon submission of an access request (https://nda.nih.gov/abcd). All relevant instructions to obtain the data can be found in https://nda.nih.gov/abcd/request-access. The request is valid for one year. Data use should be in line with the NDA Data Use Certification. The social network dataset is openly available (https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/civicleads/studies/37070). Neurochemical data used in analysis are openly available (https://github.com/juryxy/JuSpace/tree/JuSpace_v1.3/JuSpace_v1.3/PETatlas). Gene expression data are openly available (https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/AHBAdata/6852911). The code used for this study is publicly available at https://github.com/chunshen617/friendship (copy archived at Shen, 2023).

1. 1. Paluck EL
   2. Shepherd HR
   3. Aronow P

   (2020) CivicLEADS

   Changing Climates of Conflict: A Social Network Experiment in 56 Schools, New Jersey, 2012-2013.

   https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR37070.v2
2. 1. Arnatkevic̆iūtė A
   2. Fulcher BD
   3. Fornito A

   (2019) figshare

   A practical guide to linking brain-wide gene expression and neuroimaging data.

   https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.6852911

1. 1. Achenbach TM
   2. McConaughy SH
   3. Howell CT

   (1987) Child/adolescent behavioral and emotional problems: implications of cross-informant correlations for situational specificity

   Psychological Bulletin 101:213–232.

   https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.213

   • Google Scholar
2. Book

   1. Achenbach T
   2. Rescorla L

   (2001)

   Manual for the ASEBA School-Age Forms & Profiles: An Integrated System of Multi-Informant Assessment

   Burlington, VT: ASEBA.

   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Akshoomoff N
   2. Beaumont JL
   3. Bauer PJ
   4. Dikmen SS
   5. Gershon RC
   6. Mungas D
   7. Slotkin J
   8. Tulsky D
   9. Weintraub S
   10. Zelazo PD
   11. Heaton RK

   (2013) NIH Toolbox cognitive function battery (CFB): composite scores of crystallized, fluid, and overall cognition

   Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 78:119–132.

   https://doi.org/10.1111/mono.12038

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Andrews JL
   2. Ahmed SP
   3. Blakemore SJ

   (2021) Navigating the social environment in adolescence: the role of social brain development

   Biological Psychiatry 89:109–118.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2020.09.012

   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Arnatkeviciute A
   2. Fulcher BD
   3. Fornito A

   (2019) A practical guide to linking brain-wide gene expression and neuroimaging data

   NeuroImage 189:353–367.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.01.011

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Auchter AM
   2. Hernandez Mejia M
   3. Heyser CJ
   4. Shilling PD
   5. Jernigan TL
   6. Brown SA
   7. Tapert SF
   8. Dowling GJ

   (2018) A description of the ABCD organizational structure and communication framework

   Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience 32:8–15.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2018.04.003

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Baribeau DA
   2. Vigod S
   3. Brittain H
   4. Vaillancourt T
   5. Szatmari P
   6. Pullenayegum E

   (2022)

   Application of transactional (cross-lagged panel) models in mental health research: an introduction and review of methodological considerations

   Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry = Journal de l’Academie Canadienne de Psychiatrie de l’enfant et de l’adolescent 31:124–134.

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Baumgärtner U
   2. Buchholz HG
   3. Bellosevich A
   4. Magerl W
   5. Siessmeier T
   6. Rolke R
   7. Höhnemann S
   8. Piel M
   9. Rösch F
   10. Wester HJ
   11. Henriksen G
   12. Stoeter P
   13. Bartenstein P
   14. Treede RD
   15. Schreckenberger M

   (2006) High opiate receptor binding potential in the human lateral pain system

   NeuroImage 30:692–699.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.10.033

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Berndt TJ

   (1979) Developmental changes in conformity to peers and parents

   Developmental Psychology 15:608–616.

   https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.15.6.608

   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Blakemore SJ

    (2008) The social brain in adolescence

    Nature Reviews. Neuroscience 9:267–277.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2353

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Blakemore SJ
    2. Mills KL

    (2014) Is adolescence a sensitive period for sociocultural processing

    Annual Review of Psychology 65:187–207.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115202

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Brown MI
    2. Wai J
    3. Chabris CF

    (2021) Can you ever be too smart for your own good? Comparing linear and nonlinear effects of cognitive ability on life outcomes

    Perspectives on Psychological Science 16:1337–1359.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620964122

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Bruine de Bruin W
    2. Parker AM
    3. Strough J

    (2020) Age differences in reported social networks and well-being

    Psychology and Aging 35:159–168.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000415

    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Burnett S
    2. Sebastian C
    3. Cohen Kadosh K
    4. Blakemore SJ

    (2011) The social brain in adolescence: evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging and behavioural studies

    Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 35:1654–1664.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.10.011

    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Bzdok D
    2. Dunbar RIM

    (2020) The neurobiology of social distance

    Trends in Cognitive Sciences 24:717–733.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.05.016

    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Casey BJ
    2. Cannonier T
    3. Conley MI
    4. Cohen AO
    5. Barch DM
    6. Heitzeg MM
    7. Soules ME
    8. Teslovich T
    9. Dellarco DV
    10. Garavan H
    11. Orr CA
    12. Wager TD
    13. Banich MT
    14. Speer NK
    15. Sutherland MT
    16. Riedel MC
    17. Dick AS
    18. Bjork JM
    19. Thomas KM
    20. Chaarani B
    21. Mejia MH
    22. Hagler DJ
    23. Daniela Cornejo M
    24. Sicat CS
    25. Harms MP
    26. Dosenbach NUF
    27. Rosenberg M
    28. Earl E
    29. Bartsch H
    30. Watts R
    31. Polimeni JR
    32. Kuperman JM
    33. Fair DA
    34. Dale AM
    35. ABCD Imaging Acquisition Workgroup

    (2018) The adolescent brain cognitive development (ABCD) study: imaging acquisition across 21 sites

    Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience 32:43–54.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2018.03.001

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Chein J
    2. Albert D
    3. O’Brien L
    4. Uckert K
    5. Steinberg L

    (2011) Peers increase adolescent risk taking by enhancing activity in the brain’s reward circuitry

    Developmental Science 14:F1–F10.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.01035.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Chen J
    2. Müller VI
    3. Dukart J
    4. Hoffstaedter F
    5. Baker JT
    6. Holmes AJ
    7. Vatansever D
    8. Nickl-Jockschat T
    9. Liu X
    10. Derntl B
    11. Kogler L
    12. Jardri R
    13. Gruber O
    14. Aleman A
    15. Sommer IE
    16. Eickhoff SB
    17. Patil KR

    (2021) Intrinsic connectivity patterns of task-defined brain networks allow individual prediction of cognitive symptom dimension of schizophrenia and are linked to molecular architecture

    Biological Psychiatry 89:308–319.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2020.09.024

    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Dukart J
    2. Holiga S
    3. Rullmann M
    4. Lanzenberger R
    5. Hawkins PCT
    6. Mehta MA
    7. Hesse S
    8. Barthel H
    9. Sabri O
    10. Jech R
    11. Eickhoff SB

    (2021) Juspace: A tool for spatial correlation analyses of magnetic resonance imaging data with nuclear imaging derived neurotransmitter maps

    Human Brain Mapping 42:555–566.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.25244

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Dunbar RIM
    2. Shultz S

    (2007) Evolution in the social brain

    Science 317:1344–1347.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1145463

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Dunbar RIM

    (2010) The social role of touch in humans and primates: behavioural function and neurobiological mechanisms

    Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 34:260–268.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2008.07.001

    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Dunbar RIM

    (2018) The anatomy of friendship

    Trends in Cognitive Sciences 22:32–51.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.10.004

    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Eisenberger NI

    (2012) The pain of social disconnection: examining the shared neural underpinnings of physical and social pain

    Nature Reviews. Neuroscience 13:421–434.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3231

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Falci C
    2. McNeely C

    (2009) Too many friends: social integration, network cohesion and adolescent depressive symptoms

    Social Forces 87:2031–2061.

    https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.0.0189

    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Fischl B
    2. Salat DH
    3. Busa E
    4. Albert M
    5. Dieterich M
    6. Haselgrove C
    7. van der Kouwe A
    8. Killiany R
    9. Kennedy D
    10. Klaveness S
    11. Montillo A
    12. Makris N
    13. Rosen B
    14. Dale AM

    (2002) Whole brain segmentation: automated labeling of neuroanatomical structures in the human brain

    Neuron 33:341–355.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s0896-6273(02)00569-x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Frith CD
    2. Frith U

    (2007) Social cognition in humans

    Current Biology 17:R724–R732.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2007.05.068

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Glasser MF
    2. Coalson TS
    3. Robinson EC
    4. Hacker CD
    5. Harwell J
    6. Yacoub E
    7. Ugurbil K
    8. Andersson J
    9. Beckmann CF
    10. Jenkinson M
    11. Smith SM
    12. Van Essen DC

    (2016) A multi-modal parcellation of human cerebral cortex

    Nature 536:171–178.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18933

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Gong W
    2. Rolls ET
    3. Du J
    4. Feng J
    5. Cheng W

    (2021) Brain structure is linked to the association between family environment and behavioral problems in children in the ABCD study

    Nature Communications 12:3769.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-23994-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Güroğlu B

    (2022) The power of friendship: the developmental significance of friendships from a neuroscience perspective

    Child Development Perspectives 16:110–117.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12450

    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Hasselmo ME
    2. Rolls ET
    3. Baylis GC

    (1989a) The role of expression and identity in the face-selective responses of neurons in the temporal visual cortex of the monkey

    Behavioural Brain Research 32:203–218.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s0166-4328(89)80054-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Hasselmo ME
    2. Rolls ET
    3. Baylis GC
    4. Nalwa V

    (1989b) Object-centered encoding by face-selective neurons in the cortex in the superior temporal sulcus of the monkey

    Experimental Brain Research 75:417–429.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00247948

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Hawrylycz MJ
    2. Lein ES
    3. Guillozet-Bongaarts AL
    4. Shen EH
    5. Ng L
    6. Miller JA
    7. van de Lagemaat LN
    8. Smith KA
    9. Ebbert A
    10. Riley ZL
    11. Abajian C
    12. Beckmann CF
    13. Bernard A
    14. Bertagnolli D
    15. Boe AF
    16. Cartagena PM
    17. Chakravarty MM
    18. Chapin M
    19. Chong J
    20. Dalley RA
    21. David Daly B
    22. Dang C
    23. Datta S
    24. Dee N
    25. Dolbeare TA
    26. Faber V
    27. Feng D
    28. Fowler DR
    29. Goldy J
    30. Gregor BW
    31. Haradon Z
    32. Haynor DR
    33. Hohmann JG
    34. Horvath S
    35. Howard RE
    36. Jeromin A
    37. Jochim JM
    38. Kinnunen M
    39. Lau C
    40. Lazarz ET
    41. Lee C
    42. Lemon TA
    43. Li L
    44. Li Y
    45. Morris JA
    46. Overly CC
    47. Parker PD
    48. Parry SE
    49. Reding M
    50. Royall JJ
    51. Schulkin J
    52. Sequeira PA
    53. Slaughterbeck CR
    54. Smith SC
    55. Sodt AJ
    56. Sunkin SM
    57. Swanson BE
    58. Vawter MP
    59. Williams D
    60. Wohnoutka P
    61. Zielke HR
    62. Geschwind DH
    63. Hof PR
    64. Smith SM
    65. Koch C
    66. Grant SGN
    67. Jones AR

    (2012) An anatomically comprehensive atlas of the adult human brain transcriptome

    Nature 489:391–399.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11405

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Hobbs WR
    2. Burke M
    3. Christakis NA
    4. Fowler JH

    (2016) Online social integration is associated with reduced mortality risk

    PNAS 113:12980–12984.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1605554113

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Hsu DT
    2. Sanford BJ
    3. Meyers KK
    4. Love TM
    5. Hazlett KE
    6. Wang H
    7. Ni L
    8. Walker SJ
    9. Mickey BJ
    10. Korycinski ST
    11. Koeppe RA
    12. Crocker JK
    13. Langenecker SA
    14. Zubieta JK

    (2013) Response of the Μ-opioid system to social rejection and acceptance

    Molecular Psychiatry 18:1211–1217.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/mp.2013.96

    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Hu L
    2. Bentler PM

    (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives

    Structural Equation Modeling 6:1–55.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Johnson KVA
    2. Dunbar RIM

    (2016) Pain tolerance predicts human social network size

    Scientific Reports 6:25267.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/srep25267

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Kantonen T
    2. Karjalainen T
    3. Isojärvi J
    4. Nuutila P
    5. Tuisku J
    6. Rinne J
    7. Hietala J
    8. Kaasinen V
    9. Kalliokoski K
    10. Scheinin H
    11. Hirvonen J
    12. Vehtari A
    13. Nummenmaa L

    (2020) Interindividual variability and lateralization of Μ-opioid receptors in the human brain

    NeuroImage 217:116922.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.116922

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Karcher NR
    2. Barch DM

    (2021) The ABCD study: understanding the development of risk for mental and physical health outcomes

    Neuropsychopharmacology 46:131–142.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41386-020-0736-6

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Kenny DA

    (1975) Cross-lagged panel correlation: A test for Spuriousness

    Psychological Bulletin 82:887–903.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.82.6.887

    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Kessler RC
    2. Berglund P
    3. Demler O
    4. Jin R
    5. Merikangas KR
    6. Walters EE

    (2005) Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication

    Archives of General Psychiatry 62:593–602.

    https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.62.6.593

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Kushlev K
    2. Heintzelman SJ
    3. Oishi S
    4. Diener E

    (2018) The declining marginal utility of social time for subjective well-being

    Journal of Research in Personality 74:124–140.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2018.04.004

    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Lamblin M
    2. Murawski C
    3. Whittle S
    4. Fornito A

    (2017) Social connectedness, mental health and the adolescent brain

    Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 80:57–68.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.05.010

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Li Y
    2. Sahakian BJ
    3. Kang J
    4. Langley C
    5. Zhang W
    6. Xie C
    7. Xiang S
    8. Yu J
    9. Cheng W
    10. Feng J

    (2022) The brain structure and genetic mechanisms underlying the nonlinear association between sleep duration, cognition and mental health

    Nature Aging 2:425–437.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s43587-022-00210-2

    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Luciana M
    2. Bjork JM
    3. Nagel BJ
    4. Barch DM
    5. Gonzalez R
    6. Nixon SJ
    7. Banich MT

    (2018) Adolescent neurocognitive development and impacts of substance use: overview of the adolescent brain cognitive development (ABCD) baseline neurocognition battery

    Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience 32:67–79.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2018.02.006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Mac Carron P
    2. Kaski K
    3. Dunbar R

    (2016) Calling Dunbar’s numbers

    Social Networks 47:151–155.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2016.06.003

    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Machin AJ
    2. Dunbar RIM

    (2011) The brain opioid theory of social attachment: A review of the evidence

    Behaviour 148:985–1025.

    https://doi.org/10.1163/000579511X596624

    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Manninen S
    2. Tuominen L
    3. Dunbar RI
    4. Karjalainen T
    5. Hirvonen J
    6. Arponen E
    7. Hari R
    8. Jääskeläinen IP
    9. Sams M
    10. Nummenmaa L

    (2017) Social laughter triggers endogenous opioid release in humans

    The Journal of Neuroscience 37:6125–6131.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0688-16.2017

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Marion D
    2. Laursen B
    3. Zettergren P
    4. Bergman LR

    (2013) Predicting life satisfaction during middle adulthood from peer relationships during mid-adolescence

    Journal of Youth and Adolescence 42:1299–1307.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-9969-6

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Mills KL
    2. Lalonde F
    3. Clasen LS
    4. Giedd JN
    5. Blakemore SJ

    (2014) Developmental changes in the structure of the social brain in late childhood and adolescence

    Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 9:123–131.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nss113

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Muthén B
    2. Kaplan D
    3. Hollis M

    (1987) On structural equation modeling with data that are not missing completely at random

    Psychometrika 52:431–462.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294365

    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Narr RK
    2. Allen JP
    3. Tan JS
    4. Loeb EL

    (2019) Close friendship strength and broader peer group desirability as differential predictors of adult mental health

    Child Development 90:298–313.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12905

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Nook EC
    2. Sasse SF
    3. Lambert HK
    4. McLaughlin KA
    5. Somerville LH

    (2018) The nonlinear development of emotion differentiation: granular emotional experience is low in adolescence

    Psychological Science 29:1346–1357.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618773357

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Nummenmaa L
    2. Tuominen L
    3. Dunbar R
    4. Hirvonen J
    5. Manninen S
    6. Arponen E
    7. Machin A
    8. Hari R
    9. Jääskeläinen IP
    10. Sams M

    (2016) Social touch modulates endogenous Μ-opioid system activity in humans

    NeuroImage 138:242–247.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.05.063

    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Orben A
    2. Tomova L
    3. Blakemore SJ

    (2020) The effects of social deprivation on adolescent development and mental health

    The Lancet. Child & Adolescent Health 4:634–640.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-4642(20)30186-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Paluck EL
    2. Shepherd H
    3. Aronow PM

    (2016) Changing climates of conflict: A social network experiment in 56 schools

    PNAS 113:566–571.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1514483113

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Paus T
    2. Keshavan M
    3. Giedd JN

    (2008) Why do many psychiatric disorders emerge during adolescence

    Nature Reviews. Neuroscience 9:947–957.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2513

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Peciña M
    2. Karp JF
    3. Mathew S
    4. Todtenkopf MS
    5. Ehrich EW
    6. Zubieta JK

    (2019) Endogenous opioid system dysregulation in depression: implications for new therapeutic approaches

    Molecular Psychiatry 24:576–587.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-018-0117-2

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Pfeifer JH
    2. Allen NB

    (2021) Puberty initiates Cascading relationships between neurodevelopmental, social, and internalizing processes across adolescence

    Biological Psychiatry 89:99–108.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2020.09.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Pitcher D
    2. Ungerleider LG

    (2021) Evidence for a third visual pathway specialized for social perception

    Trends in Cognitive Sciences 25:100–110.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.11.006

    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Platt J
    2. Keyes KM
    3. Koenen KC

    (2014) Size of the social network versus quality of social support: which is more protective against PTSD

    Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 49:1279–1286.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-013-0798-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Porcelli S
    2. Van Der Wee N
    3. van der Werff S
    4. Aghajani M
    5. Glennon JC
    6. van Heukelum S
    7. Mogavero F
    8. Lobo A
    9. Olivera FJ
    10. Lobo E
    11. Posadas M
    12. Dukart J
    13. Kozak R
    14. Arce E
    15. Ikram A
    16. Vorstman J
    17. Bilderbeck A
    18. Saris I
    19. Kas MJ
    20. Serretti A

    (2019) Social brain, social dysfunction and social withdrawal

    Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 97:10–33.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.09.012

    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Powell J
    2. Lewis PA
    3. Roberts N
    4. García-Fiñana M
    5. Dunbar RIM

    (2012) Orbital prefrontal cortex volume predicts social network size: an imaging study of individual differences in humans

    Proceedings. Biological Sciences 279:2157–2162.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2011.2574

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Ren D
    2. Stavrova O
    3. Loh WW

    (2022) Nonlinear effect of social interaction quantity on psychological well-being: diminishing returns or inverted U

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 122:1056–1074.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000373

    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Rolls ET
    2. Critchley HD
    3. Browning AS
    4. Inoue K

    (2006) Face-selective and auditory neurons in the primate orbitofrontal cortex

    Experimental Brain Research 170:74–87.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-005-0191-y

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
65. Book

    1. Rolls ET

    (2019a) The Orbitofrontal Cortex

    Oxford University Press.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198845997.001.0001

    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Rolls ET

    (2019b) The Orbitofrontal cortex and emotion in health and disease, including depression

    Neuropsychologia 128:14–43.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.09.021

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Rorden C
    2. Brett M

    (2000) Stereotaxic display of brain lesions

    Behavioural Neurology 12:191–200.

    https://doi.org/10.1155/2000/421719

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Sallet J
    2. Mars RB
    3. Noonan MP
    4. Andersson JL
    5. O’Reilly JX
    6. Jbabdi S
    7. Croxson PL
    8. Jenkinson M
    9. Miller KL
    10. Rushworth MFS

    (2011) Social network size affects neural circuits in macaques

    Science 334:697–700.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1210027

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Schmälzle R
    2. Brook O’Donnell M
    3. Garcia JO
    4. Cascio CN
    5. Bayer J
    6. Bassett DS
    7. Vettel JM
    8. Falk EB

    (2017) Brain connectivity dynamics during social interaction reflect social network structure

    PNAS 114:5153–5158.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1616130114

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Schurz M
    2. Radua J
    3. Aichhorn M
    4. Richlan F
    5. Perner J

    (2014) Fractionating theory of mind: A meta-analysis of functional brain imaging studies

    Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 42:9–34.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.01.009

    • Google Scholar
71. Software

    1. Shen C

    (2023) friendship, version swh:1:rev:f921b772e66afa6fabe352be66a8ff06f71fdd15

    Software Heritage.

    https://archive.softwareheritage.org/swh:1:dir:e89e84090c1e9860db0f2d766747569e356ef233;origin=https://github.com/chunshen617/friendship;visit=swh:1:snp:9785a544271a5df393a3c6a26e7d2b565072be9a;anchor=swh:1:rev:f921b772e66afa6fabe352be66a8ff06f71fdd15
72. 1. Simonsohn U

    (2018) Two lines: A valid alternative to the invalid testing of U-shaped relationships with quadratic regressions

    Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science 1:538–555.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918805755

    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Song L
    2. Pettis PJ
    3. Chen Y
    4. Goodson-Miller M

    (2021) Social cost and health: the downside of social relationships and social networks

    Journal of Health and Social Behavior 62:371–387.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/00221465211029353

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
74. 1. Stavrova O
    2. Ren D

    (2021) Is more always better? Examining the nonlinear association of social contact frequency with physical health and longevity

    Social Psychological and Personality Science 12:1058–1070.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620961589

    • Google Scholar
75. 1. Testard C
    2. Brent LJN
    3. Andersson J
    4. Chiou KL
    5. Negron-Del Valle JE
    6. DeCasien AR
    7. Acevedo-Ithier A
    8. Stock MK
    9. Antón SC
    10. Gonzalez O
    11. Walker CS
    12. Foxley S
    13. Compo NR
    14. Bauman S
    15. Ruiz-Lambides AV
    16. Martinez MI
    17. Skene JHP
    18. Horvath JE
    19. Unit CBR
    20. Higham JP
    21. Miller KL
    22. Snyder-Mackler N
    23. Montague MJ
    24. Platt ML
    25. Sallet J

    (2022) Social connections predict brain structure in a multidimensional free-ranging primate society

    Science Advances 8:eabl5794.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abl5794

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
76. 1. Troisi A
    2. Frazzetto G
    3. Carola V
    4. Di Lorenzo G
    5. Coviello M
    6. D’Amato FR
    7. Moles A
    8. Siracusano A
    9. Gross C

    (2011) Social hedonic capacity is associated with the A118G polymorphism of the mu-opioid receptor gene (OPRM1) in adult healthy volunteers and psychiatric patients

    Social Neuroscience 6:88–97.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2010.482786

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
77. 1. Ueno K

    (2005) The effects of friendship networks on adolescent depressive symptoms

    Social Science Research 34:484–510.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2004.03.002

    • Google Scholar
78. 1. Way BM
    2. Taylor SE
    3. Eisenberger NI

    (2009) Variation in the Μ-opioid receptor gene (Oprm1) is associated with dispositional and neural sensitivity to social rejection

    PNAS 106:15079–15084.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0812612106

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
79. 1. Weintraub S
    2. Dikmen SS
    3. Heaton RK
    4. Tulsky DS
    5. Zelazo PD
    6. Bauer PJ
    7. Carlozzi NE
    8. Slotkin J
    9. Blitz D
    10. Wallner-Allen K
    11. Fox NA
    12. Beaumont JL
    13. Mungas D
    14. Nowinski CJ
    15. Richler J
    16. Deocampo JA
    17. Anderson JE
    18. Manly JJ
    19. Borosh B
    20. Havlik R
    21. Conway K
    22. Edwards E
    23. Freund L
    24. King JW
    25. Moy C
    26. Witt E
    27. Gershon RC

    (2013) Cognition assessment using the NIH Toolbox

    Neurology 80:S54–S64.

    https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182872ded

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
80. 1. Wentzel KR
    2. Jablansky S
    3. Scalise NR

    (2018) Do friendships afford academic benefits? A meta-analytic study

    Educational Psychology Review 30:1241–1267.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9447-5

    • Google Scholar
81. 1. Wolf LK
    2. Bazargani N
    3. Kilford EJ
    4. Dumontheil I
    5. Blakemore SJ

    (2015) The audience effect in adolescence depends on who’s looking over your shoulder

    Journal of Adolescence 43:5–14.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.05.003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
82. 1. Zhou WX
    2. Sornette D
    3. Hill RA
    4. Dunbar RIM

    (2005) Discrete hierarchical organization of social group sizes

    Proceedings of the Royal Society B 272:439–444.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2004.2970

    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Chun Shen

   1. Institute of Science and Technology for Brain-Inspired Intelligence, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
   2. Key Laboratory of Computational Neuroscience and Brain-Inspired Intelligence (Fudan University), Ministry of Education, Shanghai, China
   3. State Key Laboratory of Medical Neurobiology and MOE Frontiers Center for Brain Science (Fudan University), Ministry of Education, Shanghai, China

   Contribution

   Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Visualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

   Contributed equally with

   Edmund T Rolls

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1034-0343

2. Edmund T Rolls

   1. Institute of Science and Technology for Brain-Inspired Intelligence, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
   2. Department of Computer Science, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom
   3. Oxford Centre for Computational Neuroscience, Oxford, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Supervision, Validation, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

   Contributed equally with

   Chun Shen

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3025-1292

3. Shitong Xiang

   1. Institute of Science and Technology for Brain-Inspired Intelligence, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
   2. Key Laboratory of Computational Neuroscience and Brain-Inspired Intelligence (Fudan University), Ministry of Education, Shanghai, China

   Contribution

   Data curation, Formal analysis

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5513-4714

4. Christelle Langley

   1. Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
   2. Behavioural and Clinical Neuroscience Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

5. Barbara J Sahakian

   1. Institute of Science and Technology for Brain-Inspired Intelligence, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
   2. Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
   3. Behavioural and Clinical Neuroscience Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

6. Wei Cheng

   1. Institute of Science and Technology for Brain-Inspired Intelligence, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
   2. Key Laboratory of Computational Neuroscience and Brain-Inspired Intelligence (Fudan University), Ministry of Education, Shanghai, China
   3. Fudan ISTBI—ZJNU Algorithm Centre for Brain-Inspired Intelligence, Zhejiang Normal University, Jinhua, China
   4. Shanghai Medical College and Zhongshan Hospital Immunotherapy Technology Transfer Center, Shanghai, China
   5. Department of Neurology, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China

   Contribution

   Supervision, Funding acquisition, Visualization, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

   For correspondence

   wcheng.fdu@gmail.com

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

7. Jianfeng Feng

   1. Institute of Science and Technology for Brain-Inspired Intelligence, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
   2. Key Laboratory of Computational Neuroscience and Brain-Inspired Intelligence (Fudan University), Ministry of Education, Shanghai, China
   3. State Key Laboratory of Medical Neurobiology and MOE Frontiers Center for Brain Science (Fudan University), Ministry of Education, Shanghai, China
   4. Department of Computer Science, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom
   5. Fudan ISTBI—ZJNU Algorithm Centre for Brain-Inspired Intelligence, Zhejiang Normal University, Jinhua, China
   6. Zhangjiang Fudan International Innovation Center, Shanghai, China

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Writing – review and editing

   For correspondence

   jffeng@fudan.edu.cn

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8890-8288

• 1,490

  views

• 197

  downloads

• 4

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.