Scientists at the London School of Economics, UK and Simon Fraser University, Canada have described the first hypothesis grounded in evolutionary genomics explaining the development of autism.
In an article to be published in a forthcoming issue of Journal of Evolutionary Biology, Dr Christopher Badcock and Professor Bernard Crespi explore the ‘imprinted brain hypothesis’ to explain the cause and effect of autism and autistic syndromes such as Asperger’s syndrome, highlighted by the book The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time, which involves selective disruption of social behaviour that makes individuals more self-focussed whilst enhancing skills related to mechanistic cognition.
The ‘imprinted brain hypothesis’ suggests that competition between maternally and paternally expressed genes leads to conflicts within the autistic individual which could result in an imbalance in the brain’s development. This is supported by the fact that there is known to be a strong genomic imprinting component to the genetic and developmental mechanisms of autism and autistic syndromes.
Professor Bernard Crespi from Simon Fraser University, Canada explains: “The imprinted brain hypothesis underscores the viewpoint that the autism spectrum represents human cognitive diversity rather than simply disorder or disability. Indeed, individuals at the highest-functioning end of this spectrum may have driven the development of science, engineering and the arts through mechanistic brilliance coupled with perseverant obsession.”
The core behavioural features of autism such as self-focussed behaviour, altered social interactions and language and enhanced spatial and mechanistic cognition and abilities – as well as the degree to which the brain functions and structures are altered – also supports this hypothesis.
From innovations-report.de
Professor Bernard Crespi from Simon Fraser University, Canada explains: “The imprinted brain hypothesis underscores the viewpoint that the autism spectrum represents human cognitive diversity rather than simply disorder or disability. Indeed, individuals at the highest-functioning end of this spectrum may have driven the development of science, engineering and the arts through mechanistic brilliance coupled with perseverant obsession.”
A positive comment indeed. I wonder if this will have any sway with curebies.
I can not follow the reasoning from "The ‘imprinted brain hypothesis’ suggests that competition between maternally and paternally expressed genes leads to conflicts within the autistic individual which could result in an imbalance in the brain’s development." to the next paragraph in which he claims "The imprinted brain hypothesis underscores the viewpoint that the autism spectrum represents human cognitive diversity rather than simply disorder or disability. Indeed, individuals at the highest-functioning end of this spectrum may have driven the development of science, engineering and the arts through mechanistic brilliance coupled with perseverant obsession.”
Imbalance in the brain's development? That just seems a negative. Would differences in the brain that caused a person to excell in sports be considered imbalances. Maybe just poor choice of words?
When archeoligists found humanoid bones that demonstrated some advanced disease and age, it was considered a milestone in human evolutionary development that the sick and old were taken care of instead of just left to fend for themselves. Hopefully, this person's studies will benefit those with diverse brain development.
I like diversity and the human race would truly be spoiled if by genetic and environmental manipulations were to be used to create "perfect humans".
I like diversity and the human race would truly be spoiled if by genetic and environmental manipulations were to be used to create "perfect humans".
I thought it said "genomics" rather than "eugenics". The latter seems rather unlikely, or we'd already be killing or sterilising physically disabled children.
Ant
I think there is a full paper explaining it all, and we just have an extract to go from, so there is probably a full explanation in the paper.
M wrote:
I like diversity and the human race would truly be spoiled if by genetic and environmental manipulations were to be used to create "perfect humans".
I thought it said "genomics" rather than "eugenics". The latter seems rather unlikely, or we'd already be killing or sterilising physically disabled children.
thank you for your correction. I like diversity and the human race IS being truly spoiled.
competition between maternally and paternally expressed genes leads to conflicts within the autistic individual which could result in an imbalance in the brain’s development
Can someone tell me how genes can compete? Or how in the heck RNA can tell the difference between maternal and paternal genes?
Edit: I know about shared dominance, and x and y, but this sentence still doesn't make sense to me
competition between maternally and paternally expressed genes leads to conflicts within the autistic individual which could result in an imbalance in the brain’s development
Can someone tell me how genes can compete? Or how in the heck RNA can tell the difference between maternal and paternal genes?
Edit: I know about shared dominance, and x and y, but this sentence still doesn't make sense to me
Well, I'm no expert, but I'll give it a shot. For more detail, see Richard Dawkins' books, or Matt Ridley's Genome.
Genetics is much more complex than Mendel's pea plants. Many genes are expressed as Mendelian genetics would suggest, but by no means all. Some genes are "imprinted," for example, by having an extra methyl group attached in certain locations. The imprinting affects gene expression. Maternally inherited genes and paternally inherited genes can be imprinted differently, and are therefore expressed differently.
To put it simply, the father's genes have an interest in the fetus' grabbing more of the maternal resources (to a point), while the mother's genes have an interest in not allowing the fetus to take too much (again, up to a point). This is one hypothesis for the underlying cause of gestational diabetes and pre-eclampsia, among other conditions -- an arms race between paternal and maternal genes.
If this all sounds really bizarre, and it does at first, then read up on the selfish gene. Dawkins for one is an excellent author, and explains this much better than I can. He popularized (but did not originate) the idea of the selfish gene. Genes are successful when they reproduce. Period. Genes are interested not in what is good for the species, nor even in what is good for the body carrying them, but in what helps genes find their way into future generations.
As I appreciate it, imprinting is not manifested directly at the RNA level. It is not the RNA that "knows" whether it is maternally or paternally inherited. It is one level back, at the DNA. The genes are differentially transcribed, and therefore are differentially expressed, for various reasons -- sometimes because of which parent methylated which genes in which gametes.
Whether any of this has anything at all to do with autism . . . I haven't a clue.
Thank you for you explanation, I'll definitely look into those authors. It makes a lot more sense.
I haven't heard about any imprinted genes related to autism. I'll have to look into this one. FitzRoy's explanation is the one that I've also heard--Ridley's book Genome is really neat. Chromosome 15 has a couple of imprinted genes that account for Angelman's and Prader-Willi syndromes.
Do you know there are connections between Angelmans and Prader Willi, and autism.
This reminds me of an episode of Aeon Flux. If you're not familiar with it, it's a sci-fi type of Anime. Aeon tried to kill these "aliens" who only communicated through thought, had no mouths, and no stomachs. So, she and Trevor fight over this remote that will let off a bomb, or some sort of chemical warfare. I forgot which, it was awhile ago I saw the show.
So Aeon detonates the device, and right after Trevor says "Congratulations, you've just killed off the human race."
The idea being like how people think we're weird, when we could just be the future evolution of human beings.