Aspies For Freedom

Full Version: New mutations implicated in half of autism cases
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070723/f...723-1.html

New mutations implicated in half of autism cases
Disorder linked to genetic differences between parent and offspring.
Heidi Ledford

Autistic children display a wide range of different symptoms.

HENNY ALLIS / SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY

Half of all cases of male autism may be caused by spontaneous genetic mutations, say researchers who have studied the genetic patterns of the condition. Offspring who inherit such mutations are at a greater risk of having an autistic child themselves.

Autistic people have difficulty relating socially with others and tend to focus obsessively on a narrow set of interests. Three to six out of every 1,000 people are expected to have the condition; its cause is unknown but there is thought to be a strong genetic component.

"That genetics plays a major role in autism has been obvious now for 20 years or more," says Isabelle Rapin, a neurologist at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, who was not affiliated with the study. "The evidence for genetics is not controversial."

But determining how genes affect autism has been difficult. Autism is a complex disease with a wide range of symptoms and severity. It also affects four times more males than females, for unknown reasons.

Spontaneous mutation

Earlier this year, a genome-wide scan linked some cases of autism with mutations in the number of copies of certain genes. Ten per cent of autistic patients had copy-number mutations that were not present in either parent, showing that the mutations were spontaneous1.

But Michael Wigler, a geneticist at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York and a lead author on the study, says that the study probably missed some copy-number mutations. "We were sure that 10% was an underestimate," he says.

So Wigler and his colleagues turned to a database containing pedigrees of families with two or more autistic children and asked: if the family's first two children were autistic, what were the chances that the third was autistic as well?

In 86 families with two autistic children and a third, male child, 42 of the third-born children showed autistic symptoms, the researchers report in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences2.

This suggests that parents had a one-in-two chance of passing on a mutation to their offspring, matching a dominant inheritance pattern. Another database gave the same result.

Handed down

Using mathematical models, Wigler's team found that the simplest way to describe the patterns of autism inheritance was to divide parents into two risk classes: those who carry a pre-existing autism-causing mutation, and those who do not.

The models suggest that about half of autistic children are born to parents with no previous genetic predisposition to autism, suggesting that the cases are caused by spontaneous mutations.

Older mothers, who are more likely to have autistic children, could fall into this class, notes Wigler. Such mothers' eggs have had more time to accumulate mutations.

Once those spontaneous mutations have been passed on, the offspring — particularly women, who can carry the mutation without showing symptoms — have a high risk of having an autistic child. Males with the mutation would also bear this risk, but are also likely to be autistic and therefore less likely to have children.

The researchers' model suggested that about a quarter of autistic children have inherited a copy-number mutation from their parents.

"It's a new way of looking at the data," says Rapin. Future studies using data from other family members are needed to further test the new models, she says. Other factors, such as complications during pregnancy, and the influence of multiple genes, may also be important in causing autism.

Visit our newsblog to read and post comments about this story.
This is just a theory, but I wonder if the changing social environment has anything to do with this? Human beings have a remarkable capacity for adjustment, but this could be a response to something that the human mind is struggling to cope with. So restrictions are coming out making it harder to make the change.

Who knows? ASD people could be the ones to ressurrect socialism! Smile
There is no "spontaneous mutations" found in me.  My father is a borderline AS/NT (cognitive gifts highly correlated with Asperger's; yet still socially proficient) and my mother I believe carries the genes recessively, as her brother seems to be a full-fledged AS.

What would cause such "spontaneous mutations" anyway?  I hate the terms "copy error" and the like, I get a tingly feeling in my skin and get naueseous when I think about the concept of resulting from a "genetic mistake."

It is a disturbing concept to me, and I don't know if others have the same reaction to these terms.  I know I do.

Batman55 Wrote:
There is no "spontaneous mutations" found in me.  My father is a borderline AS/NT (cognitive gifts highly correlated with Asperger's; yet still socially proficient) and my mother I believe carries the genes recessively, as her brother seems to be a full-fledged AS.

What would cause such "spontaneous mutations" anyway?  I hate the terms "copy error" and the like, I get a tingly feeling in my skin and get naueseous when I think about the concept of resulting from a "genetic mistake."

It is a disturbing concept to me, and I don't know if others have the same reaction to these terms.  I know I do.


Batman55,
Try to think of it more like this:  There is nothing inherantly "bad" about a mutation.  In fact, there's not really anything "abnormal" about the process of mutation; it happens all the time.  Mutation is what allows all living things to evolve.  So it's not "bad" purely because it's a mutation, in fact, it has the potential to be exactly the change our genepool needs.
Does that help?

Luai_lashire Wrote:

Batman55 Wrote:
There is no "spontaneous mutations" found in me.  My father is a borderline AS/NT (cognitive gifts highly correlated with Asperger's; yet still socially proficient) and my mother I believe carries the genes recessively, as her brother seems to be a full-fledged AS.

What would cause such "spontaneous mutations" anyway?  I hate the terms "copy error" and the like, I get a tingly feeling in my skin and get naueseous when I think about the concept of resulting from a "genetic mistake."

It is a disturbing concept to me, and I don't know if others have the same reaction to these terms.  I know I do.


Batman55,
Try to think of it more like this:  There is nothing inherantly "bad" about a mutation.  In fact, there's not really anything "abnormal" about the process of mutation; it happens all the time.  Mutation is what allows all living things to evolve.  So it's not "bad" purely because it's a mutation, in fact, it has the potential to be exactly the change our genepool needs.
Does that help?


I'm not quite sure about that.  I find the terms "copy error" and "genetic mistake" and how they may apply to me, because of my probable AS, still quite aggravating.

You'll have to find another way to explain it to me, to reduce the tremors I get when I meditate on these concepts.

Or maybe you should tell me not to be bothered with this, because I have observed plenty of AS traits on both sides of my family.  So then it's likely my AS is the product of natural heredity, instead of a spontaneous mutation.

Ugh...  I have trouble with these terms...  It's like hearing a sound of certain frequency that makes your teeth itch.  I get that unsettling feeling from words, also.

Batman55 Wrote:

Luai_lashire Wrote:

Batman55 Wrote:
There is no "spontaneous mutations" found in me.  My father is a borderline AS/NT (cognitive gifts highly correlated with Asperger's; yet still socially proficient) and my mother I believe carries the genes recessively, as her brother seems to be a full-fledged AS.

What would cause such "spontaneous mutations" anyway?  I hate the terms "copy error" and the like, I get a tingly feeling in my skin and get naueseous when I think about the concept of resulting from a "genetic mistake."

It is a disturbing concept to me, and I don't know if others have the same reaction to these terms.  I know I do.


Batman55,
Try to think of it more like this:  There is nothing inherantly "bad" about a mutation.  In fact, there's not really anything "abnormal" about the process of mutation; it happens all the time.  Mutation is what allows all living things to evolve.  So it's not "bad" purely because it's a mutation, in fact, it has the potential to be exactly the change our genepool needs.
Does that help?


I'm not quite sure about that.  I find the terms "copy error" and "genetic mistake" and how they may apply to me, because of my probable AS, still quite aggravating.

You'll have to find another way to explain it to me, to reduce the tremors I get when I meditate on these concepts.

Or maybe you should tell me not to be bothered with this, because I have observed plenty of AS traits on both sides of my family.  So then it's likely my AS is the product of natural heredity, instead of a spontaneous mutation.

Ugh...  I have trouble with these terms...  It's like hearing a sound of certain frequency that makes your teeth itch.  I get that unsettling feeling from words, also.



It's like this: the only reason any life exists at all is because of genetic mutations. An advantageous mutation will survive and become more common as the organisms with that mutation reproduce. So "mutation" =/= bad thing or "mistake".

So basically humans are evolving into a more autistic type of species. That's cool with me. Unfortunately 'social whores' who follow the whims of fad culture and have mastered the art of manipulation will no doubt have a problem with mutants who don't play their games and try their best to 'fix' what's happening instead of allowing nature to do her thing.

I think if we hold our ground and fight for our rights, natural selection will favor the 'mutants' while the very worst of the NT genetic spectrum will eventually die off thanks to Darwin Award worthy stupidity.
And the victory will be achieved in full when one of us is voted into the Whitehouse, 7Oclock! Yeah!

Well said!
http://arstechnica.com/journals/science....dic-autism
http://arstechnica.com/journals/science....-the-genes

Here are some followup articles. I don't know why some of us make a big fuss about this. If we are the result of genetic mutations then so be it. I just like the way they use the word "disease" to describe autism.

7oclock Wrote:
So basically humans are evolving into a more autistic type of species. That's cool with me. Unfortunately 'social whores' who follow the whims of fad culture and have mastered the art of manipulation will no doubt have a problem with mutants who don't play their games and try their best to 'fix' what's happening instead of allowing nature to do her thing.

I think if we hold our ground and fight for our rights, natural selection will favor the 'mutants' while the very worst of the NT genetic spectrum will eventually die off thanks to Darwin Award worthy stupidity.


Do you mean the type of overconfident folks you see on "Big Brother" and the like?  I would say that comes close to the "very worst" of the NT genetic spectrum, with the amount of social games and manipulation and "fight for the pecking order" you see in such programs.

People I have seen like that in real life, overconfident and manipulative and "superior" to no end, have flat out scared me.  And yet some of these folks go to Harvard and other Ivy League schools, so there must be some use for the more pronounced NT qualities.

Hmph...

oops I meant I DON'T like the way autism is described as a disease.
Mutations are sometimes described as diseases by the under-educated, Theosoph. (says he stated the obvious!)
Well I have a unibrow, I think that might count as a genetic mutation...check out Frida Kahlo.
I had several problems with the article, quite apart from the offensive 'disease' language. And I agree with Batman that the word 'mutation', whilst being scientifically neutral, is used in popular culture as an entirely negative concept and therefore it is alarming to think that 'mutant' could be added to the lexicon of insults thrown our way.

Quote:
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070723/full/070723-1.html

New mutations implicated in half of autism cases
Disorder linked to genetic differences between parent and offspring.
Heidi Ledford

HENNY ALLIS / SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY

Half of all cases of male autism may be caused by spontaneous genetic mutations, say researchers who have studied the genetic patterns of the condition. Offspring who inherit such mutations are at a greater risk of having an autistic child themselves.


(My emphases)

Only half? What about the other half, then? And why only half of the male autists? And, if such 'spontaneous mutations' are inherited, perhaps we really are, as a species, evolving into us! But why only a 'greater risk'? Quite apart from the offensive use of the word 'risk' as if autism is entirely negative (probability would be a better word here) does this mean that the 'mutations' actually have no bearing on autism but have merely been discovered by accident? Perhaps a wider study of the population would discover similar genetic differences between all parents and their offspring, whatever their 'neurotype'.

Quote:
Autistic children display a wide range of different symptoms.

Autistic people have difficulty relating socially with others and tend to focus obsessively on a narrow set of interests. Three to six out of every 1,000 people are expected to have the condition; its cause is unknown but there is thought to be a strong genetic component.

"That genetics plays a major role in autism has been obvious now for 20 years or more," says Isabelle Rapin, a neurologist at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, who was not affiliated with the study. "The evidence for genetics is not controversial."

But determining how genes affect autism has been difficult. Autism is a complex disease with a wide range of symptoms and severity. It also affects four times more males than females, for unknown reasons.


Urgh! Sad Autism is not a disease. And it does not "affect four times more males than females" - it is diagnosed four times more often in males than females because no-one seems to be looking for it in females, probably because of mis-leading statements like this one.

Quote:
Spontaneous mutation

Earlier this year, a genome-wide scan linked some cases of autism with mutations in the number of copies of certain genes. Ten per cent of autistic patients had copy-number mutations that were not present in either parent, showing that the mutations were spontaneous1.

But Michael Wigler, a geneticist at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York and a lead author on the study, says that the study probably missed some copy-number mutations. "We were sure that 10% was an underestimate," he says.


(My emphasis)

Okaaay, so now we have a 'scientific' study whose 'lead author' has decided to ignore the results in favour of much more exciting and news-worthy (i.e. bigger numbers) results.

Quote:
So Wigler and his colleagues turned to a database containing pedigrees of families with two or more autistic children and asked: if the family's first two children were autistic, what were the chances that the third was autistic as well?

In 86 families with two autistic children and a third, male child, 42 of the third-born children showed autistic symptoms, the researchers report in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences2.

This suggests that parents had a one-in-two chance of passing on a mutation to their offspring, matching a dominant inheritance pattern. Another database gave the same result.


One in two is the same risk of having male or female offspring. It has nothing whatever to do with dominance. My father is colour-blind. Colour blindness is carried on the X chromosome, of which females have two, males have only one. Therefore his daughters are all carriers, his son isn't. My male kids have a one-in-two chance of inheriting it, my daughter a one-in-two chance of being a carrier. Half my sons are colour-blind. In other words, a mutation has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with autism. In the overwhelming majority of cases, it is an inherited trait like colour vision and left-handedness.

Quote:
Handed down

Using mathematical models, Wigler's team found that the simplest way to describe the patterns of autism inheritance was to divide parents into two risk classes: those who carry a pre-existing autism-causing mutation, and those who do not.

The models suggest that about half of autistic children are born to parents with no previous genetic predisposition to autism, suggesting that the cases are caused by spontaneous mutations.


(My emphasis)

Errr, no, actually. Just because a parent has no diagnosis, doesn't mean that they are not autistic. And, anyway, since they have not identified the genes that are causing the different neurotypes how can they possibly make the above claim and expect to be believed?

Quote:
Older mothers, who are more likely to have autistic children, could fall into this class, notes Wigler. Such mothers' eggs have had more time to accumulate mutations.

Once those spontaneous mutations have been passed on, the offspring — particularly women, who can carry the mutation without showing symptoms — have a high risk of having an autistic child. Males with the mutation would also bear this risk, but are also likely to be autistic and therefore less likely to have children.


First of all, we are born with all the eggs that we are going to have. It is the sperm producing cells that undergo thousands of sub-divisions and are at risk of time-related copying mutations. And older women are not more at risk of having autistic children. The rise in diagnosis due to better recognition happens to have coincided with a rise in the age of motherhood (and fatherhood), but that is a co-incidence.

Have they proved that autism is carried on the X-chromosome then? Why haven't we been told?

Quote:
The researchers' model suggested that about a quarter of autistic children have inherited a copy-number mutation from their parents.


A 'model'; a 'suggestion'? Rolleyes In other words, pure speculation because:

Quote:
"It's a new way of looking at the data," says Rapin.


Big GrinBig GrinBig GrinBig GrinBig GrinBig GrinBig Grin

Quote:
Future studies using data from other family members are needed to further test the new models, she says.


I'll say......Sad

Quote:
Other factors, such as complications during pregnancy, and the influence of multiple genes, may also be important in causing autism.


Well, duh....

If a term is scientifically correct, then why not use it? offensive or not, it describes an event or process that is happening, hiding from such words, or facts, will not make them dissappear.

Mutated, or not mutated, we are.
Pages: 1 2
Reference URL's