Autism and genetics

Post Reply New Topic

how many different genes are involved in causing asd?
have scientists been able to figure out which genetic combinations cause particular asd symptoms/ severity levels? (if so, can they split the different genetic combinations up and find separate cures for each of them?)
can scientists cure genetic differences if they are naturally ingrained?
is it possible that asd case has a different genetic cause, and would this make asd impossible to cure?
or is it possible that there are hundreds of genetic differences involved, making it difficult/uneconomical to find a cure?
how and why is asd related to other mental illnesses/developmental disabilities? (ive read that bipolar,scizophrenia and adhd are related to asd, as in they seem to be co-morbid and have simmilar genetic causes?)
what environmental factors play a role in causing autism? and why? (eg. why can 1 twin be autistic and the other one be neurotypical?)

It has pretty well been proven that Autism could have a genetic element to it (not that autism is always caused by genetics!)

It is certainly not caused by Mendelian-type genetics; it is not inevitable, say, that two autistic parents will give birth to an autistic child.

Then I got to thinking: Is there truly just one Autism?

There is speculation out there that there are "many" autisms with many different causes: genetic, epigenetic, environmental, and varying combinations of all three.

I think I have read something about certain cases of autism being single-gene based, while others are not.

There is NOT one autism - this is why there are such a range of symptoms and severities - and this is a fascinating area of neuroscience that is advancing knowledge rapidly - look for big changes in the coming decade. The questions posed by joshukxxx are some of the hot controversies in the field.

Short answer: the jury's not yet in.

This is interesting. http://news.mit.edu/2015/altered-brain- ... utism-1217 I also seen that something to do with blood vessel in brains of some autism cases were the cause. http://www.sciencealert.com/evidence-of ... tudy-finds There was also a heightened risk from mothers on anti depressants..well kind of . http://www.sciencealert.com/study-says- ... hole-story There may be several/many causes.

There will be hundreds of causes investigated over the years.

But I believe what may cause autism in one, might not cause autism in another. That's going to make it more difficult to arrive at universal causation.

What it definitely is not is a "classic" genetic disorder; hence, it is not invariable that two autistic parents will give birth to an autistic child. Some "classic" genetic disorder, however, could have autism as one of the symptoms.

I have read that autism has been found to have numerous genetic causes. There appear to be many types of autism. Asperger's appears to have many biological differences from classic autism.

However those with Asperger's are more likely to have children with Asperger's and classic autism. Those with BAP are more likely to have children on the spectrum.

I believe some genes have been isolated, but it's currently believed to be caused by several genes. It's still not really understood by scientists and will probably need many more years of study.

Aspie traits seem to run in my family. My father, grandfather, myself, and younger sibling all have Aspie traits. We are quite eccentric, at the very least. Engineering and computer science are also common in that side of the family.

Hundreds that they've identified so far. The autism genes researchers have found fall into two categories - rare, high impact mutations that can cause autism all by themselves (such as MECP2 and UBE3A mutations), and common, tiny impact gene variants that slightly increase autistic traits. As a result, people with genetically-caused autism fall into two groups - the group who each have a single rare gene mutation or copy number variant, and the group who have a large number of tiny impact gene variants.



Mostly no. Some of the rare high impact mutations are associated with specific flavours of autism, for example autism-related copy number variants usually cause LFA. But these only apply to a very small percentage of people.



It's not very likely. The only genetic conditions we're anywhere close to curing are ones that affect only a single enzyme or a single cell type that we understand very well. Most forms of autism do not fall into that category. (Scientists have sort-of cured one type of autism, though - untreated phenylketonuria causes LFA. In that case, we can't cure individuals already disabled by high phenylalanine, but a low-phenylalanine diet from infancy prevents most of the effects.)



The fact that there are so many different types of high-impact genes causing autism means that for that subgroup, hundreds of separate cures would be needed for each and every specific cause.

For the group with many tiny-impact genes, I don't know. Scientists don't really understand any of those genes well enough to say how they cause autism.



Most of those other conditions have the same causal breakdown - some have single high-impact genes and others have many tiny-impact genes. In both groups, there are a number of genes that can cause more than one possible condition. For example, Fragile X Syndrome (caused by a mutation in FMR1) is associated with autism, ADHD and cognitive disability, while 22q11 deletion is associated with autism, nonverbal learning disability and schizophrenia. With the tiny-impact genes, too, many are shared between conditions.



Well, there are several prenatal exposure syndromes that can cause autism - fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, thalidomide embryopathy, fetal anticonvulsant syndrome, congenital rubella syndrome, etc. (Yes, one of the conditions the MMR vaccine prevents can cause autism. Ironic, isn't it?)

As for the twin example, though, I suspect in most cases it has more to do with twin-related perinatal risks, such as twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome, difficult labour, and prematurity.

Twin-to-twin transfusion, a condition that only affects identical twins, is when a shared placenta gives an unequal share to both twins, resulting in overgrowth of one twin and growth delay in the other twin. It can place the lives of both babies at risk, but the smaller baby is at higher risk.

Difficult labour also differentially affects both twins, because one twin is born before the other. The second-born twin is exposed to a longer labour and is therefore more likely to suffer oxygen deprivation, which can damage the brain.

As for prematurity, both twins are (usually) equally premature, but many preemies have sudden health crises that can cause brain injury in one twin and not the other. Also, a premature baby's brain is too immature to handle sensory stimulation properly, and overstimulation can cause permanent sensory processing issues in these babies. If one twin happened to be closer to the door than the other, or something like that, they'll have been exposed to different sensory environments, affecting the twins' brains differently.

You might study genetic testing for ALS--which is on a continuum of neuromuscular diseases. A major difference with ALS is that while it can be hard to identify at first--it is quite easy to identify if it kills you in two years. Not many diseases have such a dire prognosis.

http://www.alsa.org/about-als/genetic-t ... r-als.html

That was a very impressive answer. (not just this paragraph, but all of them) You obviously have a very thorough grounding in this subject - I would not be surprised if you have a doctorate degree in this particular field. Thanks for your response, and I will be looking for your other posts in the future.

There are three types of Autism.

The biological/genetic kind that your born with.

The environmental (culture/society influences) kind that you can artificially develop on your own.

Then there's the more recent self fulfilling diagnosis where people who've studied up on Autism have convinced themselves that they actually have it.

The later two are curable, the foremost is manageable.

This again...

Since I have no need to undermine, invalidate and put those people down who have something to do with autism (whether childhood or adult diagnosis, whether a guess made by relatives, professionals or self, whether severe or not, whether according to you or others) I atleast can see the positive influence the so called autism awareness in society and culture has lead to.

For example most parents of severely affected LFA children make a guess "Could it be autism?" based on cultural and societal influences and start to seek help based on that. Seek and you shall find. Thanks to that information those children who before this age of autism were locked into deprived life in institutions as hopeless cases have now a place and a voice in society. Many make the huge leap from silence to communication thanks to the better informed society. And what about all those life changing stories of adults finding new paths through autism awareness?

I see no threat, thus I have no need to arm against it.

How exactly do you go about curing the environmental kind of autism?

And, is it even a thing?

Utter nonsense.

In the Fifties all autism was assumed to be "environmental" (in the bad parenting/dysfunctional family)sense of the word. Hense the term "refrigerator mom". That model was abandoned fifty-sixty years ago.

Though some autism may be "environmental" in a different sense of the word (in the chemical pollution sense- caused by lead paint, or by your mom smoking when she was pregnant), its not a neurosis caused by bad parenting, or emotional trauma.Though aspie/autistic individuals are often found in dysfunctional families

Since autism is inborn the assumption folks make is that its "genetic", or at least "epigentic". But that also had been hard to pin down evidence for. But recently they are starting to find actual genes connected with some aspects of autism. Some autistics have flawed neurotransmitters, and those in turn have been linked to some genes.

About folks "become convinced that they are autistic from a reading a description of autism":that group is a small part of society, and most of that group are folks who came to that conclusion because:they really DO have an autistic spectrum disorder. The minority of the tiny group who think that are ASD from reading a book, but do NOT have it are a minority of the minority who is so tiny that there is no point in counting them all, much less counting them as "a type of autism".



Autism is more complex condition than hemophilia, or sickle cell anemia. So its hard to pin down. And doubtless it will turn out that there are more than kind of autism with origins in different genes.

Threat?

If I threatened you in any way, then I do apologize. My post was never meant to be threatening.



The same way that all Autism is cured/managed, with love, patience, and time. Essentially, Therapy.

Self-help is also an option, perhaps the hardest one of all. It's usually the course set by children whose career goals would be affected, or even removed outright by an Autistic diagnosis. So they try to understand more about it, tying down all the aspects of their own personal brand of it. That so many are able to manage their conditions, and complete their University courses, is a testament to the capabilities and enduring will of mankind.



Those three that I mentioned are considered the big three, in that they tend to be well founded and widely known by everyone that has a genuine interest in Autism.

I'm genuinely interested in Autism, and I've never heard of the "big three" before now.

The spectrum is very large, and the great entity that is The Internet is constantly expanding, if you want to find anything specific, then you generally have to be specific. Of course, now that you know what to look for, you'll be able to find out a lot about.

Wait! That still doesn't explain why I haven't heard about!

Well, as kraftiekortie said, it's only speculation. The Autism spectrum is almost entirely uncharted, in the sense that it doesn't come with a road map highlight all the known destinations, and a key list to help you identify what your looking for. Rather everyone has their own paper and pencil, and has to write it out as they go. Occasionally, you'll get Doctors that will point out destinations for you, though you may of already discovered them yourself.



You may wish to rethink your Forum conduct, as I stopped reading your post after you said that.

Well that's awfully childish of you.

Yes, that's one theory... But mostly, it's because my time is finite, and I'd rather not waste whatever time I have left to me, on people who call my opinions "utter nonsense" and who clearly have no respect for me, or my opinions.

Well how should I improve on this in the future?

Well, if your main goal is to be disrespectful, and/or offensive to people, then it's best to wait until the end of the conversation before you do it. That way you get to have your say before they start walk away/stop reading.

If you want to improve on your behavior in general, then insulting people and/or their opinions no matter how much they may differ from your self/own, is pretty good step forward. The next point forward from their is usually to at least entertain their opinion, though taking it seriously is the goal you should aim for.

I could go on, but there are enough self improvement articles on the Internet that do a significantly better job of explaining this than I could ever do.

Huh?

I dis'd what you said, but I didnt dis you?

So you're admitting that I followed the rules which are: "attack the opinion, not the person"?

So whats your problem?

What you said was nonsense. So what was I supposed to call it? Dung by any other name would not smell any sweeter (to paraphrase Shakespeare).

[Moderating]
Personal attacks are not acceptable on WrongPlanet.

To be very clear about this--

This is a personal attack:

Why? Because the argument is not being attacked, but the character of the person making it.
How could this response be reworded so as not to violate rules? In any way that doesn't address the person rather than the argument. For example, "I disagree with your analysis because of reasons X, Y and Z," with X, Y and X being reasoned arguments against naturalplastic's assertion that the "three types of autism" post was nonsense.

This is not a personal attack:

Why? Because the argument is being addressed not the person.
Had naturalplastic posted something along the lines of, "you are [insult of your choice here] for arguing nonsense," then it would have been a personal attack.

Please carry on, if you care to, but don't personalize the debate.