Study reveals no significant genetics for ASDs

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22843504

This really surprised me, especially as it's genetic in my family - unless we have all been exposed to something environmental or something else.

it just says that no single nucleotide pair is strongly associated with autism. that doesn't mean that genetics is not a big factor, just that inheritance is complicated.

It could be caused by another factor that is genetic, such as food allergies or maternal Vit D deficiency, rather than autism itself being genetic.

Everything is genetic. Maybe they can't explain that yet, but nearly everything can be traced up to some ancestors. One of my sons squeals when being kissed, I used to do that (but don't any more) as a kid. Where would he have learned that? I don't think that's a typical behavior depicted in movies.

Exactly. Autisme most probably has a genetic compenent. Just look up 'aspergers fraternal, identical twins' on google.

It is probably similar to genes for Coeliac Disease, or Lactose Intolerance were the genes make you susceptible to the condition, but the vast majority with the gene do not have the condition.

Aside from genetics, what could cause A.S. to 'run' in families?

Traditional child-rearing philosophies? The family religion?

Environmental factors that the family has endured for generations?

DNA is not destiny.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23067556

It's a bad idea to leap to conclusions or speculate deeply on the basis of limited research.

ASD is clearly genetic and hundreds of genes are involved. It's very complicated, and the best molecular biologists are struggling to work it out.

It isn't clearly just genetic, nor is it clear genes play the biggest role, not a single gene has been identified that positively causes autism.

You speak of leaping to conclusions, based on limited research, that is exactly what you are doing.

Agreed. Epigenetic factors influence the effect of genes and gene clusters.

I do not find this surprising in the least. We are calling multiple things "autism" right now, so of course we cannot find a single gene (not that I think it will ever be as straightforward as a "single gene.") The main problem we have with almost all research related to autism, whether it be related to cause, treatment, or whatever, is that we are treating a heterogeneous group as if it is homogenous. I believe the statistics are there. They are just being washed out by combining the data of groups who shouldn't be combined. They have probably found a number of genes that are related to a number of conditions currently called "autism." But instead of thinking "ah ha! I think we have reliably identified one subtype of autism!" They think "Well, these people have it, and these people don't, and since they all have autism, I guess we have to keep looking."

Yes. Heritability (twin/adoption) studies show that autism has a heritability somewhere in the low 90% range, meaning that if a person has autism, the cause is mostly genetic. What this study means is that there is no specific "autism gene". Autism has a genetic cause, but it's both multifactorial and polygenic. That means that it is caused by a combination of genes and how they interact, and many different possible combinations can cause it.

The title of this thread is not what the study says.

The study says that no individual common variant aka single nucleotide polymorphism aka one base change in a dna sequence confers significant risk for ASD by itself. It also says that while the effect of an individual snp is insignificant, the effects of many are. It also suggests that rare variants may confer greater risk for ASD than common variants, but this needs to be investigated further.