Genetics and Autism

Post Reply New Topic

if all holds true that suspected missing genes at the time of conception could possibly cause autism why is it some children do start talking but mysteriously stop. Then with intervention, they are able to communicate once again? Does positive social intervention when very young prove there could be more going on than missing genes? (Correct me please if I have misinterpreted the missing gene theory).

from what little i know about the subject, i understand the brain is very adaptive. say the part of your brain that processes speech is damaged, another part of the brain can learn how to take over this function, but may do it differently.

Personally, I would not be surprised if Autism is not always caused by the same thing in all people. It is a group of "symptoms", if you have these "symptoms" then you are Dx'ed with Autism. What causes them could be different.

I have heard a theory that people with Autism lack certain enzymes or hormones, that overtime negativly affect brain development. In the future, they may be able to supplament these thus preventing the onset of Autism.

This theory makes a lot more sense. Yes, it is "genetic" but it explains why the regression seems to happen... Overtime, the brain is starved of some compound it needs for proper development.

Because the brain is so resilliant, it can find other pathways to compensate for the loss...

There has not been a genetic marker/s for autism to the best of my knowledge, but Dr Bernard Rimland has observed over 40 years ago that if an identical twin is autistic then there is statistical evidence that there is a 60% chance the other twin is autistic. Where as with fraternal twins the odds are the same as brother and sister.
I think that pretty well sets it in stone there is a genetic component. The trouble is no one knows which gene/s

No, not necessarily by speech. An autie's brain my be so miswired that their speech doesn't work and then it is up to their parents/caregivers to come up with an alternative like picture boards.



Not really. We can learn social skills (manners and such) by rote and some of us learn perspective taking and flexible thinking. These are required for any real social interaction with NTs. Simple manners should be taught by rules and the higher level thinking skills needed should be taught cognitively and emotions left out of it.

There is no one missing gene. Evidence points to over 100 genetic errors varying from individual to individual.

It has been proven that language syntax is passed on. The ability to do grammar (forming sentences) actually is inherited from a part of the brain. So called 'Feral children', children that have been brought up in complete isolation of human speech or in some cases by animals once they reach about 8-9 that part of the brain is fused and they will never be able to form sentences again. There was documentry about a girl Genie in who was locked up till she was 13. The psychologists managed to get her to say and understand words. She even was able to combine some words which is about the level of association dolphins and parrots are able to. But she has never been able to form sentences. So I think these things could be due to different parts of the brain changing in childhood but that doesn't mean it is not genetic. It doesn't mean it is either I don't know for sure. Actually genetic isn’t the opposite of nurture/experience. Genetic is an influence and Nurture is an influence. There is no free will only in a relative sense.

I think that it depends upon the type of autism. Something like Asperger's? Bah, just an exaggeration of a common trait, even if some find it debilitative. Other forms of autism may have completely different causes.

Yes, Steven Pinker proved (in my mind) we are not blank slates. Some autie's language centers never develop or are miswired. It takes a horrific isolation (being locked in a closet for most of your life) to disrupt the language and social understanding developing in an NT brain.

Recent data from the Autism Genome Project shows a positive correlation with abnormal genes, especially at the 11 position. But its still not definitive.

This is just my theory, but I think that a basic charateristic of autism is that outside stimuli enters our brains without going through the frontal lobe interface that NTs use. Because we are much more sensitive to stimuli, traumatic experiences can cause us to go retrograde from time to time.

Mutism and speech problems are different things though. Apparently when I was a kid I could talk fine. I just wasn't about talking to kids, I did talk to strangers (adults). But since I remember I've been SA so it is hard to imagine wandering off and talking to people. I think some might develop mutism I would say I only get temporary mutism. I get it at the start I need to hear the voices a bit before I can start talking and i also get it every now and then. It helps if you don't try to speak.

Not all genes' effects kick in immediately (for example, those that result in a higher likelihood of cancer, or those that determine breast size, certain genetic illnesses, etc), so speech regression is not incompatible with a genetic origin for AS. The brain can be very adaptable so successful interventions don't mean AS is not genetic in origin.
As paulsinnerchild says, there is very solid evidence that ASDs are primarily genetic in origin.

Some children do not respond to interventions. I've been involved with ASD for over 15 years and have seen it many, many times. Some auties never learn to speak no matter how intense the intervention.

Just curious: do you think the success of intervention depends very much on whether the child wants to succeed? Could you take a child who really really doesn't want it, and get through? Could you take a child who really wants to be normal and make it impossible for him or her to show any improvement? Or is it mostly a matter of what the child is?

they don't think that genes are missing... which supports paul's observation about the lack of genetic markers...

what is currently thought is that there is some sort of epigenetic mechanism at work... epigenetics deals with variable gene expression that is not directly due to a change in the genetic code... hence the lack of genetic markers (genetic marker=a difference in DNA sequence that can be correlated with _______ condition; ie-identifying a mutation(s) that result in ___________ condtion)

it is a relatively new field and not a lot is known about this level of genetic regulation.

eidt: though i should add that it's probably not that simple... as i'm sure some mutations contribute to some cases of autism. it's like cancer... cancer is not created via one little mutation... there are several "Weak links" in the chain that result in any type of cancer... a myriad of combinations of mutations at different positions can result in the same outcome: cancer of w/e tissue.

interesting. is it not true that in diseases like cancer, we all carry those genes and it depends on the individual whether the genes mutate? and lupus they think is genetic too, but unlike cancer, only certain individuals have these conditions and it takes something to trigger it. would it be feasible to state that lupus and autism are similar in that field? it takes some certain condition(s) to trigger the result (sorry if this is hard to read; my mind is racing as i am not very good with wording things, ugh)