
The brains of people with autism are chemically different to those without autism, according to researchers. A study, published in the journal Nature, showed the unique characters of the frontal and temporal lobes had disappeared.It's not a bad summary, although it doesn't explain quite how interesting the new results are. Here's the paper, from a joint US/British team: Transcriptomic analysis of autistic brain reveals convergent molecular pathologyThe authors took 19 brains from people with autism and 17 healthy ones. These came from people who donated their brains to science and then died. The study involved taking samples from three areas of the brain, the superior temporal gyrus, the prefrontal cortex, and the cerebellum. These are regions that have been implicated in autism, although to be honest, so has everywhere else in the brain.
They then looked at gene expression: mRNA levels. This measures the degree to which different genes are "activated" and being used to make proteins. Bear in mind that a gene itself could be completely normal, and yet be abnormally expressed: this was not a study of DNA mutations. So the BBC's headline is a bit misleading. The genes themselves were not the focus of this study.
Anyway, comparing the autistic and control brains, they found 444 genes that were statistically significantly either over- or under-expressed in the cerebral cortex samples from the autistic group. However, in the cerebellum, there were just 2 differences: so the cerebellum was ruled out from further analysis.
They then replicated the study in a different cortical area in 6 new cases and 5 new controls. They found extremely strong overlap with the original cohort, with the same genes being altered in the same direction in almost all cases. This makes me confident that there is something going on here. This scatterplot shows that almost all of the genes that were significantly different in the first batch were also different in same direction in the second one (although not always significantly, as you'd expect.)

Interestingly, the algorithm correctly " diagnosed" a case of autism who turned out to have a 15q duplication mutation. 15q duplication is a genetic disorder which causes autism, amongst other things, and it may explain up to 1% of cases of autism. This is only one case but it's important because it suggests that "15q autism" is not all that different to other kinds of autism on the neural level.
The authors then looked at what the over- and under- expressed genes actually were. They found that the "up" genes tended to be genes relating to immune and glial function, while the "down" genes tended to be involved in the formation and function of synapses between cells.
Very interestingly, one of the major clusters of genes , "M12", showed strong overlap with genes previously known to be expressed in a type of cell called PV+ GABA interneurons. In mouse models of autism, these are known to be deficient. M12 was underexpressed in autism, and it contains many genes which have previously been found to be mutated in some people with autism, such as CNTNAP2.
Another cluster, "M16", was overexpressed; it contains genes involved in immune and microglial function (microglia are specialized immune system cells inside the brain). However, M16 did not contain overrepresentation of suspected asd genes.
So this all points to something like this: autism is caused by disruption to the function of certain gene networks in the brain involved in synaptic function. This network is a delicate balance and it can be thrown off course by many different mutations and/or environmental factors.
There's no one gene for autism, but all of the genes for autism might be related, or rather, they might form a team that works together. If you want to look at it this way, you could say that autism is a bit like blindness. People can go blind for lots of different reasons: it could be damage to the surface of the eye, or the retina, or the optic nerve which carries information to the brain, or the brain itself. All of these parts depend on all the others to work, and if one of them goes wrong, the whole system suffers.
Also, whatever the abnormality in autism is, it seems to trigger a secondary change in the brain which is immune and/or glial related. By "secondary" I don't mean that it's less important. It might be what causes the symptoms of autism. But it's not the root cause (because if it were, mutations in this network would cause autism, and they don't seem to.)
This study raises many more questions than it answers, but in a good way. It certainly doesn't explain autism, but it's pointed the way towards more focussed research in the future - gene cluster M12.

15 comments:
"The authors took 19 brains from people with autism"
Yes but in the original sample they used tissue from 16 autistic brains (and 16 nonautistic brains).
"They then replicated the study in a different cortical area in 6 new cases and 5 new controls"
The replication sample included 9 autistic brains. Six were also in the original 16 (not new cases). Two others are listed with a status of "autism in family" and one other is listed with a status of "autism" and is not in the original 16 (or 19).
At least I think so from a pretty hasty reading, happy to be corrected...
I'll believe it when it has been robustly replicated.
These large scale gene expression studies are notoriously subject to failed replication (just look at the schizophrenia field).
The next study will probably show the exact opposite (wayhey, 'partial replication'!)
I don't like to be negative or fault-finding but... The points made by the comments that preceded mine are valid.
As for me, I do hope that Asperber's Syndrome was not included in this sample of 19 observations. To do so would only further dilute the meaningfulness of the results, as it is an autism spectrum disorder, one that is on the far end of that spectrum.
It does seem better to wait until a statistically robust study can be done. Otherwise, findings that are merely preliminary get talked all around. If later findings have contrary results (which is a completely acceptable thing, doesn't imply shoddy work or negligence or anything pejorative at all), then it throws everyone off, causing unnecessary doubt and suspicion in general.
Mmm. I agree with all above. While i'm pretty much convinced true autism is genetic, they main problem lies in the broad spectrum of the definition of autism.
I'm also convinced that a lot of people get diagnosed with autism who aren't.
Autism is getting be like ADHD, a sort for catchall, but not for unruly ones but for people with social issues that don't present other disorders like schizophrenia.
Autism tests are imo like any other IQ test. They only show you are good at doing the test, not much else.
As an autist, and having ran the gamut of diagnostic torture, the image presented to the non-autist of the workings of our mind is but a fraction of what goes on.
Autism is a state of mind totally different form non-autist. You think differently, your mind works differently. The whole eprception of the environment is different.Something no test can show.
Reason why autism diagnosis are imo very polluted with non-autists who pass the test for other reasons.
In the end looking for the autism gene will be fruitless till a diagnostic method has been developed to properly separate true autism from 'whatever it is that resembles it to a degree'
For a full discussion of the 15 duplication syndrome read:
http://www.idic15.org/Chromosome-15-duplications.html
1. This mutation is not inherited.
2. Not specific to autism. associated with intellectual disability, seizures, ADHD in in some case a co-occuirng autism diagnosis.
3. Comparison between 'autistic' brains and 'healthy' control can't show if the findings are related to ID, epilepsy ADHD or co-occuring autism.
From a recent post of yours:
Scientific papers should be submitted to journals for publication before the research has started. The Introduction and the Methods section, detailing what you plan to do and why, would then get peer reviewed.....
If the paper's accepted, you then do the research, get the results, and write the Results and Discussion section of the paper. The journal is then required to publish the final paper, assuming that you kept to the original plan. The Introducion and primary Methods would be fixed - you can't change them once the data come in.
Now, how would one perform an expository study like this one if they were required to predict the direction that their exploration will take in advance? I know that I would have had an awful time publishing anything if I wasn't allowed to revise my research goals upon getting preliminary results (and before you ask, I am well aware of the risks of fishing for a statistically significant result...)
Raj: They controlled for seizures and medications and that didn't explain the results. Not sure about ADHD and ID - you'd need to check the supplementary methods. ADHD I'm not worried about because so many people with ASD also have ADHD symptoms, and arguably it's just a symptom of the disorder.
jcs: This is actually exactly what I had in mind. For this study, they will have written a grant proposal which will have been, I'd imagine: "We will look at X autistic brains and X controls, from regions A B and C, and we'll look at their gene expression and do the following statistics and analysis..."
Which is a great idea. And if I were a pre-peer-reviewer I would approve it. It's exploratory but it's got a clear plan of action.
Now they may have planned to do exactly what they did in this study.
However I suspect that some of the analyses were posthoc. For example I would bet a lot of money that the pattern classification bit was, because this technique was not in wide use 3 years ago (which is when the grant will have been written) but it's really taken off in the past couple of years. That's fine, but we ought to know about it. If the gene networks part was posthoc, that's more serious. And if they originally did some major analysis which gave no results, and never published the results, then we really need to know.
@neuroskeptic
But how do you know these brains are indeed autistic? Given that diagnosis is in the eye of the beholder.
One need to first accurately determine what is autism and what is an affliction with autistic symptoms.
In your example you actually say:
"We will look at X brains we assume to be autistic brains and X controls, from regions A B and C, and we'll look at their gene expression and do the following statistics and analysis..."
I fail to see how that could lead to anything conclusive.
petrossa: Fair point but you have to start somewhere. And in my view modern diagnosis for autism is quite rigorous. Certainly not nearly as bad as for other psychiatric disorders, although DSM-V may change that. But assuming that there is a syndrome called autism and that it has biological correlates, there's a good chance that most of the people in a study like this will have autism. There'll always be a few rogue subjects who don't "really" have it, but so long as they're the minority, it doesn't mean the study is useless.
True. One has to start somewhere. I'd prefer they'd start by defining autism better. DSM-V imo doesn't improve much, it only widens the spectrum.
What should be done is a population study to determine the number of undiagnosed autistic adults of 40+ years. They are most capable of explaining their mindset.
From that sample one should make scans of the white matter to see if indeed there is a over representation of white matter issues.
If so, (and i think there is) then use that as a baseline for autism, and that way you can separate out other phenomena which only give autistic symptoms but not the totally different mindset.
Having done that, then you can start your proposed study to find a gene.
From simple long term observation of the various HFA discussion groups i'm quite sure to have found a commonality separate from the behavorial aspects.
A mindset, a way of processing information, which is radically different from non-hfa. By inference i assume the same goes for less fortunate autists since there quite recognizable behavorial overlaps which have a root cause in this different mindset.
Due to this commonality the proposition that there isn't a genetic base is hard to believe.
No way can a unregulated developmental difference of the brain occur that often in the same manner with the same outcome.
There must be a blueprint for it.
"The authors took 19 brains from people with autism and 17 healthy ones"
I have autism. I am also healthy.
(Although how healthy *anyone* can be once their brain has been removed is another matter...)
Yes indeed Andrew. Good point. Being different is considered being unhealthy. Annoys the £$%"out of me too.
I'm still laying my bets on something going slightly wrong (whether gene-controlled or biochemically) at the migration stage of neural cells in the embryo. The stage when neurons "push" from lower/inner brain area towards the cortex. It seems to leave brain cells involved in perception of mainly visual stimuli without their "programming" to some extent, so they don't switch properly when something relevant for survival in a primitive visual world appears. I like the dopamine/noradrenaline switching/tuning hypothesis as the basis of a functional neurological disturbance in stimulus salience. Somewhat like the findings in schizophrenia/other psychosis, eg.: J. P. Roiser, K. E. Stephan, H. E. M. den Ouden, T. R. E. Barnes, K. J. Friston, E. M. Joyce (2008). Do patients with schizophrenia exhibit aberrant salience? Psychological Medicine, 39 (02) DOI: 10.1017/S0033291708003863
Imo that's too unspecific to account for the remarkable similarity in cognitive functioning amongst adult autists.
Whilst i agree that it could cause the outward symptoms but i can't see it regulating the difference in cognitive functioning to such a degree.
Could be a secondary though. To my mind, accepting that the cognitive functioning as i observed actually exist, it needs some heavy duty rewiring.
Therefore my bet is on some form of different white matter formation.
The similarity between CC agnesis and autism symptoms is striking
Post a Comment