Autism is genetic

[jonesonscam]

The National Autistic Society has just said something pretty significant: Autism is genetic. Not “possibly genetic”. Not “we’re not really sure what causes it”.

After reviewing 83 research papers, the NAS is now stating definitively that autism is genetic. You’re born autistic and you’re autistic for life. Most autistic people are autistic because of genes they inherited from their parents.

I think this matters enormously because for decades, autism has been surrounded by nonsense about vaccines, parenting, mothers doing something wrong, pregnancy, diet and a million other things.

It has left parents blaming themselves, and autistic people being told that something caused them to be autistic that could somehow have been prevented.

There isn't an “autism gene”. Thousands of genes are involved, and genetics is complicated. But the basic message is now remarkably clear: autism isn't something that happened to someone. It's something they were born with.

That matters because when we stop looking for something to blame, we can start looking at what actually matters: understanding autistic people, supporting them properly, and making a society that works for them.

This all feels like a pretty important shift.

Yes there have, they vary between finding that in 10% of pairs the other twin will not have autism and 40% that they will not have autism.

I think there's more to come on this as the actual genes are identified. I think the genes for inherited schizophrenia are more firmly identified than those for autism, and in that case in a pair of twins there's only a 50% chance the other twin will be triggered into those genes becoming active.

This gets even more fascinating when you release that in recent times most identical twins would be considered to have had an identical upbringing.

No one‘s found a gene for it so they’ve decided their position ahead of the evidence. Which is interesting.

This anecdotal but i know indenticle twins through my son both are autistic but one is impacted much more profoundly then the other.
They both attend different educational settings due to their very different presentations

There is no one gene, it's a cocktail and they do know some of the most implicated ones.

"Their position" is that it's inherited and therefore has to be in the genes somewhere.

They knew haemophilia, for example, was inherited and genetic before they had even decoded the genome of a worm.

This is the mystery. What triggers are flicking what switches (called epigenetics) to turn genes on or off in each twin.

We have a lot to learn about neurodiverse genetics yet.

I still think parental age can play a large part in what is asd or can be misdiagnosed as asd.
Because 2 families i know had 2 dc with asd/adhd all kids born to parents early 40s.

In our case it may well be genes as theres some aspergers types on my side.

But i think the schools are in a state so kids stand out more.

• We start school at 4 too young for nd kids as they are developmentally behind
• social causes

Kids often dot get to sit with friends in class Schools then often switch up classes so less sociable kids lose friends both primary and secondary Parents get very involved with controlling who their kids play with A lot of unaddressed bullying PReviously kids could leave school and get away at 15 but now dragged out till 18 and 5 years to gcse with little control of subjects.

We used to have g&t programs and grammar schools which may have suited some aspergers kids and classroom behaviour was better .

Often though parents of sen kids will say oh but my sibling was like xyz so several were similar to uncles and aunts.

I can see that having kids later can be an issue because if say asd 1/1000 at parents age 25 but 1/50 age 40 then in some areas with a lot older parents...

It can also be caused by meds as they knew a certain epilepsy drug caused autism but continued to prescribe it.

Also imo some of the increase of what looks like asd is possibly actually fasd.

Their website discusses other factors inc rubella and de novo mutations. They are acknowledging that not every case is inherited but seem to be dismissing those as they are a small percentage. Given the changes to the diagnosis and who now recieves a diagnosis this feels more political that scientific.

I wonder if this is to counter some of the news coming from the States? Sort of giving people screenshots and soundbites to be used to counter.

I have a ‘severely’ autistic son with intellectual disability and I didn’t feel like he was left out. I wouldn’t ’cure’ him and thinking about it in that way, even hypothetically, wouldn’t help either of us.

Yes, it is not a gene, but the life of the mother, father; their mental health, stability before and during pregnancy counts. Moreover, the diet consumed, the stress level of parents all this also somehow affects the gene developments and that's how genetics play a role in transfer of Autism in a child.

Well Darwinism will take care of those genes.

Looking for a cure or treatment may help him and if not him may help families in the future even if it is just by genetic screening.

I accept not everybody does feel the same as I do but that doesn't mean that there is only me that feels this way.

A pp posted a link in regards to research inclusion 2% for non verbal participant and 6% for int. disabilities. Their exclusion in research does impact their outcomes and the relevance of the research to them.

Likewise the inclusion of a large portion of people who are able to communicate and put forward their views in regards to the diagnosis that they share with people who can't communicate their views curbs the narritive to suit those who can communicate. This isn't anything new in terms of the wider autism discussion, it has been discussed quite often and is part of the argument between AA and "autism moms/ mums" and is part of the reason that profound autism has been floated as a term. (I'm sure you're aware of this but other posters may not be and I think it's a good idea to have both sides of the debate represented).

There's been twin study evidence since the 70s.

If one identical twin is Autistic the other almost always is.

If one non identical twin is Autistic the other is about 1/3 of the time.

If a non twin full sibling is autistic the average statistical chance of autism in each full sibling is between 20-25% depending on the study (obviously in individual families this can play out as all children because chances don't re-set each time and - crucially - it's a population average and we don't know what parental gene combinations change the odds).

For an individual without autistic siblings the chances are between 1 and 3% (under current, broad, diagnostic criteria - the criteria for the first twin studies were much more restrictive).

What there isn't is a genetic profile for Autism in the 80+% of cases where it occurs independently from a testable chromosomal disorder.

Nothing very surprising about this - though I do suspect symptoms of (C)PTSD may sometimes resemble autism and that there have been occasional misdiagnoses due to this.

A recognition of the genetic basis of autism ought also lead to more recognition of autism-like traits in non-autistic relatives of autistic people - the so-called Broader Autism Phenotype. This might perhaps lead to some reconsideration of how useful it is to treat autism as a condition with a hard cutoff.

I don’t know much about autism, but the 2 or 3 people I know with autistic kids, definitely attribute it to someone in the family.

How old is your son?

It's fantastic he has a good quality of life, but some Autistic children and adults with severe functional language disorders and severe sensory issues spend the majority of their lives experiencing extreme distress even when family and professionals do everything possible to adapt their environments and provide support.

I've worked with people who have blinded themselves (detached retinas) and maimed themselves in other ways, as well as stress induced alopecia (doesn't matter cosmetically but indicates chronic stress) and almost daily stress induced vomiting despite the most indidualised low stress routines and environments realistically possible. Ageing out of education can mean being misplaced in psychiatric services without liberty because of the risk to themselves and others.

Eloping and it's dangers are tragically currently in the news.

Olga Bogdashina is one of the few people writing about the experience of this type of Autism.

Oh interesting! DH was not an old dad (27) but his own dad was. Both FIL and DH are likely to be ND.

Woth the caveat that you can find a study to "show" almost anything, and the link between paternal age and autism is absolutely not definitive, this suggests that your father in law's age when he fathered your husband isn't necessarily irrelevant:

https://www.mountsinai.org/about/newsroom/2013/advanced-grandparental-age-associated-with-increased-risk-of-autism

One study isn't proof of anything, as we should all have learnt with regards to Autism obviously!

There are a plethora of studies concluding various things from remote analysis of Swedish national registers for some reason (perhaps they're uniquely comprehensive and accessible) but it does seem a little as though they can be used to prove almost anything from the comfort of an internet connection...

Although if fil and father are autistic you don't really need to look further!

My diagnosing clinician said that it's rare for adults to get an autism diagnosis without an additional cPTSD diagnosis or have marked signs of cPTSD, because it's comorbid with persistently not getting your needs met.

They still have to ensure that the traits you're presenting with were present in early development and you meet the triad/dyad of impairments, otherwise it will likely be diagnosed as cPTSD.

I received a dual diagnosis through the NHS so it seems it is clinically recognised.

I also have a son who is autistic, was non-verbal for almost 5 years, and is still non-communicating. Professionals still describe him as non-verbal but I think personally that's a misrepresentation as he has a large vocabulary, but you'll never sit down and have a back and forth chin wag with him, however getting him diagnosed early and educating myself and my family on how we can support him significantly reduces his risk of later getting a cPTSD diagnosis.

There is so much we don't know about the brain and genetics and everything else. When we first thought about sequencing the whole genome it was thought that this would solve most diseases and it hasn't.

It's genetic is helpful for parents and for understanding on a personal level but it doesn't necessarily give a clear picture of the situation.

To clarify some terms and the background science

Genetic means that there is a gene within someone's DNA that has caused an trait or illness etc
Hereditary means that this gene was passed on from a parent.

You have two copies of each gene - one from your biological mother and one from your biological father. Some variants of a gene are more "dominant" than another. This means that should you get a copy of this variant of a gene it doesn't really matter what copy of the gene you got from the other parent you will express the characteristic of that gene. Eye colour is an easy example Brown eye genes are dominant over Blue eyes, blue eyes are said to be "recessive" - if you have two parents with brown eyes they potentially could have a child with blue eyes as the parents could both have 1 brown eye and 1 blue eye gene. There would be a 1 in 4 chance of any of their offspring just by chance getting to a blue eye gene from both parents and having blue eyes. 1 in 2 of their children would carry a blue eye gene but have brown eyes themselves and 1 in 4 of their children would have two brown copies of the eye colour gene.

Let's take the 1 in 2 children with 1 brown and 1 blue eye genes. They could have children with a second person with brown eyes that genetically are brown/blue. Let's say their parents are the same both brown eyes but genetically brown/blue. 1 in 4 of the offspring would have blue eyes due to genetics even though none of their parents or grandparents had blue eyes but they were all carriers of blue eyes.

There are other genes where you only need one copy of a mutated gene for the offspring to have the condition and others where there is partial dominance - it used to be thought that red hair was completely recessive but it has been found that mean that have a recessive red hair gene often have ginger beards. There are some X - linked diseases that were thought to be recessive but the female carrier can develop symptoms but typically milder and later forming - for these diseases mutations are on the X chromosome so women are typically carriers as they are XX but men are XY so only ever have one copy.

You can see just by looking at simple gene behaviour the picture can get quite muddled quickly when it comes to hereditary characteristics and diseases before considering epigenetics

epigenetics is the process of the body switching on and off different genes based on what it thinks the body needs to survive. The story of the GPL1 weight loss jabs sort of fits in with this story. It has been known for some time that when they do gene studies that obesity can be associated with genes to do with appetite. Studies have shown that in communities where the mother or grandmother were experiencing famine their offspring had increased rates of obesity. If you think about it evolutionarily the body has needed a method of tuning and honing what it feels are desirable features for the world it is going to be born in to. It has worked for millennia. Following famine you want offspring to eat when there is food available as if they waited until they were hungry there may not be food available. It's only with the modern world and food being much more readily available that appetite can get out of control and lead to obesity. Note for clarification - obesity is complex and multifaceted please accept this explanation as one possible contributing factor and not absolute.

There are long standing twin studies that are looking at effects of lifestyle on disease. It started looking at joints (from recollection) but the Dr in charge of the project realised that this is just a snapshot and now those involved in the trial have a whole host of test for comparison not just the xrays the study started with.

There are gene mutation where the exact same mutation causes disease or condition A in some people and disease or condition B in other conditions.

We don't have an appreciation of what experiences and health in pregnancy and very early life (first weeks, months and years) has on children. I see prematurity raised it's possible. Gordon and Sarah Brown set up the Jennifer Brown foundation following the passing of their daughter Jennifer born prematurely looking at the health of babies born early and compared to those born at term. Hopefully this will help gain understanding. Studies in women in New York on September 11 2001 showed that those who were in their 3rd trimester gave birth to children that had higher levels of cortisol - the "stress" hormone. In those "imminent risk to life" situations the body needed a way to give birth to more alert babies. Women in their first and second trimester did not, showing it is a short term effect.

That covers all of the ways that "genetic" might manifest but the person is only half of the situation. As has been seen with appetite, the problem isn't the gene for appetite it is this behaviour in an environment of easy access to plenty of food and food modified and designed to be hyper palatable. For the last few decades these people have been told the only way to overrule this behaviour is to change their environment but the advent of GPL1 treatments means they have an option of modify their bodies responses. Now obesity and neurodiversity are not akin and I would never draw that comparison but the genetic predisposition is often only half the story. If you compare the way we live to our ancestors we live a much more rigid and regimented life. What effect is that having on our neurodevelopment and how we find our place in the world. Working in science I found myself surrounded by people that didn't fit in in school, those that generally looked at the world slightly differently and there is quite high rates for neurodiversity. In the last 25 years there has been quite a change in the education system towards the university model. I reached uni just it was switching to the default route post A levels but A levels weren't necessarily the default route post GCSEs. There's more of an expectation I think now for the GCSE-A level -degree path. Go back 20-30 years before that and I think there was a much greater diversity in career paths and in that it was easier for people to find the right route for them. The analogy of square pegs and round holes just leads to the square pegs being broken. Once upon a time society would have had many different shaped pegs and matching holes. Over time these have been lost and I know things are much better in many ways but I would also question whether there aren't some things that were better before and could offer an improvement to now?

Imagine a world without neurodivergent people. How boring it would be with everyone fitting in with each other and no-one thinking outside of the box. And imagine how little we would know!

Interesting. Have they also studied non-identical twins in the same way?

Can I ask the parents who grew up thinking this was just “normal” in their family, what has led you to get your child assessed and diagnosed when previous generations weren’t?
Is it just due to greater awareness or was your child struggling and more severely affected than others in the family?

Ummmm, yeah, have any of you aside from your children been assessed? So many families are sure there’s no neurodiversity in their history, because all the Tisms they have seen ‘normal’ because they are all doing it.

His was a ‘mental calculator’, what’s now called a savant, and his life and abilities are documented.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedediah_Buxton