3 ms·

Thanks for the Autism rights movement link (here I am, an old-fashioned wikipedian of 15 years and still finding new articles). I though Autism/Asperger has so

by TomK32 9y ago

Thanks for the Autism rights movement link (here I am, an old-fashioned wikipedian of 15 years and still finding new articles). I though Autism/Asperger has some genetic backing? At least the wikipedia article I link below has quite a list of candidate gene loci. Here's a quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_autism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_autism > Autism concordance in siblings and fraternal twins is anywhere between 0 and 23.5%. This is more likely 2–4% for classic autism and 10–20% for a broader spectrum. Assuming a general-population prevalence of 0.1%, the risk of classic autism in siblings is 20- to 40-fold that of the general population.

goldenkey 9y ago
We know many cases are genetic but don't have a definitive genetic test. Heritibility is not hard to determine even if no specific genes are known. Mendel did this with plants even before chromosomes were discovered. So we can say simple things like the odds of offspring having autism - which isn't based on a specific gene but rather the dominance/recessiveness of the underlying genetic factors computed by census/survey/sampling data. So yes, there is a genetic disease that causes neurological changes, autism - but it isn't correct to label all inward children as having that gene. Symptomatic diseases can have multiple disparate genetic causes - and we usually separate these into different diseases even if the symptoms are extremely similar.
- AstralStorm 9y ago
  The percentages are confounded by the environment both social and physical fostered by parents. And we don't have enough separated twin studies...
  - goldenkey 9y ago
    You're right. I was just trying to tell OP that the heritibility evidence we have is not from knowing the exact genes that cause autism. It is moreso from epidemiological stats.

by TomK32 9y ago

goldenkey 9y ago

We know many cases are genetic but don't have a definitive genetic test. Heritibility is not hard to determine even if no specific genes are known. Mendel did this with plants even before chromosomes were discovered. So we can say simple things like the odds of offspring having autism - which isn't based on a specific gene but rather the dominance/recessiveness of the underlying genetic factors computed by census/survey/sampling data. So yes, there is a genetic disease that causes neurological changes, autism - but it isn't correct to label all inward children as having that gene. Symptomatic diseases can have multiple disparate genetic causes - and we usually separate these into different diseases even if the symptoms are extremely similar.

AstralStorm 9y ago
The percentages are confounded by the environment both social and physical fostered by parents. And we don't have enough separated twin studies...
- goldenkey 9y ago
  You're right. I was just trying to tell OP that the heritibility evidence we have is not from knowing the exact genes that cause autism. It is moreso from epidemiological stats.