Genetic testing in autism

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Bryan, Mar 16, 2010.

  1. Bryan

    Bryan ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Posts:
    9,020
    Trophy Points:
    211
    Likes:
    +0
    So it'll look like I'm digging for articles about autism, but I'm totally not. I just happened to get this in an subscription email.

    http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/718593

    What's most interesting to me about the article isn't so much that there's genetic testing being done with autism, but rather, that there's genetic elements identified that aren't actually specifically the cause of autism.

    It certainly raises questions about the nature of autism as a disease and how to treat it, and also about what makes a gene "abnormal."

     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2010
  2. Aernaroth

    Aernaroth <b><font color=blue>I voted for Super_Megatron and Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Posts:
    23,514
    News Credits:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    347
    Likes:
    +140
    Any chance in a copy/paste so we don't have to sign up?
     
  3. Bryan

    Bryan ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Posts:
    9,020
    Trophy Points:
    211
    Likes:
    +0
    sawwy!
     
  4. Aernaroth

    Aernaroth <b><font color=blue>I voted for Super_Megatron and Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Posts:
    23,514
    News Credits:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    347
    Likes:
    +140
    No worries, I've done the same thing a bunch of times.

    As for the article, are they saying this genetic testing method is more effective at observing genetic deviances in autistic patients than others? As in, the differences in genetics are already known, and this method is better at picking them out, or that this method is finding new differences in the genetic codes of ASD patients that were previously unknown?

    When you say that the elements observed aren't specifically the cause, is this because the elements don't appear to occur in all observed patients? Or because current methods don't appear to be as accurate as CMA?
     
  5. Bryan

    Bryan ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Posts:
    9,020
    Trophy Points:
    211
    Likes:
    +0
    To be honest, it's not terribly clear to me despite several readings of the article.

    CMA detected 7% versus 2.23% or 0.46% detected with other methods, but what was detected? "Genetic abnormalities." Or which tellingly includes "variants of possible significance," without (at least in this summary) clarifying the how many results fell into this category, and also variants associated with known disorders, but without clarifying what disorders those were or if the subjects had those disorders.

    The phrase "felt to be related to the developmental disorder" is particularly eyebrow raising to me. Since when is science about what someone felt?

    I'd like to believe the fact that this study was published in a legitimate journal means that there's more to it we're not reading in what is essentially a summary. But what I'm reading here almost raises more questions than it answers--for me anyways.
     
  6. Aernaroth

    Aernaroth <b><font color=blue>I voted for Super_Megatron and Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Posts:
    23,514
    News Credits:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    347
    Likes:
    +140
    This is why I find these kind of news stories kind of irritating. You end up reading only what the story wants you to see and end up speculating about what's in the paper as opposed to just reading the paper.
     
  7. Tyrannosaur

    Tyrannosaur 100% Sarcastic Saurian

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Posts:
    4,110
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Likes:
    +0
    Very interesting. So much we don't know about the human brain soon to be revealed. Or atleast I think this is what the article is about :lol  Genetics is a fascinating subject.
     

Share This Page