Showing posts with label molecular and cell biology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label molecular and cell biology. Show all posts

Friday, November 11, 2011

Signal Transduction in Autism

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A study published this past summer analyzed tissue extracts from 20 donated brains, half (10) of which came from autistic donors. Half (5) of those people had histories of regression --- that is, they started out developing normally, speaking and everything, but then they lost some of the skills they had gained.

The brain tissue extracts were analyzed using a technique I describe in the main body of this post, that tests for the presence of a certain enzyme (protein kinase A, here) by giving it an opportunity to react with a sort of dummy peptide that can't really do anything except sit there and let the enzyme (and only that enzyme) act on it, and then introducing antibodies that will "tag" the altered peptides with an enzyme that will change a solution's color under certain conditions. This allowed the researchers to measure the relative activity of the enzyme across subjects or across brain regions; a similar measure, but using antibodies to the enzyme itself, rather than to its product, was used to measure the amount of enzyme present in each extract.

Using this method, the researchers found differences in protein kinase A activity and expression only in the frontal lobes, and only between the autism-with-regression subgroup of the autism group and both the controls and the rest of the autism group.

Protein kinase A is involved in intracellular signaling; it's one of the signal-boosting enzymes that helps the cell react quickly to changes in its environment. It modifies other proteins, affecting their activity. Some of its targets are proteins involved in neurotransmission (signaling between brain and nerve cells) and long-term potentiation (reinforcing those connections between neurons that are frequently used). It's this latter process that the study authors think may be disrupted in regressive autism.
_____________________________________________________

ResearchBlogging.org
SFARI News posted some time ago on a study published on August 31 in PLoS ONE, comparing the amount of a certain enzyme present in tissue extracts from different regions of the brain between deceased subjects with and without autism who had donated their brains to the National Institute of Child Heath and Development Brain and Tissue Bank for Developmental Disorders.

The enzyme in question is protein kinase A, which plays a hugely important role in the cell, helping mediate a process called signal transduction, through which the cell is able to react to its changing environment, or to signals from other cells. In signal transduction, a molecule from outside the cell (usually a hormone) attaches to a receptor outside the cell and causes the receptor to change shape, thus altering the part of the receptor that's inside the cell and triggering a chain reaction of changes in enzymatic activity within the cell.

Protein kinase A participates in one particular signaling pathway: the one involving a class of receptors called G proteins, which are actually clusters of several smaller proteins that split apart whenever something attaches to its extracellular binding site. The now-mobile subunits then go on to do other things in the cell, most importantly to activate* an enzyme responsible for turning adenosine monophosphate (AMP) into cyclic AMP, which works as a signaling molecule inside the cell.
(Here is a cartoon from Nature Publishing Group's Scitable website illustrating that splitting apart of the G protein after a signaling molecule binds to its associated receptor; I adapted the image somewhat to make it less busy)
(Cyclic AMP)


Cyclic AMP is part of a class of molecules called "second messengers," which are small molecules that can bind to, and either activate or inhibit, a wide range of enzymes. Also, the enzymes responsible for making these molecules are regulated by receptors on the surface of the cell, so that when a signaling molecule binds to the receptor, the enzyme gets switched on (in the case of adenylyl cyclase, which is what turns regular AMP into cAMP) and starts churning out second-messenger molecules, which then go on to tinker with their target enzymes. In this way --- by coupling receptor binding with synthesis of these second-messenger molecules --- the cell can amplify the signal it receives, allowing it to react more quickly to changes in its environment.(Cartoon showing signal transduction using cyclic AMP as a second messenger, taken from this community college's Anatomy & Physiology II webpage. You can see how a hormone binding to its receptor frees up the receptor-coupled G protein to exchange its GDP for GTP and then go off and --- depending on the hormone --- either activate or inhibit adenylyl cyclase, which either starts or stops churning out cAMP, which goes on to do lots of different things, like activating enzymes, telling the cell to secrete various things, opening ion channels, etc. The only thing I don't like about this cartoon is that it only shows one cAMP molecule as the output of all the running around happening in the cell membrane, when really cAMP is being continuously produced by every active adenylyl cyclase. So, what that looks like, relative to the amount of hormone coming to the cell from outside, is more like this other cartoon, down below) (See, look at the arrows coming out of that yellowish triangle. One arrow splits into five, then 25, then more than you can clearly see. This table from the Memorial University of Newfoundland's cell biology webpage lists the number of molecules affected by each step in a cAMP-dependent signaling pathway, from the one molecule changed when a single molecule of hormone binds to its receptor, to the 10,000 molecules changed by the time adenylyl cyclase starts producing cAMP).

Anyway, protein kinase A is one of the enzymes activated by cAMP binding to it, and it is also mostly a regulatory enzyme --- that is, it activates or deactivates other enzymes. Protein kinase A does that by transferring a phosphate group from ATP (a small molecule made up of a sugar, a nucleotide base and three phosphate groups) to certain amino acid residues on any of its target proteins.

What kinds of proteins does protein kinase A regulate? Well, that depends on what kind of cell all this is taking place in. Every cell in the body contains a complete human genome; the differences between cell types are differences in which genes are expressed --- i.e., which proteins are present. So each cell type is going to have a different mix of proteins whose activity needs to be coordinated.

Some of its targets are proteins expressed in almost every cell type: these include a histone, one of a large family of proteins whose function is to condense chromosomal DNA that is not actively being transcribed or replicated; transcription factors (most notably, from the CREB family); a metabolic enzyme involved in storing energy for later use; ion channels; and other kinases (enzymes that alter the activity of other proteins by transferring phosphate groups onto them from ATP).

Although protein kinase A performs specialized functions in just about every cell type, I'm only going to talk about what it does in the brain, since that is the cell type relevant to this post. There, in addition to the stuff mentioned above, protein kinase A 1) helps regulate the synthesis of a common precursor to a variety of neurotransmitters, 2) helps form synapses by guiding the specialized proteins that allow the membranous sacs that deliver neurotransmitters from one neuron to the next toward the tip of the developing axon, and 3) with another protein kinase, regulates the ion-channel activity of the NMDA receptor, which is involved in strengthening the more frequently-used conntections between neurons. There may be more, but this is what I've been able to find.

For all that background information, the experiment I'm going to describe is actually pretty simple: like I said above, the researchers took tissue samples from five different regions of donated brains from autistic and non-autistic subjects, homogenized them (basically, ran them through a blender) and tested each sample for protein kinase A activity. The test they used is called the ELISA (for Enzyme-Linked ImmunoSorbent Assay --- see why people would rather call it Eliza?), which is a plastic plate covered with small circular wells (0.7 cm across by 1 cm deep) with, in this case, short peptides containing either serine or threonine (the two amino acids to which protein kinase A can attach a phosphate group), anchored to the bottom. (ELISA is most often used to test for the presence of antibodies --- that's how HIV testing is done --- so for that, the thing stuck to the bottom of the well would be the antigen to which whatever antibody you're testing for responds). They added their brain tissue extracts one by one to each well, along with a small amount of ATP dissolved in water (for the protein kinase to "borrow" phosphate groups from), then waited an hour and a half before emptying out the wells (the substrates, which were permanently affixed to the bottoms of the wells, would stay, along with, presumably, any phosphate groups that had been attached to them during the previous 90 minutes) and introducing an antibody specifically designed to bond with the phosphorylated form of the substrate peptide. Next, they washed the wells out thoroughly (to weed out everything that was not chemically bonded to the fixed substrates) and added a second antibody, chosen for its ability to bind to the first antibody, and which was also attached to an enzyme known for producing dramatic color changes as a side effect of its interaction with certain organic molecules. (A solution containing the molecule in question was also added, so that the wells in which the greatest proportion of the well-bottom peptides had been phosphorylated, and thus had the whole antibody rigmarole sticking off of them, would have the deepest color. There is even a way to measure color --- a device that can measure the degree to which something absorbs light at a given wavelength --- so that you don't have to rely on just your eyes to tell you whether this well or that one is a darker shade of yellow).

They used a somewhat similar technique, called Western blotting, to compare the amount of active protein kinase A between groups for each brain region. They injected their tissue samples from each of the different brain regions into a polyacrylamide gel, and ran an electric current through the gel to get the proteins to move through it. Since the gel resists having things move through it, different size proteins will travel through it at different rates. After a while, most of the proteins will separate themselves into bands along the gel, by size. Once this happened, the researchers transferred the proteins to a nitrocellulose membrane, and added antibodies specific to the catalytic (active) subunit of protein kinase A. Just like with the ELISA, there was also a secondary antibody coupled to a color-producing enzyme.

One thing that's a bit unusual in this study is that the researchers divided their brains from autistic donors into two groups, based on the developmental history of the donors. They had a "regressive autism" group, whose members started out developing typically but then lost some of the skills they'd acquired: speech was the most common skill that was lost, but some of the donors in this category also lost social skills and interest in social interaction. There was also a "non-regressive autism" group, whose members were delayed in language and social development from birth.

Subtyping autism is an increasingly popular thing for researchers to do, since "autism" is such a broad, flexible category that encompasses people with a very wide range of developmental and medical histories. It makes sense that researchers would want to subdivide this large, diverse group further to make sure they're comparing apples to apples when they look at different studies of "the autistic brain" or "the autistic immune system" or whatever.

The thing that's strange about subtyping in this study is that the number of brains being looked at is already so small. Each big group (autism, both regressive and not, and controls) had samples from ten people in it, and the researchers couldn't always get a sample from every point of interest on every brain, so sometimes the number of samples in a given category (brain region + donor neurotype) was less than ten; the smallest n for any category was 7. But that means that, with subtyping, the biggest n possible for either autism subgroup is 5, which looks more like a case study than a comparison across populations. But then, histological studies of donated brains always have to deal with smaller sample sizes, since there isn't exactly a superabundance of donated brains, and I guess if you have big differences among your subjects, you might as well sort them into subcategories, even if your subcategories are tiny.

At some point in this post I should probably mention the results of this study I've gone to such lengths to describe. The authors only found differences in protein kinase A activity in one region --- the frontal cortex --- and this difference was largest between one subgroup of the autistic group --- the autism-with-regression subgroup --- and both the non-regressive autism subgroup and the control group. The regressive autism subgroup had maybe a little less than half the PKA activity of the controls and the non-regressive autism subgroup (those two groups did not differ). Taken as a whole, the autism group had about 35% less PKA activity in the frontal-lobe samples than the control group.

The results were similar for the Western blot; the only region that showed any differences in PKA expression was the frontal lobe, and again, it was only the regressive autism subgroup that differed. Tissue extracts from that group had siginificantly less PKA in them than extracts from either the control group or the non-regressive autism subgroup; the unified autism group did not differ from the control group.

The researchers also looked for a correlation between their measure of PKA activity and various possible confounding factors, like how long each donor had been dead, the age of the donors when they died, whether they had any history of seizures, and what medications they were taking; they didn't find any relationship between any of these things and either outcome variable. Their measure of PKA expression also involved measuring how much of another protein was present in each tissue extract, both because that protein is about the same size as PKA, and thus cannot be separated from it using electrophoresis, and also to have a protein whose expression is not expected to vary across groups with which to compare relative amounts of the protein that is expected to vary.

Here is a picture of the Western blot showing both PKA (top row) and the other protein, a structural protein called beta-actin (bottom row), from all tissue samples:(Figure 2A, in Ji et al., 2011 - samples from autistic donors are on the left, and subdivided into non-regressive and regressive subtypes. Controls are on the right. You can see that, in the bottom row, the blobs are all approximately the same size, indicating expression of beta-actin is more or less the same across groups. You can also see that the blobs in the top row are a lot thinner - one space has nothing at all in it - in the regressive autism group than they are in either the non-regressive autism group or the control group. It looks like PKA expression is a bit more variable within the control group than beta-actin is, though.)

So, for a couple of reasons --- the extreme smallness of sample size, and also the degree of variation in PKA expression within the control group --- I am a bit skeptical as to whether this finding will hold up. It definitely needs to be tested a few more times, with bigger donor pools.

Leaving that aside, though --- what are the implications of this finding, should it be substantiated? The study authors refer to earlier literature that describes a role for cAMP signaling pathways in both brain development (obviously germane to a study about developmental disability) and long-term memory formation and learning (relevant to the question of how people can lose skills they once had). But it's not clear yet exactly what that role is; if you search for "protein kinase a brain" on BioNOT (a database of negative experimental results), you find an article claiming to find no difference in PKA activity between tissue samples taken from donors with Alzheimer's disease and those taken from healthy donors. So that complicates things a bit, as Alzheimer's is, even more than regressive autism, characterized by a loss of learned skills and memories.

Sources:
Ji, L., Chauhan, V., Flory, M., & Chauhan, A. (2011). Brain Region–Specific Decrease in the Activity and Expression of Protein Kinase A in the Frontal Cortex of Regressive Autism PLoS ONE, 6 (8) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0023751


*What does it mean to activate an enzyme? Well, an enzyme is a kind of protein, and like all proteins, it has a range of three-dimensional configurations** it can assume, and only some of these possible shapes leave the binding site for the molecule the enzyme acts upon freely accessible. So when an enzyme is in one of those arrangements, and molecules of its particular substrate can just drift along and come into contact with the binding site(s), that's when the enzyme can be considered active. Binding of a phosphate group or some other small molecule at a different binding site will usually trigger a shape change; that is how enzymes can be activated or deactivated by other enzymes.

**I have this idea that proteins are called proteins just because of this shape-changing ability they have, in which they resemble the mythical Proteus.

Sunday, July 17, 2011

Autism-Related Gene Spotlight: MECP2

Where is it?
Near the very end of the X chromosome, at Xq28.
Here is a picture of its position relative to some other genes at that part of the X chromosome:
You can see that it's not the last gene on there, and there are quite a few known and potential genes following it, but it's really, really close to the end. That picture I just posted? With MECP2 appearing at the far left? That's the very end of a 24-page image. So, based on that I feel comfortable calling MECP2 one of the last genes on the X chromosome.

What does it do?It encodes a protein, MeCP2, that can bind to methylated DNA (and also to a variety of other transcription-repressing proteins) and whose function is to repress transcription of its target genes. (More recent research has also found that it can also serve as a transcriptional activator). It has a lot of target genes, and their functions vary widely; many of them are other transcription factors, and many are involved in cell-cell signaling, or in signal transduction within the cell. Overall, transcription and neurotransmission seem to be the physiological processes that the majority of MeCP2 target genes are involved with, though it is also important for nerve and muscle cell growth (and thus, needs to be expressed in different amounts at different times during development). It is highly expressed in nerve cells. It's also been found to have other functions, like RNA splicing, chromatin remodeling and DNA methylation.

What mutant versions of this gene have been discovered?
(Here's a very rough impression of where some of the more common mutations (and some less-common ones that I talk about in the next section) associated with Rett syndrome fall on a map of MECP2 coding regions. Mutations that only change an amino acid are outlined in different shades of red-orange; mutations that produce a truncated version of the MeCP2 protein are outlined in black, and indicated on the map with little stop signs. Image not drawn to scale)

This 1999 article in Nature Genetics (full text here) describes a genetic analysis of 29 girls with Rett syndrome* (8 of whom had a family history of the condition), which found seven point mutations (changes in a single nucleotide) and one case where an extra nucleotide (thymine) was inserted into the gene, which threw off the "reading" of everything that came after, since protein synthesis depends on grouping the nucleotides into threes, and stringing together the amino acids corresponding to each sequence of three nucleotides, or "codons". Changing one nucleotide to another will therefore change one amino acid in the resulting protein, while adding or subtracting a nucleotide will change every amino acid that follows. (Such "frameshift" mutations are much more likely than point mutations to result in a nonfunctional protein).

They were: a substitution of cytosine for thymine at nucleotide #538; substitutions of thymine for cytosine at nucleotides #390, #471, #547, #656, #837, and #1307; and the aforementioned insertion of (an extra) thymine between nucleotides #694 and #695.

Another genetic analysis described in a 2000 article in Human Molecular Genetics found 17 different mutations in 46 girls with Rett syndrome; these mutations included substitutions of thymine for cytosine at nucleotides #473, #502, #763, #808, #880, and #916; substitutions of guanine for cytosine at nucleotides #905 and #1038; a substitution of thymine for adenine at nucleotide #592; a substitution of cytosine for adenine at nucleotide #1461; a substitution of adenine for guanine at nucleotide #317; and a ten-nucleotide deletion starting at nucleotide #1158. Most of these mutations were in exon 3, though there were a few in exons 2 and 4 as well.

A 2004 analysis of DNA samples from 56 French women and girls with Rett syndrome found five frameshift mutations: a deletion of nucleotide #345, in exon 3; a deletion 202 nucleotides long, starting at position #895; another deletion 53 nucleotides long starting at position #1124; a deletion of 8 nucleotides and an insertion of 18 nucleotides starting at position #989; and an insertion of an AG dinucleotide after nucleotide #996. All of these last four were in exon 4.

An article from this year describes a 41-base deletion in a Korean girl with Rett syndrome; the deleted region started at nucleotide #1152, in exon 4.

Another article from this year found a substitution of thymine for cytosine at nucleotide #535 in a Tunisian girl with Rett syndrome.

This article (full text here) describes 17 mutations: a substitution of thymine for guanine at nucleotide #298; a substitution of adenine for guanine at nucleotide #398; a substitution of guanine for adenine at nucleotide #914; a substitution of thymine for cytosine at nucleotide #730; an insertion of (an extra) guanine after nucleotide #704; an insertion of cytosine after nucleotide #747; and multiple deletions, most of which had starting points between nucleotides 1,000 and 1,200, and all but one of which were deletions of multiple nucleotides. There was also a sequence of 137 nucleotides, starting at position #1169, that was repeated.

This 2009 genomic analysis of 74 people with Rett syndrome in New Zealand turned up four new mutations, including a fairly large deletion (1,596 nucleotides) that encompassed both exons 3 and 4.

There are a lot more --- the International Rett Syndrome Foundation's database of mutations associated with Rett syndrome (RettBASE) lists 4,225 different mutations. Not all of them are in MECP2, but a large majority of them are.

Mutations in MECP2 can also be associated with conditions other than Rett syndrome: this article describes mutations found in five children with Angelman syndrome. Two of them had deletions in exon 4, one had a two-nucleotide deletion in exon 3, and the others had single-base substitutions.

How do these mutations affect protein function?
The MeCP2 protein has two regions (called domains) that are crucial to its function in the cell: the methyl-DNA binding domain (MBD), which allows it to bind to methylated cytosines, and the transcription repression domain (TRD), which binds to other enzymes that condense chromosomal DNA and make it impossible for the enzymes reponsible for transcription to bind to it. MeCP2's role in transcription repression seems to be to bring the enzymes that do the actual repressing to its target sequences of DNA, rather than to block transcription itself.
(Image of the structure of the MeCP2 methylDNA-binding domain, showing the amino acids affected by some of the more common mutations)

The MECP2 gene has four exons, of which three contain sequences encoding these domains: Exon 2 encodes most of the DNA-binding domain, with some of it spilling over into exon 3, and parts of exons 3 and 4 encode the transcription repressor domain. So, depending on where it occurs in the gene, a mutation might disrupt either the MeCP2 protein's DNA-binding capacity, or its ability to bind to those other, transcription-repressing enzymes.

Most of the mutations associated with Rett syndrome (or other conditions mentioned in the above section) change the structure of one of those domains in such a way as to weaken, or completely destroy, its ability to bind to whatever it needs to bind to. This article describes the effect on DNA binding ability of several known mutations (including a few of the most common ones) that alter the amino-acid sequence of the MBD. The mutation with the greatest effect on MeCP2's DNA-binding ability, p.R111G, swaps out a positively-charged amino acid on the long, flexible loop within the MBD for a nonpolar one; since that loop normally lies close to the sugar-and-phosphate "backbone" of the DNA (the part of the DNA to which the A's, T's, G's and C's all attach, and which forms the two outer ridges of the double helix), and since that backbone carries a negative charge (from all the phosphate groups), knocking out positively-charged amino acids in this region will disrupt the attraction between the DNA and the methylDNA-binding region of MeCP2.

Another mutation that can cause a sharp decline in DNA-binding ability, which also happens to be one of the most commonly-occurring mutations in people with Rett syndrome, is p.R133C, which also replaces a positively-charged amino acid with a nonpolar one. This one occurs in a different part of the MBD than p.R111G does, a "beta sheet" made up of long, flat strings of amino acids laid side by side. One of the short loops connecting two of the component strands has a sequence of five amino acids with hydrophobic side chains that create a "pocket" sequestering the methyl groups attached to the DNA. It may not always lead to loss of function, though; this group of mostly Japanese researchers conducted a similar analysis (full text here) of protein function, comparing some of the most common mutant versions of MeCP2 with its normal, "wild-type" form, and they found that the R133C variant bound to DNA almost as readily as the wild-type MeCP2 did.

Other mutations associated with a near-total loss of DNA-binding ability are p.G114P, which replaces an amino acid in the middle of the long, flexible loop described above with one whose rigidly-structured, bulkier sidechain would greatly restrict the loop's ability to move and re-fold itself to fit into the groove of the DNA helix; p.D121A and p.D121E, which substitute amino acids with, respectively, nonpolar and negatively-charged sidechains for one with a positively-charged sidechain on one of the strands of the beta-sheet comprising another of the MBD's DNA-contacting surfaces; two other fairly common mutations, p.R106W and p.F155S, throw off the protein's overall folding to such an extent that it becomes unstable at body temperature.

Several mutations cause transcription of MECP2 to stop prematurely, leading to the production of an incomplete protein. Depending on where the erroneous "stop" signal occurs, the resulting protein might be missing all or part of its transcription-repressor domain.

Mutations occurring downstream of the transcription-repressor domain have also been associated with problems; this experiment showed that mutant versions of MeCP2 that don't have the long tail following the TRD are less stable than wild-type MeCP2, and tend to break down quickly in the cellular environment.

How common are they?
This article in the European Journal of Human Genetics lists eight MECP2 mutations its authors consider "common," along with each mutation's prevalence among the people with Rett syndrome listed in either the British Isles Rett Survey or the Australian Rett Syndrome Database. Of the 524 cases they looked at, 65 (12.8%) had the mutation p.T158M, which is the substitution of thymine for cytosine at nucleotide #473; 58 (11.1%) had the mutation p.R168X, which is the substitution of thymine for cytosine at nucleotide #502; 44 (8.4%) had the mutation p.R270X, which is the substitution of thymine for cytosine at nucleotide #808; and 42 (8%) had the mutation p.R255X, which is the substitution of thymine for cytosine at nucleotide #763. The other four mutations listed as "common" in this paper --- p.R106W (thymine substituted for cytosine at nucleotide 316), p.R133C (thymine for cytosine at nucleotide 397), p.R294X (thymine for cytosine at nucleotide 880) and p.R306C (thymine for cytosine at nucleotide 916) all account for between 3 and 7 percent of all cases surveyed.

Another article (full text here) also found those eight mutations occurred several times in their sample of 116 people with Rett syndrome; these researchers also found p.T158M to be the most common, present in 12 different people. (The next-most common ones were p.R270X, found in eight people, and p.R255X and p.R106W, each found in seven people). This study also listed three other mutations in its table of "recurring" mutations: a substitution of guanine for cytosine at nucleotide 455 (observed four times), a substitution of thymine for cytosine at nucleotide 965 (observed twice), and a modification of a splice site in exon 4 (an AG sequence becomes GG; this permutation was also observed only twice).

RettBASE also ranks the various mutations by frequency of occurrence: there, too, p.T158M is the most common, with 363 known occurrences and accounting for 8.59% of all mutations identified so far. Most of the mutations (about two-thirds) listed there are unique.

Rett syndrome occurs in between 1:10,000 and 1:22,000 girls, and has only been recorded in 20 boys, ever. (Usually if a boy is born with the kind of mutations that would lead to Rett syndrome in a girl, he dies). So when I say a given mutation is found in, say, 10% of all people with Rett syndrome, that would translate into between 1:100,000 and 1:220,000 for its frequency among all people. So, while some MECP2 mutations might be less rare than others, I'd say they're all rare.
Database entries for this gene: AutDB, Ensembl, Entrez Gene, GeneCards, Genetics Home Reference, WikiGenes

Sources:
Amir RE, Van den Veyver IB, Wan M, Tran CQ, Francke U, & Zoghbi HY (1999). Rett syndrome is caused by mutations in X-linked MECP2, encoding methyl-CpG-binding protein 2. Nature genetics, 23 (2), 185-188 PMID: 10508514

Bienvenu, T. (2000). MECP2 mutations account for most cases of typical forms of Rett syndrome Human Molecular Genetics, 9 (9), 1377-1384 DOI: 10.1093/hmg/9.9.1377

Bienvenu T, Souville I, Poirier K, Aquaviva C, Burglen L, Amiel J, Héron B, Kaminska A, Couvert P, Beldjord C, & Chelly J (2001). Five novel frameshift mutations in exon 3 and 4 of the MECP2 gene identified in Rett patients: Consequences for the molecular diagnosis strategy. Human mutation, 18 (3), 251-252 PMID: 11524737

Díaz de León-Guerrero, S., Pedraza-Alva, G., & Pérez-Martínez, L. (2011). In sickness and in health: the role of methyl-CpG binding protein 2 in the central nervous system European Journal of Neuroscience, 33 (9), 1563-1574 DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2011.07658.x

Fendri-Kriaa N, Hsairi I, Kifagi C, Ellouze E, Mkaouar-Rebai E, Triki C, Fakhfakh F, & The Tunisian network on mental retardation study (2011). A case of a Tunisian Rett patient with a novel double-mutation of the MECP2 gene. Biochemical and biophysical research communications, 409 (2), 270-274 PMID: 21575601

Free, Andrew, Robert I. D. Wakefield, Brian O. Smith, David T. F. Dryden, Paul N. Barlow, & Adrian P. Bird (2000). DNA Recognition by the Methyl-CpG Binding Domain of MeCP2 Journal of Biological Chemistry, 276 (5), 3353-3360 DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M007224200

Hite, K., Adams, V., & Hansen, J. (2009). Recent advances in MeCP2 structure and function Biochemistry and Cell Biology, 87 (1), 219-227 DOI: 10.1139/o08-115

Hoffbuhr K, Devaney JM, LaFleur B, Sirianni N, Scacheri C, Giron J, Schuette J, Innis J, Marino M, Philippart M, Narayanan V, Umansky R, Kronn D, Hoffman EP, & Naidu S (2001). MeCP2 mutations in children with and without the phenotype of Rett syndrome. Neurology, 56 (11), 1486-1495 PMID: 11402105

Kudo, S., Y. Nomura, M. Segawa, N. Fujita, M. Nakao, C. Schanen, & M. Tamura (2003). Heterogeneity in residual function of MeCP2 carrying missense mutations in the methyl CpG binding domain Journal of Medical Genetics, 40 (7), 487-493 DOI: 10.1136/jmg.40.7.487

Kumar, A., Kamboj, S., Malone, B., Kudo, S., Twiss, J., Czymmek, K., LaSalle, J., & Schanen, N. (2008). Analysis of protein domains and Rett syndrome mutations indicate that multiple regions influence chromatin-binding dynamics of the chromatin-associated protein MECP2 in vivo Journal of Cell Science, 121 (7), 1128-1137 DOI: 10.1242/jcs.016865

Lee EY, Chung HJ, Ki CS, Yoo JH, & Choi JR (2011). A novel mutation in the MECP2 gene in a Korean patient with Rett syndrome. Annals of clinical and laboratory science, 41 (1), 93-96 PMID: 21325263

Raizis AM, Saleem M, MacKay R, & George PM (2009). Spectrum of MECP2 mutations in New Zealand Rett syndrome patients. The New Zealand medical journal, 122 (1296), 21-28 PMID: 19652677

Singh, J., Saxena, A., Christodoulou, J., & Ravine, D. (2008). MECP2 genomic structure and function: insights from ENCODE Nucleic Acids Research, 36 (19), 6035-6047 DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkn591

Yusufzai, Timur M., & Wolffe, Alan P. (2000). Functional consequences of Rett syndrome mutations on human MeCP2 Nucleic Acids Research, 28 (21), 4172-4179 DOI: 10.1093/nar/28.21.4172

Friday, February 25, 2011

Testosterone and Estrogen Have Opposite Effects on Expression of a Gene Thought to be Underexpressed in Autism

ResearchBlogging.orgKev at Left Brain/Right Brain linked to this press release describing a new study published last week in PLoS ONE, that builds on several previous studies comparing gene expression in autistic people and their non-autistic siblings.

This study focuses on one gene, RORA, whose product is a steroid hormone receptor that also acts as a transcription factor. Previous studies had identified this gene as one that is expressed to a lesser degree in autistic people than in their non-autistic siblings; two studies compared the amount of mRNA (the product of DNA transcription, which serves as a template for protein synthesis) corresponding to certain genes that was present in cells taken from autistic people and their siblings, while a third study compared levels of DNA methylation (i.e., inactivation; methylated DNA is harder to transcribe) between those two groups. Only the third study mentions RORA, but the other two identify clusters of genes whose products do similar things, and are involved in similar processes, to RORA.

This study looks at the regulation of RORA by steroid hormones; its authors --- Drs. Valerie Hu and Ray-Chang Wu, along with grad students Terawit Sarachana and Minyi Xu --- found that both estrogen and testosterone affect its functioning (as assessed by bathing cultures of cells with solutions of varying strengths of either hormone, and then using qRT-PCR to determine how much RORA mRNA was produced under each condition), and that their effects are directly opposed to one another: testosterone suppresses the transcription of RORA, while estrogen enhances it.

They also found sequences within another gene --- that for aromatase, an enzyme that converts testosterone into estrogen --- that are the same as those making up RORA binding sites in other genes, which indicates that RORA might be involved in regulating the production of aromatase.

Given this, Sarachana and colleagues see the potential for a feedback loop: in the presence of testosterone, RORA is less active, which could mean that less aromatase is produced, which would mean more testosterone accumulates, leading to even more suppression of RORA.

Figure 5, in Sarachana et al., 2011 --- diagram showing the up- or down-regulation of RORA by the steroid hormones estrogen and testosterone, and the regulation of aromatase, and therefore estrogen synthesis, by RORA

(There's also a potential feedback loop involving estrogen, which up-regulates RORA, which up-regulates aromatase, which in turn produces more estrogen).

There was an upper limit to the dose-response effect of either hormone, though: for both, it was the 1-nanomole/L solution that had the strongest effect on RORA transcription, which seems to suggest that at very high concentrations of testosterone, RORA transcription might creep back upward.
Figure 1, in Sarachana et al., 2011; graphs showing the relative amounts of RORA expressed when cells are treated with three different strengths of a solution of either dihydrotestosterone (C) or 17-beta-estradiol (A), and also changes in expression of RORA over time following treatment with 1-nM solution of DHT (D) or estradiol (B)

Given that RORA has already been found to be less active in autistic people than it is in their non-autistic siblings, the suppression of RORA by testosterone provides a possible biological mechanism underpinning the greater prevalence of autism among males than females, and also associations found between higher levels of testosterone exposure in utero and later development of autistic traits.

There is some evidence for this proposed relationship; Sarachana and colleagues also assayed(post-mortem) brain tissue from autistic (n = 12) and non-autistic donors (n = 22), measuring both RORA and aromatase levels by immunofluorescence. They found two things that would tend to support their low RORA --> low aromatase --> more testosterone hypothesis: RORA is indeed present in smaller amounts in the brain tissue from autistic donors, and aromatase levels are strongly correlated with RORA levels in all the brains that were analyzed.
Figure 4A, in Sarachana et al., 2011; comparison between representative samples of brain tissue labeled to show either RORA (red) or aromatase (blue) expression. The top two samples come from female donors; the bottom two come from male donors. The second and fourth sample (one male, one female) come from autistic donors; the first and third come from age-matched non-autistic donors. You can see that the samples from the autistic donors are dimmer than the control samples; less color indicates less of the compound being assayed for, since the fluorescent molecule is attached to an antibody that will only bind to the protein of interest (RORA or aromatase, in this case).
Figure 4C, in Sarachana et al, 2011; graph showing the relationship, R2, between the concentration of RORA and the concentration of aromatase present in tissue samples from both autistic and non-autistic donors

Now, if you're like me, you'll be wondering how strong the evidence is that a non-trivial proportion of autistic people actually do underexpress RORA. While the immunofluorescence assay of the tissue samples didn't falsify the hypothesis that autistic people's brain cells would produce less RORA and aromatase, because it involved only 34 brains, its findings can't be extrapolated to autistic people in general (or even to a specific subgroup of autistic people in general) without gene-expression data from a larger, more representative autistic sample.


In this article, Valerie Hu and her co-author Mara Steinberg describe a new method for sorting autistic study participants into subgroups based on how they scored on individual questions on the Autism Diagnostic Interview (ADI-R). The rationale for this, which Jon Brock has elegantly demonstrated on his blog, is that two people can both meet diagnostic criteria for autism without having even a single trait in common. So Hu and Steinberg's method is supposed to sort autistic people into groups with the people whose clinical profiles most match their own.

They came up with four categories: people with severe language impairment, people with savant skills, people with relatively mild symptoms distributed across all the ADI-R domains (i.e., language, nonverbal communication, social interaction, play skills, interests and behaviors, physical sensitivities and mannerisms, aggression, and savant skills), and people with intermediate (i.e., neither mild nor severe) symptoms who were also less likely than the other groups to have savant skills. Three of these groups were chosen for inclusion in later gene-expression studies: the language-impaired group, the savant group, and the mild-autism group. Other people weeded out of the gene-expression study population were people whose autism was part of a genetic syndrome, like Rett syndrome or Fragile X, people with other psychiatric diagnoses, people who were born prematurely, people with significant cognitive impairment, and female people (!).

(I suspect the last group --- women and girls with autism --- were left out just because there were so few of them. Of the 1,954 people who were sorted into groups, only 428 were female.)

Once all the potential confounders were weeded out, the researchers had cell lines derived from 86 autistic individuals --- 31 in the language-impairment group, 26 in the mild-autism group, 16 in the savant group, and 13 who apparently met inclusion criteria for both the savant and language-impairment groups --- which made up the autistic sample in this study, contrasted with 30 non-autistic controls. The other study Sarachana and colleagues cite as providing evidence of RORA underexpression in autistic people is this one, which predates Hu and Steinberg's method for dividing autistic people into subgroups; its population, since it is composed of identical twins, is a lot smaller: just six sets of twins (five with at least one twin diagnosed with autism) and non-autistic siblings of two of the sets of twins --- fourteen people overall.


So, while the model Sarachana and colleagues propose --- a predisposition for autistic people to suppress expression of RORA, which both creates and is reinforced by a high-androgen environment --- is really interesting, and could shed light on 1) how male and female autistics differ and 2) what the male:female ratio within autism might be in a perfect world where diagnostic criteria weren't geared more toward men and boys, I'd like to see the underexpression-of-RORA finding replicated in a bigger study.

Sources:
Hu, V., Frank, B., Heine, S., Lee, N., & Quackenbush, J. (2006). Gene expression profiling of lymphoblastoid cell lines from monozygotic twins discordant in severity of autism reveals differential regulation of neurologically relevant genes BMC Genomics, 7 (1) DOI: 10.1186/1471-2164-7-118

Hu, V., Sarachana, T., Kim, K., Nguyen, A., Kulkarni, S., Steinberg, M., Luu, T., Lai, Y., & Lee, N. (2009). Gene expression profiling differentiates autism case-controls and phenotypic variants of autism spectrum disorders: evidence for circadian rhythm dysfunction in severe autism Autism Research, 2 (2), 78-97 DOI: 10.1002/aur.73

Hu, V., & Steinberg, M. (2009). Novel clustering of items from the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised to define phenotypes within autism spectrum disorders Autism Research, 2 (2), 67-77 DOI: 10.1002/aur.72

Sarachana, T., Xu, M., Wu, R., & Hu, V. (2011). Sex Hormones in Autism: Androgens and Estrogens Differentially and Reciprocally Regulate RORA, a Novel Candidate Gene for Autism PLoS ONE, 6 (2) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0017116

Monday, November 8, 2010

Autism-Related Gene Spotlight: SLC4A10

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: SLC4A10 is a member of a large family of genes that encode proteins for transporting ions (charged particles) across cell membranes. Within that (super)family, SLC4A10 belongs to a family of transporter proteins specializing in bicarbonate (HCO3-) ion transport, which is important for maintaining a constant pH within the cell --- i.e., preventing it from becoming too acidic or basic for the cell's biological machinery to function. SLC4A10 encodes a version of this transporter protein specific to certain cells of the central nervous system, and mutations disrupting this gene have been found in two instances: first, in a set of autistic twins who participated in a genomic study, and second, in a girl with epilepsy and intellectual disability. Disruption of this gene is thought to make brain cells more excitable, which can lead to seizures (which is probably why the girl in the second case study has them).
____________________________________________________________

Where is it?
Its "cytogenetic band" is given as 2q23-q24 (or, alternatively, 2q24.2), which means that it's on the long arm ("q" as opposed to "p") of chromosome 2, somewhere in the middle.

Here's a map of chromosome 2, with a red line marking where SLC4A10 is:
This gene spans 360,942 base pairs (which is fairly large, but not enormous; there's a lot of variability in gene size, with the smallest ones only a few hundred bases long and the largest spanning several million bases --- see this e-textbook chapter for details), covering the distance between bases 162,480,845 and 162,841,786 (measuring from the centromere to the end of the chromosome).


What does it do?
The name SLC4A10 refers to its membership in a family of genes encoding similar proteins: solute carrier family (SLC) 4, which is a group of ten genes whose protein products transport bicarbonate ions (HCO3-) across cell membranes.

Bicarbonate ion (and its protonated form, carbonic acid, which is readily synthesized from carbon dioxide and hydrogen ions) plays a central role in regulating pH, both within cells and outside of them, as in blood. pH is a measure of acidity, expressed as the (negative) logarithm of the concentration of hydrogen ions (H+) in the fluid being tested. Pure water has a "neutral" pH of 7 (meaning that, of the H2O molecules making up liquid water, an approximately equal number exist in their dissociated forms of H+ and -OH at any given time --- if an acidic or basic compound is added, it will either add or remove H+ to the solution, and thus move the pH down or up); the water inside human bodies is slightly basic and has a pH of around 7.4 ("physiological pH"). Bicarbonate/carbon dioxide can act as a "buffer" between an acidic or basic substance and the physiological environment: depending on what form it's in, it can either donate (H2CO3 --> HCO3- --> CO32-) or receive (CO32- --> HCO3- --> H2CO3) hydrogen ions and keep the surrounding fluid from having to disrupt its acid-base equilibrium.

Because bicarbonate cannot diffuse across cell membranes by itself, it needs to be transported into cells by ion-exchanging membrane proteins whenever it is needed. The protein produced by SLC4A10 ferries bicarbonate ion and sodium ion into the cell while expelling a chloride ion from the cell. Two bicarbonate ions are imported for every sodium ion, which keeps the net gain/loss of electrical charge at zero.

This particular gene is primarily expressed in the central nervous system (i.e., the brain and spinal cord), though related genes encode similar bicarbonate-transporting proteins for other tissue types. In mice, SLC4A10 is expressed in some types of brain tissue but not in others: it was specific to gray matter (neurons, but not glial cells), and was not expressed in white matter; and it was also specific to certain regions of the brain: the olfactory bulb, cortex, hippocampus and cerebellum.

In neurons, ion concentrations inside and outside the cell play a role in whether a given neuron will "fire" --- undergo dramatic and rapid change in the electrical potential difference across its membrane, which triggers electrical and/or chemical signaling of adjacent neurons --- so ion transporters in neurons also help mediate neurotransmission.

What mutant versions of this gene have been discovered?
In the article I mentioned in my last post --- Sebat et al., 2007 (full text here) --- the authors report finding a spontaneous deletion of the first coding region of SLC4A10 in a pair of twin girls with autism.

There is also a recent report of a girl with epilepsy and intellectual disability having part of this gene --- a 48,000-base stretch of the 2q24 region falling between coding regions 2 and 3 of SLC4A10 --- moved to another chromosome: chromosome 13.


How do these mutations affect protein function?
Mice bred with the entire SLC4A10 gene missing were found to have much smaller brain ventricles than normal mice, and also had altered choroid plexus tissue. (The choroid plexus is where cerebrospinal fluid is made and waste is filtered out of it; active-transport proteins are especially dense there). Researchers found it harder to induce seizures in these mice as compared with normal mice using the proconvulsant (i.e., seizure-inducing) drugs pentylenetetrazole and pilocarpine.

Neither of the mutations observed in humans involves knocking out the entire gene; one involves deleting the first (of twenty-six) coding region, and the other involves switching a fairly long non-coding region with a sequence from another chromosome. Nothing is deleted in that case, but the insertion of something random into the middle of a gene might derail the process of assembling a working protein using that gene's (garbled) instructions. So both mutations impair the production of this protein to an unknown degree --- the protein probably isn't completely absent, but it might be present in reduced quantities or truncated, less-than-fully-functional form.
How common are they?
Very rare. Mutations in this gene are probably only a factor for a tiny, tiny minority of autistic people, whom I would suspect also have seizures.

Database entries for this gene: AutDB, Entrez Gene, Ensembl, Genatlas, GeneCards, SFARI Gene
Sources:
Damkier, H., Aalkjaer, C., & Praetorius, J. (2010). Na+-dependent HCOFormula Import by the slc4a10 Gene Product Involves Cl- Export Journal of Biological Chemistry, 285 (35), 26998-27007 DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M110.108712

Gurnett CA, Veile R, Zempel J, Blackburn L, Lovett M, & Bowcock A (2008). Disruption of sodium bicarbonate transporter SLC4A10 in a patient with complex partial epilepsy and mental retardation. Archives of neurology, 65 (4), 550-553 PMID: 18413482

Jacobs, S., Ruusuvuori, E., Sipila, S., Haapanen, A., Damkier, H., Kurth, I., Hentschke, M., Schweizer, M., Rudhard, Y., Laatikainen, L., Tyynela, J., Praetorius, J., Voipio, J., & Hubner, C. (2008). Mice with targeted Slc4a10 gene disruption have small brain ventricles and show reduced neuronal excitability Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105 (1), 311-316 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0705487105

Sebat, J., Lakshmi, B., Malhotra, D., Troge, J., Lese-Martin, C., Walsh, T., Yamrom, B., Yoon, S., Krasnitz, A., Kendall, J., Leotta, A., Pai, D., Zhang, R., Lee, Y., Hicks, J., Spence, S., Lee, A., Puura, K., Lehtimaki, T., Ledbetter, D., Gregersen, P., Bregman, J., Sutcliffe, J., Jobanputra, V., Chung, W., Warburton, D., King, M., Skuse, D., Geschwind, D., Gilliam, T., Ye, K., & Wigler, M. (2007). Strong Association of De Novo Copy Number Mutations with Autism Science, 316 (5823), 445-449 DOI: 10.1126/science.1138659

Saturday, November 6, 2010

Autism and Genetics: It's Complicated

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Evidence from a 2007 genomic study of 264 families (118 with one autistic member, 47 with multiple autistic members, and 99 with no autistic members) suggests that all autistic people have a higher rate of spontaneous --- i.e., not inherited --- mutation in their genomes than non-autistic people, and autistic people without autistic relatives have the highest rate of such mutations.
___________________________________________________

ResearchBlogging.orgThough most autism researchers believe autism is at least partly determined by genetics --- it co-occurs most of the time in identical twins, and a higher-than-baseline proportion of the time in fraternal twins and non-twin siblings --- they haven't really been able to find genetic variations that account for more than a small minority of cases of autism.

Here's an illustration of that paucity of known genetic explanations for autism:

Graph from Arthur L. Beaudet's editorial in the May 2007 issue of Nature Medicine. The darkest-colored regions (both pink and blue) represent the proportion of instances of autism that are totally unexplained; the lightest-colored regions represent instances of autism known to be caused by a particular genetic mutation; regions between the lightest and darkest regions represent those instances of autism where there may not be any definitive genetic cause, but a genetic cause is considered likely


It's not that candidate genes aren't showing up; it's just that each mutation found that seems like it might underlie some aspect of autism is only present in a tiny, tiny fraction of all autistic people. Variations in a whole lot of different genes have been implicated in some cases of autism some of the time, but a genetic marker common to all (or even most) autistic people that's not also found in general population remains elusive.

This article in Science (full text here) from a few years ago adds more ambiguity to the whole mess: its authors (all thirty-two of them!) found a certain type of large-scale mutation called a copy-number variation (i.e., a given region of the genome is either missing, or repeated one or more times in a row) occurring about ten times as frequently in the autistic population whose DNA they sampled (n = 118) as in the non-autistic controls (n = 196), and a little more than three times as frequently as they occur in autistic people with another autistic person in their immediate family (n = 77).

They were able to see the copy-number variations using a type of comparative genomic hybridization called representational oligonucleotide microarray analysis (ROMA). (See this full-text article in Genome Research for a detailed description, and discussion, of this method of genomic hybridization).

Genomic hybridization, in general, is used to detect large-scale differences between a DNA sample of interest (usually, DNA taken from a tumor cell) and a reference sample. Both samples of DNA are tagged with small molecules that fluoresce in different colors, denatured (i.e., heated to a point where the strands untangle from one another), and added either to a sample of normal human chromosomes taken from cells that are just about to divide --- i.e., the paired chromosomes have split --- or to a slide covered in smaller DNA probes, or lengths of bases snipped from a reference sample of human genomic DNA at regular intervals. Given enough time, the denatured experimental and reference DNA samples will try to pair up ("hybridize") with the probe DNA that has been provided to them. When that happens, you can wash off all the single-stranded and unmoored double-stranded DNA (leaving only DNA that has hybridized to your probes, which are attached to a glass slide or microarray) and look at the radiation being emitted by the DNA left on the slide (using a fluorescence microscope or a spectrophotometer). Depending on what kind of copy-number variations (if any) are present in your sample, it will affect what color light you see more of. If you have a deletion of all or part of the genome regions represented by your probes*, the sample won't hybridize there, or it will hybridize very weakly, so you'll see a preponderance of whatever color you've chosen for your reference sample. Conversely, if a sequence of DNA is repeated in your sample, more of the experimental DNA than reference DNA will be able to hybridize to the (limited number of) probes, and the color you'll see will reflect that.

Now, ROMA differs from standard-issue microarray-based comparative genomic hybridization in one key way: instead of using a whole genome as a sample, it cuts up the genome with restriction endonucleases (enzymes for cutting up DNA that occur naturally in bacteria), amplifies the enzyme-digested sample (i.e., makes lots and lots of copies of it, with the help of a different bacteria-derived enzyme), and hybridizes these short fragments (called "representations") to a microarray probe equipped with short sequences designed to be complementary to the fragments. According to the researchers who created this method, using representative fragments instead of whole genomes allows for the detection of copy-number variations on a smaller scale than was previously possible.

Anyway, that's the method of genomic analysis these researchers used. (Several of them, including the lead researcher, Jonathan Sebat, were on the team that pioneered ROMA in that aforementioned article.) There's a lot more detail about their methods here, in the Supporting Online Material, if there's anything you're curious about that I didn't address.

The weird thing about this research, the thing I wanted to point out as complicating the notion of autism-as-inherited-genetic-variation, was the fact that all of the copy-number variations they found, the ones that were present so much more frequently in autistic people without a similarly-affected relative, were de novo --- not inherited, but spontaneously arising during embryonic development. (In fact, inherited copy-number variations --- those found in both parents and children --- were left out of the statistical analysis. The researchers wanted to highlight de novo mutations).

From the article:
Our findings have implications for an understanding of the genetic basis for ASDs. An important feature of the de novo CNVs we report is that each is individually rare in the population of patients. None of the genomic variants we detected were observed more than twice in our sample, and most were seen but once. Although our sample size is small, these results suggest that lesions at many different loci can contribute to autism, a result consistent with the findings from cytogenetics, as well as consistent with the failure to find common heritable variants with a major effect on disease risk. Lack of recurrence may in fact reflect an underlying reality that autistic behavior can result from many different genetic defects. This would be consistent with the hypothesis that the common features of autism such as failure to develop social skills and repetitive and obsessive behavior may in fact be the consequence of a reaction to many different cognitive impairments, drawing their "commonality" from a normal but maladaptive programmed response of humans early in development to those diverse impairments.
...
We can incorporate a high rate of spontaneous mutation in a genetic model that accounts for both sporadic and familial forms of the disease, based on new mutations that cause autism by haploinsufficiency [Wikipedia link] but have incomplete penetrance, especially in females. Such individuals who escape the phenotypic consequences can then pass on the mutation ... .
(Yes, there's an awful lot of pathologizing language in this excerpt. Sorry about that. The talk of "genetic defects" and such sets my Eugenics Radar a-pinging, and that's never a good sign.)

I also have no idea what is meant by that last sentence of the first paragraph, which attempts to explain the diverse genotypes all leading to one common phenotype, which we call autism. That's the biggest thing that confuses me about the size and heterogeneity of the pool of mutations that have been found in all the various genetic studies of autism --- how can all these different mutations lead to the same thing? This concern is somewhat mitigated by my knowledge of how imprecisely "autism" is defined, and the fact that it's defined behaviorally rather than physiologically.

While these findings of high rates of spontaneous mutation associated with autism do add another layer of complexity to the what-causes-autism debate ("It's genetic!" "It's acquired sometime during gestation!" "It's both!!"), they also make sense out of a lot of things. Foremost, it accounts for the lack of any one heritable mutation common to all (or most, or even a large minority of) autistic people, and the vast array of mutations occurring in individual autistic people.

It also makes the (what I assume to be**) relatively uniform proportion of autistic people in human populations across space and time make a bit more sense --- if it was mostly inherited, you would expect populations that are reproductively isolated from one another to diverge in their relative levels of this trait, as they do in other traits. But the rate of spontaneous mutation is more or less constant.

*or, if you're using chromosomal cGH, anywhere at all, so long as the deletion is big enough to matter at that level of analysis.

**Judging from the smattering of cross-cultural studies of autism prevalence I've read

Sebat, J., Lakshmi, B., Malhotra, D., Troge, J., Lese-Martin, C., Walsh, T., Yamrom, B., Yoon, S., Krasnitz, A., Kendall, J., Leotta, A., Pai, D., Zhang, R., Lee, Y., Hicks, J., Spence, S., Lee, A., Puura, K., Lehtimaki, T., Ledbetter, D., Gregersen, P., Bregman, J., Sutcliffe, J., Jobanputra, V., Chung, W., Warburton, D., King, M., Skuse, D., Geschwind, D., Gilliam, T., Ye, K., & Wigler, M. (2007). Strong Association of De Novo Copy Number Mutations with Autism Science, 316 (5823), 445-449 DOI: 10.1126/science.1138659