A 600 kb deletion syndrome at 16p11.2 leads to energy imbalance and neuropsychiatric disorders

BACKGROUND: The recurrent ~600 kb 16p11.2 BP4-BP5 deletion is among the most frequent known genetic aetiologies of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and related neurodevelopmental disorders. OBJECTIVE: To define the medical, neuropsychological, and behavioural phenotypes in carriers of this deletion. METHODS: We collected clinical data on 285 deletion carriers and performed detailed evaluations on 72 carriers and 68 intrafamilial non-carrier controls. RESULTS: When compared to intrafamilial controls, full scale intelligence quotient (FSIQ) is two standard deviations lower in carriers, and there is no difference between carriers referred for neurodevelopmental disorders and carriers identified through cascade family testing. Verbal IQ (mean 74) is lower than non-verbal IQ (mean 83) and a majority of carriers require speech therapy. Over 80% of individuals exhibit psychiatric disorders including ASD, which is present in 15% of the paediatric carriers. Increase in head circumference (HC) during infancy is similar to the HC and brain growth patterns observed in idiopathic ASD. Obesity, a major comorbidity present in 50% of the carriers by the age of 7 years, does not correlate with FSIQ or any behavioural trait. Seizures are present in 24% of carriers and occur independently of other symptoms. Malformations are infrequently found, confirming only a few of the previously reported associations. CONCLUSIONS: The 16p11.2 deletion impacts in a quantitative and independent manner FSIQ, behaviour and body mass index, possibly through direct influences on neural circuitry. Although non-specific, these features are clinically significant and reproducible. Lastly, this study demonstrates the necessity of studying large patient cohorts ascertained through multiple methods to characterise the clinical consequences of rare variants involved in common diseases.

Complex syntax in autistic spectrum disorders: A study with relative clauses

Background The few studies that have evaluated syntax in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) have yielded conflicting findings: some suggest that once matched on mental age, ASD and typically developing controls do not differ for grammar, while others report that morphosyntactic deficits are independent of cognitive skills in ASD. There is a need for a better understanding of syntax in ASD and its relation to, or dissociation from, nonverbal abilities. Aims Syntax in ASD was assessed by evaluating subject and object relative clause comprehension in adolescents and adults diagnosed with ASD with a performance IQ within the normal range, and with or without a history of language delay. Methods & Procedures Twenty-eight participants with ASD (mean age 21.8) and 28 age-matched controls (mean age 22.07) were required to point to a character designated by relative clauses that varied in syntactic complexity. Outcomes & Results Scores indicate that participants with ASD regardless of the language development history perform significantly worse than age-matched controls with object relative clauses. In addition, participants with ASD with a history of language delay (diagnosed with high-functioning autism in the DSM-IV-TR) perform worse on subject relatives than ASD participants without language delay (diagnosed with Asperger syndrome in the DSM-IV-TR), suggesting that these two groups do not have equivalent linguistic abilities. Performance IQ has a positive impact on the success of the task for the population with ASD. Conclusions & Implications This study reveals subtle grammatical difficulties remaining in adult individuals with ASD within normal IQ range as compared with age-matched peers. Even in the absence of a history of language delay in childhood, the results suggest that a slight deficit may nevertheless be present and go undetected by standardized language assessments. Both groups with and without language delay have a similar global performance on relative clause comprehension; however, the study also indicates that the participants with reported language delay show more difficulty with subject relatives than the participants without language delay, suggesting the presence of differences in linguistic abilities between these subgroups of ASD.