3582
3583

NeuroscienceExposure to specific toxins and nutrients during late pregnancy and early life correlate with autism risk (waxra.com)

Donalame が 投稿

上位 200 件のコメント全て表示する 219
並べ替え:
ベスト (提案されたアイデア)
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]NolanSyKinsley 990 ポイント991 ポイント  (92子コメント)

Although I applaud the effort, the sample size in this study was VERY small. Just six pairs of twins where one had autism and the others didn't and 12 pairs of twins as a control. It may lead to further research, but this study is hardly conclusive.

[–]balmergrl 218 ポイント219 ポイント  (48子コメント)

What I wonder is how these twins came to experience such variances in exposure to toxins, and why they thought to do it as a twin study. I must be missing something.

Lead would make sense as a contributor to autism, seems like that could be confirmed if places like Flint MI would have a higher than average autism rates.

[–]NolanSyKinsley 163 ポイント164 ポイント  (43子コメント)

The did it as a twin study to rule out genetic factors in an attempt to find environmental factors.

[–]spiralamber 185 ポイント186 ポイント  (42子コメント)

Wouldn't both twins be exposed to the same toxins in utero?

[–]gods_rubber_chicken 36 ポイント37 ポイント  (25子コメント)

That is a curious thing, but not beyond the realm of possibility. Not everything is going to be a carbon copy.

[–]velonaut 46 ポイント47 ポイント  (22子コメント)

More importantly, how could you possibly measure the twin's individual, in-utero exposures to whatever toxins you are assessing, and if you couldn't, how could you draw any conclusions about the effects of that exposure?

[–]pukesonyourshoes 82 ポイント83 ポイント  (5子コメント)

The article explains how they were able to do that.

[–]velonaut 170 ポイント171 ポイント  (4子コメント)

I will admit I probably should have read the article before commenting.

[–]pukesonyourshoes 39 ポイント40 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Good guy u/velonaut. One of Reddit's charms is that behaviour such as this is encouraged and rewarded.

[–]gods_rubber_chicken 16 ポイント17 ポイント  (1子コメント)

And for that, you win the updoots.

[–]ZedXYZ 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

And thus, this has been an adequate demonstration of the reliable Karma system, which empowers well-meaning people :)

[–]ShortFuse 36 ポイント37 ポイント  (11子コメント)

They built a timeline by measuring metals in baby teeth as they grew, similar to how CO2 levels can be measured in ice caps.

The body excretes minerals in your hair and I would assume your nails and teeth are no different. Previous tests with baby hair have shown children ASD had a lower than normal level of zinc.

The article mentions that previous tests would grind the tooth whole to test, which wouldn't really give you a timeline, just an averaging. Checking different areas allow you to timeline.

It's pretty interesting because of how simple it is to collect samples. I'm assuming parents just sent baby teeth in the mail.

[–]Alwayssunnyinarizona 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (10子コメント)

I sure hope that's all it took. The alternatives are scary.

I still am skeptical they're not measuring effect instead of cause. Was an autistic baby's metabolism making them take up more/less of these things?

/dnrtfa

[–]ShortFuse 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (3子コメント)

At least you're admitting to not have read it. It does take into account this.

It is important to consider the central role of zinc as a regulator of multiple metal homeostasis pathways from early in the transcriptional process to the optimal functioning of metal transporters. Therefore, upstream factors such as placental insufficiency and epigenetic alterations of metal transporters may disrupt zinc homeostasis initiating a cascade of elemental dysregulation which, in the presence of genetic predisposition, raises the risk of ASD. Overall, it is likely that alterations in metal regulation in our ASD cases involve multiple disruptions along the complex networks that regulate elemental uptake and distribution.

Basically, the last sentence. Kids aren't getting zinc. Technically, you have to understand the point of the study and what they could achieve. They literally just had teeth. None of metabolic data would be there.

This is why twin data is so great. One of them didn't get it. One of them did. What happens here is now, people will say there's probably enough data to do another study primarily on zinc, for example, blood tests and diets.

If more studies keep finding the same, then zinc will start becoming more important to track during child growth.

[–]Alwayssunnyinarizona -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I would have read it, but it's 5am here so I thought I'd peruse the comments first ;)

[–]itsfinallyfinals 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

my first thought too. /sort of read the article

[–]sdweasel 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The last paragraph of the linked article pretty much says exactly that. Further research is needed to try and sort out where it is in the cause/effect relationship. It's nice to see it actually come up in an article once in a while.

[–]alpharowe3 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

What the the alternatives?

[–]CarlingAcademy 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (2子コメント)

If they're not identical twins they might not get everything the other does. And if I'm not totally off my rocks the difference will show in their baby teeth.

[–]darrrrrren 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (1子コメント)

If they're not identical twins they wouldn't be genetically identical... Think it's save to assume the study only used identical twins to rule out genetics as a cause.

[–]Max_Thunder 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The problem with twins is that they aren't necessarily epigenetically identical, and a lot of things can happen there.

Their positioning in the uterus can also have consequences in theory. I studied mice development and given the large number of pups in a litter, they could have significant differences (different hormonal exposures for instance) even though they were basically genetically identical (through inbreeding).

[–]James_Wolfe 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The study used baby teeth to determine exposure to toxins.

[–]ssladam -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Perhaps they were both exposed, it's just that one was better at flushing the toxins?

[–]MittonMan 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Apparently, even monozygotic twins sharing a placenta can experience different nutrient levels.

Someone pasted this a bit further down. Permalink

[–]Beard_of_Valor 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Also evidence suggests that some "microdoses" are more effectatious than higher doses. Like putting your hand on the scale to influence a deal, or dropping a brick on it. It's easier to determine you have a brick problem than a subtle problem (e.g. endocrine-mimicking compounds). This same kind of study was done for micropenises.

[–]el_padlina 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

They would. But since the genetics are basically ruled out, the only reason why one twin got autism and the oter not is external factors. They say exposure increases risk, not that it always causes it.

[–]Alwayssunnyinarizona 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Even genetically identical newborn mice have subtly different phenotypes. There's more to phenotype than genetics unfortunately.

This discussion is what peer-reviewed research is all about, though.

[–]jet199 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Mostly but its quite common for one twin to take much more from the mother than the other and you end up with one fat baby and one skinny baby.

[–]wrecktanglepenguin 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (8子コメント)

Maybe twins that don't share a sac are exposed to different amounts

[–]DogeTehBountyHunter 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (5子コメント)

However (my understanding of it) if the twins don't share a sac, they are fraternal twins, not identical - meaning they don't share the same genetic material and are basically just regular siblings who are the same age.

[–]Aristiana 49 ポイント50 ポイント  (3子コメント)

That's not how it works. Basically, the theory is that it depends on when the fertilized egg split. If it's early, the babies are still identical, but they don't share either the amnion or the chorion. That's the two layer of the amniotic sac. So those twins will have the same "setup" as fraternal twins, two sacs, two placentas. It's called Di-di twins (diamnionic, dichorionic)

Wait a bit before split, and they share the outer layer, but not the inner layer. One placenta, but still a barrier between them. It's called mono-di twins. The risk is higher.

Wait a bit more, and they share everything. Baby A could theoretically slap baby B. No barrier in between them. They're called mono-mono, and it's a high risk pregnancy.

Wait even more, and it's when you get conjoined twins.

[–]VoilaVoilaWashington 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

And if you wait too long before the split, and it's just a normal baby.

[–]heebath 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Very informative. Thank you!

[–]DogeTehBountyHunter 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Wow thanks for the in-depth response. Clearly my middle-school biology didn't go into very much depth!

[–]Frozenlazer 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Fraternal vs Identical depends on if there were 2 (or more) fertilized eggs versus one egg that split. Fraternal twins are basically normal siblings just carried at the same time.

[–]spiralamber -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

That makes sense :-)

[–]msb4464 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes, but as they are only looking for risk factors it's not a sure thing. Just an increased chance (potentially, though this is a very small study)

[–]ShortFuse 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes and that's probably going to be foundation for another study. It's actually not about the toxins. It's about the lack of other minerals. Why was one kid zinc/manganese deficient and the other fine?

[–]ShortFuse 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I came across the results showing not enough zinc in comparison to the lead found.

A pattern of low levels of zinc have been found in ASD before:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3216610/#!po=20.2381

[–]loljetfuel 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

From what I understand, the exposure isn't the issue, it's the uptake; it could be that the underlying cause is a genetic irregularity, or something like that, which makes a child at certain developmental stages absorb more of the toxins they're exposed to.

The study abstract proposes that ASD might extend from dysregulation of toxic metal uptake.

[–]littlegymm 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

An NJ

[–]no-mad -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The earth is covered in a thin layer of lead. It comes from decades of leaded gas emissions into the air. It has been awhile since we switched to unleaded. Google "lead hypothesis and crime".

[–]Himmenuhin 47 ポイント48 ポイント  (26子コメント)

These twin pairs with only one of them having Austism are really really rare and unique to rule out genetic factors - perhaps only one in a half a million or a million.

[–]Max_Thunder 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Maybe they say something very specific about one variant of autism.

I bet that in the future, we will find out that many genetic conditions and environmental factors whether in utero or ex utero can lead to different forms of ASD. My conclusion mainly comes from the fact that autism is an umbrella term for a collection of symptoms and we would have found the causes already if it were simply one cause leading to one consequence.

I would also bet that the intestinal flora has something to do with it but that is only my scientific intuition.

[–]Himmenuhin 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

autism is an umbrella term

Probably any genetic or environmental factor that leads to the abnormal development of certain neural function (hippocampus, mirror neurons, etc from the current theories), causing those characteristic impaired social-communicative behaviours, should be within the scope of investigation.

[–]NolanSyKinsley 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (22子コメント)

I recognize that, but statistically speaking, that is only 6 data points, and cannot be used to come to a conclusive determination. It should lead to more research, but should not be taken as concrete evidence.

[–]Himmenuhin 28 ポイント29 ポイント  (13子コメント)

I think you are talking about the generalizability of this study given the small data set.

Please be reminded that a single data point can already make a huge black-vs-white difference. For example, if someone found a genuine scientifically verified example of a black swan, a big foot, or a unicorn, or anything similarly rare case not previously discovered, the whole development of a scientific field may have to be rewritten.

These cases, though only a few, have already provided evidence to state that genetic cannot be a sufficient (or to be more precise necessary AND sufficient) factor for autism to emerge.

[–]syntax 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

These cases, though only a few, have already provided evidence to state that genetic cannot be a sufficient (or to be more precise necessary AND sufficient) factor for autism to emerge.

This is not true. That is predicated on the assumption that the genetic base examined in the study formed a complete cross section of the the genetic factors that contribute to autism.

As the sample size is small, without significant supporting evidence, it is not possible to make that claim. Instead, you have the (much reduced) claim that the genetic factors for these 6 cases cannot be a sufficient factor. That's non-trivial, to be sure, but there is no way to apply that to a randomly selected person, without much further work.

Given that, at present, there's a plethora of genetic factors and markers that have been identified, that additional evidence base does not exist.

It remains perfectly possible that there is some genetic factor that is common to all, as yet unidentified, that is necessary for autism; and that there also exists some other genetic factor not represented at all in this study that is, on it's own, a sufficient factor for autism.

[–]Himmenuhin 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Now here's a better thought out reply. I agree on what you said, especially in the last paragraph.

I am not in favor of studies that rely heavily on correlational inferences - but as we are studying human beings, not lab rats and animal models or computational simulations, these are almost the only way of inference possible.

[–]Lokis_bro 16 ポイント17 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I'm not sure why you mentioned black swans next to Big Foot - black swans are real and are native to Australia.

[–]Himmenuhin 20 ポイント21 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I live in Europe. It is an analogy of rare previously not known cases / data points.

[–]flickering_truth 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

For a long time black swans were a myth - until they were discovered in western Australia.

[–]skiman13579 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

My fiancée's grandmother has 3 in her pond in Ohio, yes the are native to Australia. I actually got to help clip the wings of their chick last year. Those fuckers are strong. Had to use lawn rakes to battle the parents off while grabbing the chick from the nest.

[–]NolanSyKinsley -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Not at all, even in the study they state that genetics has a 50% impact on autism, and they are tailoring this study to rule out those genetic factors that have been PROVED to see if there are non-genetic factors that can ALSO cause autism. There have been genetic factors that have been strongly proven to increase the rate of autism, this study was to find non genetic reasons. There are other well founded studies that show prenatal and postnatal infections also increase the rate of autism.

Your analogy is highly misplaced. A black swan, unicorn, big foot, etc, are entire complex entities in of themselves. What we are looking at here is a single, solitary status of an entity. Your analogy is like saying "We have never seen a person with cancer that has their left ear bifurcated to the skull, but we found six people without cancer with their left ear bifurcated to the skull, so that must mean bifurcating your left ear must have anti-cancer properties!". It just doesn't apply. We are talking about one aspect of a creature, not finding a brand new never before discovered creature.

As I said, this should lead to more research, but should in no way be taken as conclusive evidence. That is my one and only point.

[–]Himmenuhin 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Genetic vs non-genetic can be a major watershed in pathological undermining. So these six cases DID prove that non-genetic factors can cause autism, and genetic factors are not a necessary (while can be sufficient) cause for autism.

When I am retraining myself to criticize how equivalent your analogy is to mine. Complex entity has nothing to do with my analogy - I am talking about rare data points that can start a whole new category.

[–]jsau0125 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

They did not prove that non genetic factors can cause autism, they proved a correlation with higher uptake of certain elements. They suggest that the genetic factors could in fact cause the higher uptake as well as vice versa. Then they say more research is necessary.

[–]NolanSyKinsley -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

It was already known that genetic factors only played part of the equation, so these six data points should still be met with skepticism. Rarity means nothing, people place too much emphasis on that. It was already known. You could probably take six pairs of twins which one has a disease and the other doesn't and pull some factor out of their physiology that differs. The number of data points is not enough to show PROOF. Yes it shows a possibility, and an area that needs more research, but should not be shown as definitive PROOF. With your analogy, showing up with a live unicorn, bigfoot, etc, just a single entity would be more than enough proof that the entity exists. In these data sets, one singular data point does not hold such power.

[–]Himmenuhin 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (1子コメント)

"... It was already known that genetic factors only played part of the equation, so these six data points ..." provided evidence that genetic factors do not even necessarily need to be part of the equation.

As another example, in the past we believe AIDS viruses will forever be present in the bloodstream of all infected patients - a few cases of children got infected during childbirth from their mothers taught us this is not necessarily the case. Also, some diseases are thought to occur only in the male population (and for some only in the female population), if a female case is found the understanding of these diseases have to be reviewed. This is the power of only a few medical cases.

[–]Max_Thunder 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

6 data points can be conclusive, it is less likely to be significant but say you observe something in all of the six that you don't observe in the six others, plus the fact they are matched pairs, that is going to be very significant... It is all about the odds of it being a coincidence.

[–]NolanSyKinsley -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

No, it cannot be conclusive. For scientist to say something is conclusive, it has to reach sigma 5 or 6. That means 1 in 10,0000 or 1 in 100,000 chance that it is a statistical fluke that their samples showed what they did while not supporting their hypothesis. Six sets of twins who one is autistic and the other isn't and 12 sets of control twins is NOT enough to overcome that statistical threshold.

As I have said before, YES, it is significant, and should merit more research, but NO it should not in any way be held up as definitive proof. That is what I am trying to get through here.

[–]Max_Thunder 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Being able to conclude whether or not a result is significant is what scientists usually mean when they talk about concluding.

If you want to go all epistemological, you can never truly conclude even if you tested the whole population.

[–]clgfandom -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

but statistically speaking, that is only 6 data points

what about winning >1 million lottery 6 times in a row ?

[–]jammerjoint 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's a pretty solid ballpark, (1/70) (1/70) (1/100) ~ 1 in 500000. That's the rough prevalence of autism, twins, and some guess about the chance of having only one twin develop autism.

[–]ShortFuse 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's addressed in the report:

This study has multiple strengths, such as the inclusion of an informative twin sample recruited from population-based cohorts, a rigorous diagnostic assessment, and the use of direct fetal biomarkers. Limitations of the study are a relatively small non-random sample, although the sample size was adequate to uncover significant associations after stringent statistical adjustments, and our twin sample represented a significant subsample (11.3%) of the total population of twins discordant for ASD in Sweden in the examined age range. In addition, the inclusion of twins offsets the potential lower power as it allows rigorous control for underlying genetic variation. Nevertheless, caution should be exercised when generalizing our findings, and additional studies are needed in different populations, particularly larger non-twin ASD samples to corroborate our findings, and differentiate genetic and non-genetic contributions in understanding the relation between metals and ASD. Our biomarkers, while providing a direct measure of fetal exposure, do not measure exposure during the first trimester. Furthermore, while the differences we observe between cases and controls precede the onset of ASD symptoms, these data do not establish causality. Our tooth-biomarkers measure uptake of metals from all sources but do not distinguish specific routes of exposure such as diet. Our study also highlights a need to study the kinetics of metal mixtures during fetal and early postnatal development as we noted substantial shifts in metal levels between the pre-and post-natal periods. Most studies on the clearance and half-life of metals in humans are undertaken on adults and not newborns. Heterogeneous distribution of metal> in enamel and dentine can occur in response to variable environmental exposures, changes in diet and due to age-dependent metabolic changes, and has been observed in humans and other mammals>

[–]PretentiousSOB 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (2子コメント)

No single publication has ever been conclusive nor will it ever be.

The sample size is honestly pretty good. Its incredibly difficult to find twins like this. Even in gerentology research you rarely see n>40 because of how difficult nursing homes can be.

[–]NolanSyKinsley -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

The sample size fore the study type they did is very good, yes, but it is still very very short of the conclusive stage. You are still only looking to compare six data points against a full population. I bet you could find tens, hundreds, if not millions of people subjected to higher contamination levels with no autism, but that is entirely besides the point.

I agree this study shows promise, but it does not show proof. It should lead to further studies, but should not be held up to show concrete evidence.That is my point.

[–]veggie151 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

If you've got a couple million I'm sure they'd be happy to keep working on it.

[–]rayjizzlejohnsizzle -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

im very familiar with this lab. they have the money.

[–]Cigaro3 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I feel like it would be difficult to get candidates with the exact requirements of being twins and one being autistic while the other isnt.

[–]SonataOfShadows 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hey, it still has almost triple the subject group as the Wakefield study. (Vaccines and Autism.)

[–]Insamity 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Although I applaud the effort, the sample size in this study was VERY small.

But they still found significant results which is harder with small sample sizes. Outliers can have a larger effect though but without access to the data we don't know if there are any outliers though they didn't mention any sensitivity analyses for outliers so I imagine there are none. The concordant and discordant twins also acted as extra controls as the metal levels of the autistic concordant twins were similar to the metal levels of the autistic discordant twin.

It may lead to further research, but this study is hardly conclusive.

That is literally how science works. No lone study is ever conclusive.

[–]nanoakron -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Just wait until it is quoted as authoritative by morons everywhere...

コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

    [–]OrangeFishFlesh 64 ポイント65 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Some highlights from the discussion (reference numbers excluded for clarity):

    Our findings along with other recent studies bolster the premise of joint interaction of environmental exposures with genetic variations in the etiology of ASD. Notably, many of the genes associated with ASD are also linked with elemental homeostasis, and it is intriguing that genes implicated in ASD converge to specific neuronal co-expression networks especially during the same critical early developmental periods we have observed in this study.

    Basically many genes implicated in autism are related to the transport of metals in the body during critical phases of neuron development.

    Recent evidence from human and animal studies suggests that under stress, placental transfer of nutrients to the fetus is disrupted, and factors such as prenatal stress and placental inflammation increase hyperactivity in offspring. In the case of MZ twins sharing a placenta, external stressors that affect only one twin may induce epigenetic modification; notably, in one study fetal zinc deficiency-induced epigenetic alterations in the gene coding for the metal transporter, metallothionein-2. In this regard, it is important to consider the central role of zinc as a regulator of multiple metal homeostasis pathways from early in the transcriptional process to the optimal functioning of metal transporters.

    Apparently, even monozygotic twins sharing a placenta can experience different nutrient levels.

    [–]FatherSquee 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Thanks for this, it's hard from the article here to see what they actually found other than "some things good, other things bad."

    [–]barnboy4 61 ポイント62 ポイント  (18子コメント)

    Does it say what toxins and im just completely missing it? If so, its early give me a break and with one 2 year old and another on the way this interests me.

    [–]noneeeed 66 ポイント67 ポイント  (7子コメント)

    No, from what I can gather they have decided not to publish that. I think they want to avoid another "X causes autism" scare as they don't believe there is enough evidence to make that kind of link. Of course this will be seen as a coverup or evasion by some, which is a shame. They are in a no-win situation with that.

    [–]auerz 21 ポイント22 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Reduced uptake of zinc and magnese and increased uptake of lead. This isn't actually saying that environmental factors result in more lead and less zinc and magnese being present in the mother/fetus, but that the actual physiology of the fetus/placenta is the cause of differing levels of these metals being present in twins. The "matching" non ASD twin has a slower decrese in zinc levels until birth, while a generally lower level of lead compared to the ASD twin. The phsyiology of the body/placenta of the autistic twin results in him intaking less zinc and magense and more lead while in the womb.

    [–]rayjizzlejohnsizzle 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    Let's be honest here - they didn't publish that because they want to publish it in a separate paper.

    [–]noneeeed 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Hah, true.

    I hate to be cynical but I know enough people in academia to know that's probably true.

    The way we judge academic output really is so broken.

    [–]rayjizzlejohnsizzle 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    ya. i mentioned it in another comment, but im very familiar with this lab. preventing a scare campaign is 100% not the reason why that data wasn't included.

    [–]Nosiege 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    I mean, it'd be nice to know what to avoid. Even if it doesn't cause it.

    [–]itsfinallyfinals 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    They're saying the change is due to physiologic changes in the placenta, not necessarily environmental exposure.

    [–]OrganizedSprinkles 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (4子コメント)

    Same situation, not sure if half the article didn't load but a quick, avoid this stuff, would be nice here.

    [–]Antnee83 24 ポイント25 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    That's exactly why they didn't release the list. They realize that this is a very small dataset, and there is no point to causing people to panic over what could amount to nothing at all.

    See: vaxxer nonsense.

    [–]OrganizedSprinkles 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Oh that makes sense. Very good then.

    [–]blues65 -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Title is stupid then. If "very specific" toxins an nutrients are mentioned, they should be listed. Otherwise this research can't help anyone.

    [–]loljetfuel 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Because it's not a change in environmental exposure, but how the fetus'/childs' body absorbs what's naturally occurring around them. Reducing the exposure to the proposed toxins isn't practical and wouldn't necessarily help.

    [–]Yotsubato 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Lead, zinc, and manganese.

    I'd avoid lead anyways, zinc and manganese are required for your body to work though.

    [–]auerz 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Based on my quick skim through the article I think the actual finding is that the phsyiology of the body/placenta of the autistic twin results in him intaking less zinc and magense and more lead while in the womb. Not that intaking less zinc or magnese and more lead results in autism, since the non-ASD twin is in the same womb and will have different levels of zinc and magnese uptake as well as lower levels of lead.

    The actual title of the article this post is linking to is misleading. The title of the original scientific article is "Fetal and postnatal metal dysregulation in autism", dysregulation means impairment of a physiological regulatory mechanism. The study is about how problems in the physiological regulation of metal uptake in late preganancy seems to correlate with autism.

    [–]itsfinallyfinals 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    /u/auerz said "Reduced uptake of zinc and magnese and increased uptake of lead."

    [–]morganational 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Agreed

    [–]ShortFuse 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Lead.

    Also finding low levels of zinc and manganese means there probably wasn't a proper level of metal homeostasis.

    [–]MostlyCarbonite 85 ポイント86 ポイント  (19子コメント)

    There are a few things that correlate with autism. Gotta wonder if autism isn't a few conditions instead of one.

    [–]noneeeed 36 ポイント37 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    I was kind of under the impression that this was the idea already, hence the whole "spectrum" concept. The difference between a high functioning person at one end who struggles but can actually function in wider society, and a barely communicative person who requires 24 hour care is huge, but there are a number of common linking factors.

    We already know that genetics is a big part, but it seems like many cancers where genes can make you more susceptible but it still requires something envionmental to actually trigger it. This study seems to add to this idea that a number of the genes are responsible for the risk, but some nutrient/toxin is actually the trigger/cause.

    [–]MostlyCarbonite 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Spectrum, to me, implies that it's one condition with differing severities. I'm wondering if it's actually 3 or 4 conditions that appear similar. Different thing.

    [–]PretentiousSOB 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Well...it is...and has been considered as such for some time. Thus the whole "spectrum" thing.

    [–]MostlyCarbonite 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Maybe it's not a spectrum. Maybe it's 5 conditions that are similar. That's my point.

    [–]KosmoTheSynner 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    This. I've felt this way for years.

    [–]ShortFuse 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    I take issue with comments like this, because it feel it dillutes the work done by scientists. It also sounds a bit defeatist, almost conceding that it's impossible to know the cause of autism.

    The research here seems to tell us what many have suspected, namely metals like lead cause autism (even anti-vaxxers point to mercury). The extra key here is the importance of metal homeostasis through zinc and manganese. Previous studies have shown a generally children with autism have a lower level of zinc.

    The ingenuity in building of timeline of minerals and metals in the body by measuring their secretions in growing baby teeth is ridiculous. We should be applauding all these things instead.

    [–]rayjizzlejohnsizzle 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    The research points to things already known, and the tooth idea has been around for decades.

    This underpowered study does not belong in this journal. It's full of false assumptions and overstated results. Applauding them for using a nifty technique yet poorly interpreting the data? No thanks.

    コメントをもっと表示する (11 返事)

      [–]Donalame[S] 19 ポイント20 ポイント  (6子コメント)

      Journal Reference: Nature.com

      [–]someoneiswrongonline 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (5子コメント)

      What are the "toxins" ?

      [–]MilanoMongoose 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      From the abstract:

      Cases have reduced uptake of essential elements manganese and zinc, and higher uptake of the neurotoxin lead. Manganese and lead are also correlated with ASD severity and autistic traits.

      I'm pretty green in the area of ASD research, but I have to wonder how long this correlation has been suspected. Lead seems like an obvious candidate for investigation, especially since it's toxicity has been understood for hundreds of years. And isn't it a similar story for manganese?

      [–]ShortFuse 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

      Lead. But the conclusion is more about the lack of zinc and manganese in one twin (the autistic one). They are important minerals for metal homeostasis. Why that is, is beyond the scope of the study, but it hopefully it leads to more studies and more conclusive results.

      [–]someoneiswrongonline 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

      So heavy metal poisoning and nutrient deficiency. Not mystery toxins.

      [–]ShortFuse 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      It's not that simple. They were twins. If it was poisoning, they both would have probably been affected.

      The study points to something was going on with one of the twins where he wasn't getting the same amount of zinc as his/her twin.

      Edit: But yeah, it seems all the articles are focusing on toxins when the study is talking about zinc deficiency.

      [–]Firecracker048 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Geology? Isnt geology the study of rocks?

      [–]Matrauder 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Why is this tagged Geology?

      [–]Zumaki 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      if your sample size is so small you can't even use a z-table, it's not worth publishing.

      [–]Coolcnt89 16 ポイント17 ポイント  (9子コメント)

      I think the way it's written, the authors are self-aware about the limitations of this study. It doesn't take anything away from the findings. I'm sure it'll take a long while but I'm looking forward to the day we can actually prevent autism. Autism is rough especially on families with low income as getting the best education and help becomes harder.

      [–]ign1fy 20 ポイント21 ポイント  (4子コメント)

      Particularly how they refrain to list the exact nutrients/toxins they're studying. The last thing we need is more woo about certain things causing autism.

      [–]Coolcnt89 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (2子コメント)

      Great point. Making the substances public at this stage is just fuel for idiotic antivaxxers and their fatal paranoia.

      [–]FlattenedRabbit 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (1子コメント)

      Honestly I think the article itself is enough fuel for the idiots, even without providing specifics about the metals

      (which can be found on the cited study as Manganese, zinc and lead) https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15493#methods

      By simply saying 'metals cause autism' and 'science proves this' these people will happily take that as evidence for their bogus claims, regardless of how inconclusive the study's research is and how it lacks in both validity and reliability

      [–]Coolcnt89 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      That's... Okay yes that is quite possible. There's no winning apparently.

      [–]rayjizzlejohnsizzle 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      As I said above - they didn't publish that because they want to publish it in a separate paper. I don't for a second believe they chose to withhold that information out of concern it would be jumped on by antivaxxers and conspiracy theorists. Without getting into specifics, I know this group and I can say for certain their motives are about papers, recognition, and NIEHS grants. Nothing more.

      [–]moration 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

      It doesn't take anything away from the findings.

      Yes it does! Low sample sizes are the bane of medical science!

      [–]Coolcnt89 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

      Sample sizes do matter. But this is a preliminary study that shows that there is a possible correlation to be found here. Now that the results show the kind of results our previous body of knowledge and scientific intuition had suspected... There will be further studies on this, which will focus on certain specific variables and will have sample size needed to represent population parameters.

      When I said it doesn't take away from the findings I certainly did not mean that this study was conclusive. I meant that these results matter quite a bit as stepping stones to further research.

      [–]moration 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

      This is what we call "hypothesis generating" work. They found something and it helps form a hypothesis to be tested more rigorously. But with such a low sample size it should NOT be published in a major broad interest journal and should not be making headlines.

      [–]Coolcnt89 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Yeah, I'd have to agree with that. Such articles do more harm than good as media is prone to sensationalizing and misleading the general public.

      But as a person with interest I do find even 'hypothesis generating' work worth a read.

      [–]ShortFuse 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Some interesting zinc facts:

      It is estimated that over 80% of pregnant women worldwide have inadequate zinc intake, consuming on average 9.6 mg zinc per day, well below the recommended minimum daily levels for the last two trimesters of pregnancy in settings of low zinc bioavailability.

      http://www.who.int/elena/bbc/zinc_pregnancy/en/

      Nearly 2000 children with autistic disorders had hair tested for zinc deficiency. 584 (29.6%) subjects had levels lower than two standard deviations below the mean of the reference range. 43.5% of the male children ages 0-3 and 52.5% of the female children 0-3 in the sample were zinc deficient. Older children with autism in the study had a lower incidence of zinc deficiency, which continued to decrease with the age of the subject sample, to the point where autistic children over the age of 10 had normal zinc levels. Normal hair zinc in healthy children appears to be around 130 ppm, and one autistic 2 year old in the study had a level of 10.7 ppm.

      https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolutionary-psychiatry/201208/zinc-and-autistic-spectrum-disorders

      [–]QuantumVexation 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (1子コメント)

      "Geology".

      So.... this is a joke right?

      [–]xKaelic 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Yeah what the hell is that tag about? I guess laser mining baby teeth is a geological study?

      [–]rayjizzlejohnsizzle 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      I don't entirely understand how this gets into nature comms when this already exists, has a slightly bigger sample size and essentially reports conflicting data. OK, so they didn't present temporal data, but with current tech that's not exactly a massive leap forward.

      I should disclose I think the lab that published this recent paper does junk science.

      [–]jhar23 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (7子コメント)

      And vaccines still do not cause autism

      [–]ShortFuse 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (6子コメント)

      I hate to say it, but this would actually give more weight to that belief in a way.

      What would be a trivial level of mercury in a normal baby could have adverse effects on a baby that's zinc deficient, or body can't properly regulate neurotoxins (improper metal homeostasis),

      I'm not sure if it's enough mercury, but I can see a bunch of people say their kid doesn't process zinc properly and the vaccine shot gave him autism.

      [–]loljetfuel 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (5子コメント)

      Except mercury isn't implicated here at all, it's lead, which isn't present in vaccines.

      [–]ShortFuse 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

      Mercury wasn't part of the study, but it's also a neurotoxin.

      [–]loljetfuel 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

      But it's not clear whether "it's a neurotoxin" is relevant. In any case, mercury derivatives have been removed from childhood vaccines (except the flu vaccine) since 2001 in the US, and it hasn't affected the rate of autism diagnosis.

      Likewise, mercury derivatives were removed from vaccines in other countries as early as 1992, and no change to autism diagnosis rates has been observed.

      So whatever the case, mercury (at least the form that was ever used as a vaccine preservative) doesn't seem to be relevant.

      [–]ShortFuse 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

      You're not getting my point. The FDA has said that it's safe with no noticeable pattern. On a normal baby, the amount of ethylmercury is fine. But there hasn't really been any testing with babies that are zinc deficient or have poor metal homeostasis.

      I'm not saying it's conclusive, but if anything, this study learns more in favor of neurotoxins being the cause of autism, then not. So you're going to get people who say "Oh, my baby was probably overly sensitive to lead/mercury/copper."

      Edit: You can see another study that shows that zinc deficiency is very well associated with autism here:

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3216610/

      [–]loljetfuel 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      The FDA has said that it's safe with no noticeable pattern.

      Actually, it's not "the FDA", it's over 20 years of research by lots of different people.

      Besides, you're missing the point that there is a huge stack of evidence including the epidemiology after mercury preservatives were removed that suggests that mercury exposure of the type kids used to experience from childhood vaccines isn't likely relevant to autism diagnosis rates.

      This study, with it's small sample size, which doesn't address mercury at all, is waaaay not enough to provide a meaningful counterpoint to the entire countries of data we have that mercury preservatives aren't a source of harm.

      this study learns more in favor of neurotoxins being the cause of autism

      Maybe, but it really only looked at metal homeostasis for zinc, manganese, and lead, and doesn't necessarily generalize to "neurotoxins".

      [–]gogglesaur 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      I'm more concerned about aluminum adjuvants than mercury. They removed mercury from most vaccines in what, the 90s? But the autism rates kept rising and as far as I know autoimmune diseases have risen as well.

      [–]Bennis_of_Maidenpool 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      This was given a "Geology" flair? What?

      [–]IceCreaaams 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      I've noticed a correlation with people with blonde hair and blue eyes. Is there some sort of tie in with those traits that are homozygous recessive?

      [–]Rebuta 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

      Sweet I'll jsut tell my pregnant wife to lay off the lead and lazers and we'll be ok.

      [–]ShortFuse 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

      Just make sure she takes her prenatal vitamins and your kid gets the recommended level of zinc in his diet.

      [–]discipleOfTea 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

      Vit d boosting is winning. Got halved sickness cases for the first years after birth in a norwegian study giving a high dosage during pregnancy.

      Anyone who wants to copy that: Read up on the complimentary vitamins you should take and dosage. If you just shove in high vit d you can harm yourself.

      [–]ShortFuse 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      To add on to that, one may be deficient in a certain vitamin/mineral even though you intake the recommended dosage.

      That's one of the key findings of the study. They were both twins, but one got less than he should. Blood tests will show you how much of a substance your body is actually able to absorb.

      [–]stroupzilla 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      I think this is more of a correlation bit rather than causation

      [–]BlackBeltBeta 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Okay, I get the point, and sure there's some correlation, but does no one else think the sample size was maybe too small to really accurately find proper links between the toxins and autism?

      [–]ShortFuse 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      My wife is 6 weeks from delivery and I live in NJ, the state with the highest autism rate in the US. I just (mostly) read the whole thing.

      Essentially, two interesting things. They tested with twins where one child had autism (ASD) and the other didn't. They used baby teeth to timeline what metals were in the baby from a few weeks before birth (prenatal) to months after birth.

      Simply put, more lead was found. But, from what I understood, the issue was too much lead and not enough zinc, which seems to act like a counter. Manganese news also lower than it should have been.

      The report does touch on the somewhat low sample size, but to be honest, I agree with the assessment that it's still significant. Being able to track what's different between two babies in the same womb at the same time and plot a timeline of what metals were present and then finding a consistent pattern is notable.

      So I'm off to research the importance of zinc and how much is recommended during pregnancy. Also, if NJ has some low levels of zinc for how much lead may be in their water.

      Edit: Apparently, it's not uncommon (and actually statistically significant) that children with Autism lack the proper levels of zinc.

      In one study, 29% of children with Autism had low zinc levels less than -2 standards deviation of the control group and about 50% had a zinc deficiency.

      Another found that zinc could reverse or repair the effects of autism.

      According to the WHO, over 80% of pregnant women worldwide have inadequate zinc intake.

      [–]njhollowpointy 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

      What I would love to see now is a study on whether geographical areas with higher lead exposure have higher prevalence of autism.

      [–]DirtyDank 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

      I came here because there was a picture of a tooth. There's nothing related to dentistry here.

      [–]ShortFuse -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      They literally created a metallurgical timeline by analyzing baby teeth.

      [–]JMJimmy 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      10:1 they find prenatal vitamins are the cause

      [–]Medcait 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Everyone also please remember: correlation is not causation.

      [–]ElectronicBionic 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      But correlation is not causation, not that anyone cares. If that mattered to anyone, science wouldn't have any real answers for anyone about anything.

      Science relies on you being stupid enough to accept correlation as causation.

      [–]icecoldpopsicle -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

      Could some of those toxins be fond in vaccine preservatives ?

      [–]ShortFuse 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

      Lead? Definitely not.

      And zinc and manganese aren't toxins here. Your body needs them to counteract lead.

      Edit: Actually, they didn't test for mercury which is in vaccines. Mercury is a neurotoxin, and a zinc deficiency and mercury could be bad. But the culprit wouldn't be the vaccine really, it would be the inability to resist neurotoxins from lack of zinc.

      [–]icecoldpopsicle 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Yeah Mercury is what I was thinking about, I know a lot of vaccines have it in. Imagine the noise if it was shown it does cause autism...

      [–]grandaddychimp -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

      I'm always suspicious when I see the word "toxin".

      [–]XtremeGoose -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

      toxin

      It's not used in the nature paper except as part of the word "neurotoxin" in reference to lead. That said, lead is a poison, not a toxin (since it is not of biological origin).

      [–]rayjizzlejohnsizzle 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      The correct word for metals as toxins in this context (i.e. environmental) is 'toxicant'

      [–]stalker_____ -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Doesn't breathing air at this point cause autism?

      コメントをもっと表示する (9 返事)