Dysbiotic microbiota in autistic children and their mothers: persistence of fungal & bacterial wall-deficient L-form variants in blood, 2019, Markova

Open access, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-49768-9

 

But mothers can have both autistic and non-autistic children (including having the non autistic child/children after the autistic one/ones). I am a case in point in that I have one (adult) child who had absolutely no autistic characterisitics as a child and one (adult) child who would have clearly met the criteria for autism in her childhood, although she would not want to be clinically diagnosed now she is an adult managing her work and personal life well - and I am an autistic mother myself (to obtain a clinical diagnosis the difficulties must be evident in childhood as it is a neurodevelopment condition).

I don't understand why these sorts of studies aren't comparing autistic and non-autistic siblings as part of the control, as well as comparing autistic and non-autistic mothers of these children.

 

I have seen it go mother - son - grandchild too. I have always though autism was due to the structure of the brain something genetic and built in like blue eyes/ brown eyes. The expression of it, though, may have environmental factors I suppose. Many women are realising they are autistic and more adults in general know it is why they have always struggled even though it was not picked up in childhood.

Presumably the study was done on more severely affected children who are easier to pick up early.

 

Perhaps the Jill James and Yasko research should be considered - if detox pathways are compromised genetically, and these genes are expressed, then you would no doubt have gut impacts which would affect bacterial presentation and proliferation. Another cause v correlation issue ?

 

A new study showed that maternal anemia was tied to ADHD and autism.
Maybe a bit off topic to the thread, but I think the message is very important

https://news.ki.se/early-maternal-a...74.1058911018.1569843632-430219829.1569843632

 

I don't read the biological research around the causes of autism extensively, but much of what I have read suffers from similar problems as the biological research in ME: small sample sizes, poor use of appropriate controls, correlation being seen as causation, data 'fishing', etc. Autism is so complex, there is so much hetergenerity, I'm not sure that biological research is ever going to successfully unpick it - at least beyond finding a few specific subsets with a clear etiology (such as those caused by specific genetic mutations).

I have a lot of problem with the use of mice models of autism, although of course this particular piece of research did use actual humans! Another big problem is that in most of the studies, individuals' autism is assessed, and the severity rated, solely using the 'ADOS' checklist, which just rates overt stereotypical autistic behaviours (such as eye contact, stimming, rocking etc.).

See the link for some information about the unreliability of the ADOS in children (it is even less reliable in adults):

https://www.spectrumnews.org/news/diagnostic-tests-miss-autism-features-girls/