We screened 183 autistic males for the fra(X) and found 24 (13.1%) to be positive. Adding the subjects of this study to those of 11 other surveys, of which 6 were positive and 5 were negative, a total of 614 autistic males have been screened. Overall 47 (7.7%) were positive. Based on this estimate and the prevalence of autism and fra(X), we estimate that 12.3% of fra(X) males are autistic. We have found that 17.3% of our fra(X) males were autistic and overall a 21.2% frequency has been reported, these higher figures are most likely due to biases in age and ascertainment. With an overall 7.7% frequency of fra(X) among autistic males and an estimated 12.3% of autism among fra(X) males, we conclude there is likely to be a significant association of fra(X) with autism. Because fra(X) appears to be the single most common cause of the condition, chromosomal testing is recommended for any autistic person with undiagnosed etiology.

Autistic Disorder↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Detection of fragile X non-penetrant males by DNA marker analysis.

Segregation analysis of the fragile-X [fra(X)] syndrome uncovered an unexpected 20% excess of normal males among sibships by Sherman et al. (Sherman SL, Morton NE, Jacobs PA, Turner G [1984]. Ann Hum Genet 48:21-37; Sherman SL, Jacobs PA, Morton NE, Froster-Iskenius U, Howard-Peebles PN, Neilsen KB, Partington MW, Sutherland GR, Turner G, Watson M [1985]: Hum Genet 63:289-299). This result predicts that about 17% (1/6) of normal sons of carrier fra(X) females will be non-penetrant. A way to test this prediction is by DNA markers. We analyzed DNA samples from 100 families with a set of flanking DNA markers linked to the fra(X) locus. Ten of 51 (19.6%) normal brothers, doubly informative and non-recombinant for flanking DNA markers, were found to be non-penetrant males. This result closely confirms the predictions of the segregation analysis indicating that about 1/6 of normal brothers are non-penetrant carrier males. The use of DNA markers to identify non-penetrant brothers and grandfathers can help to clarify the inheritance of the fra(X) mutation and be of considerable clinical usefulness. Using DNA markers, it was possible to study grandparental transmission in 71 of the families. In 39 families, DNA analysis confirmed the apparent pattern of inheritance. In 18 families, the grandparents had a single daughter with affected children. Of these, a new mutation at the time of their daughters' conception was possible in 15 and quite likely in 3. In 14 families with 2 or more daughters with affected fra(X) offspring, the grandparents had no affected sons or other relatives known to be positive for fra(X).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

DNA↗

PubMedDate not supplied

RFLP analysis in 5 Sicilian families with the fragile X syndrome.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

DNA Probes↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Improved prenatal detection of fra(X)(q27.3): methods for prevention of false negatives in chorionic villus and amniotic fluid cell cultures.

The reliable detection of fra(X)(q27.3) in prenatal samples is important for providing genetic counseling. We have identified 5 new cases of prenatal fragile X [fra(X)] detection in 3 chorionic villus sample (CVS) and 2 amniotic fluid (AF) cell cultures. In 4 of the 5 cases, either excess thymidine (THY) or a combination of THY and 5-fluorodeoxyuridine (FUdR) was clearly superior to FUdR alone as fra(X) inducers. Amniocytes from one case were cultured only in RPMI-1640 and later exposed to FUdR or THY separately. They showed only 2% fra(X) while parallel cultures initiated in Chang medium and incubated in RPMI for at least 7 days (recovery) before fra(X) induction exhibited strikingly increased fra(X) frequencies. Chang medium alone will not allow fra(X) induction in AF (Jenkins EC, Brown WT [1986]: "Genetic Disorders and the Fetus: Diagnosis, Prevention and Treatment." New York: Plenum Press, pp 185-204). Now, using CVS cells, we report that only 1% and 0% fra(X) were detected using FUdR or THY in cells cultured in RPMI for 4 days after removal from Chang medium. Cells with 7 days "recovery" in RPMI exhibited increases from 2 to 6%. Therefore, we have found that Chang medium is very helpful when the appropriate recovery time in another medium is allowed before fra(X) induction. Some false negative reports can be attributed to: induction in Chang medium alone; lack of sufficient recovery time after initiating cells in Chang before induction; and unavailability of the excess THY fra(X) induction system.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Amniocentesis↗