Quantcast
issue
Read articles, including Science News stories written for ages 9-14, on the SNK website.
Newborns' brains bear signs of adult illnesses
Disease-related genes associated with reduced volume in certain regions at birth
A+ A- Text Size

Disease-related genes associated with reduced volume in certain regions at birth

By Laura Sanders

Web edition: January 10, 2013
Print edition: February 9, 2013; Vol.183 #3 (p. 9)

Enlarge
BIRTHMARK
Newborns carrying the ε4 version of the ApoE gene had decreased brain volume (blue) in the medial temporal lobe of the brain compared with newborns who carried a different version. Other brain areas showed an increase in brain volume (yellow).
R. Knickmeyer et al.

At birth, some infants are already saddled with brains that carry features of Alzheimer’s disease and schizophrenia. Newborns who carry certain versions of genes already show brain shrinkage reminiscent of that in adults with brain illnesses, a study of 272 newborn babies reveals.

The new results, published online January 2 in Cerebral Cortex, illuminate what happens to the brain in the earliest stages of life, says neuroscientist Jay Giedd of the National Institute of Mental Health in Bethesda, Md., who was not involved in the study. “As we go through life, there are so many uncontrollable factors,” he says. “This is a way to see gene influences before the world steps in.”

Until this study, scientists didn’t have a good idea of whether certain brain signatures — such as reduced volume in parts of the brain — were present from birth or whether they accumulated over a lifetime, says study coauthor Rebecca Knickmeyer of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

To test this, Knickmeyer and her colleagues looked for the influence of 10 versions of seven genes on newborns’ brains. The researchers chose genes that affect how the brain grows and develops. These gene variants have also been linked to adult brain diseases, such as the ε4 version of the ApoE gene, which triples the risk of getting Alzheimer’s, and a version of the COMT gene, which has been implicated in schizophrenia.

Brains of newborns with some versions of these genes had features similar to those seen in the brains of adults with diseases, the team found. Newborns with the ε4 version of the ApoE gene had less brain tissue volume in the temporal cortex, a part of the brain that thins in elderly people and adults who have ε4. Newborns with a variant in COMT also had reduced volume in the temporal cortex, a brain characteristic that turns up in people with schizophrenia.

The implications are that these brain features are a consequence of genetic influences, Giedd says. “I’m trying not to be doom and gloom, but it’s not lifestyle. It’s not parenting.” Things like that won’t change the lower brain volume in a newborn baby, he says.  

But Giedd points out that genes aren’t destiny, and that having a high-risk gene variant doesn’t mean a person will definitely get an illness. Many other things influence how the brain grows and develops, and these factors undoubtedly influence the risk of a disease, he says.

The researchers plan on following the infants in the study until age 8, and perhaps even longer, to see the consequences of these brain features. Such a long-term study could reveal why some people with a higher genetic risk succumb to a disease, and how others avoid it.

Comment
Print Friendly and PDF

R. Knickmeyer et al. Common variants in psychiatric risk genes predict brain structure at birth. Cerebral Cortex. Published online January 2, 2013. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhs401. [Go to]


L. Sanders. Infant stress linked to teen brain changes. Science News. Vol. 182, December 15, 2012, p. 10. Available online: [Go to]

Comments (4)

Please alert Science News to any inappropriate posts by clicking the REPORT SPAM link within the post. Comments will be reviewed before posting.

  • I think traditionally we've always thought that genetics and environmental effects were two completely separate processes that worked independently of each other, but what if the effect of "the world" is responsible for the less desirable genes in the first place. In other words the effects of poverty, tyranny, hunger and other human suffering get passed on genetically. Clearly there are a bunch of "gene variations" that we'd rather not have, but where to they actually come from? What caused them in the first place?
    Andrew Hardy Andrew Hardy
    Jan. 14, 2013 at 2:48pm
  • As above, until we have an uncontaminated segment of the population births which would act as controls, we have no way of knowing how much of this ''birth damage' . Actually genetic influences has been determined to be so mixed that there can be no conclusions drawn. As for environment, women exposed to war are known to bear more female than male.
    Unless we have access to home birth segments unexposed to ultrasound, em pollution, birthing drugs and premature cord cutting, it is impossible to assign one type of birth deficit to any specific factor.
    kathleen sisco kathleen sisco
    Jan. 14, 2013 at 6:50pm
  • I understand that kathleen sisco has suspicions that ultrasound, em pollution, birthing drugs, and "premature" cord cutting are responsible for birth deficits or other harm.
    However, I do not wish anyone to be left with the impression that there is any solid evidence that this is so.
    I can assure your readers that there is little or no evidence that ms. sisco's suspicions are correct and, at least in the case of ultrasound, there is abundant evidence that there is no harm. I suggest that the concerned reader should look up the scientific literature on these subjects for a more objective viewpoint.
    Conrad Seitz Conrad Seitz
    Jan. 16, 2013 at 2:10pm
  • I agree with Seitz & disagree with Sisco. We know that these brain diseases have been around for centuries. We know more about them now than before Dr. Alzheimer's wrote his studies, but that was long, long before ultrasound, birth drugs, etc. Until modern times, births were all natural, but the conditions existed anyway. Also, since men determine the sex, there is no reason to suggest that women exposed to war have more female babies--women have been exposed to war all over the globe since time began, there's no link.
    Betty Weiss Betty Weiss
    Jan. 21, 2013 at 1:36am
Registered readers are invited to post a comment. To encourage fruitful discussion, please keep your comments relevant, brief and courteous. Offensive, irrelevant, nonsensical and commercial posts will not be published. (All links will be removed from comments.)

You must register with Science News to add a comment. To log-in click here. To register as a new user, follow this link.

Follow Us