View Full Version : What evidence is there that genes cause ADD?


mildadhd
04-24-13, 11:05 AM
What evidence is there that genes cause ADD?

I agree that there is evidence genes may influence ADD,

but I can't find any evidence that genes cause ADD?

Where does this idea come from?

immabum
04-24-13, 12:04 PM
*resisting urge to gouge my eyes out*

Perhaps you can just continue posting in one of the zillion similar threads you previously started. You like to base your arguments on opinion (which you are welcome to have)
So perhaps limiting your posts to the theoretical/philosophical section would be more appropriate. Unless of course you're just trolling.

Maybe somebody can just make a thread compilation and just give you a canned response every time you ask this question.

Fuzzy12
04-24-13, 12:08 PM
Peri, this is off tangent, but I was wondering what you think causes ADHD apart from genes. I think, I remember a thread where you wrote based on Gabor Mate's work that maternal stress during pregnancy can cause ADHD. In your opinion, is there anything else?

mildadhd
04-24-13, 01:11 PM
Peri, this is off tangent, but I was wondering what you think causes ADHD apart from genes. I think, I remember a thread where you wrote based on Gabor Mate's work that maternal stress during pregnancy can cause ADHD. In your opinion, is there anything else?

Stress has many forms, including chemical exposure that can influence gene expression,

epigenetic research shows that chemical exposure can even skip a generation,

meaning chemicals that grand parents are exposed to could be factors.


To clarify, genetic factors are always components in any information I present.

What I am saying is that there is more than genetic factors.

Genes alone don't cause ADD.

Unless anyone can prove other wise?

I am trying to learn about factors that we may be able to prevent.


Thanks for the question.

(Side Note #1) I am working on a thread idea specifically about types of stress and will present it in the near future.

There seems to be some confusion about what stress is,

and I think it would be better to explore ideas about what stress is first,

before trying to explain how abnormal stress may be a factor in ADD.


(Side Note #2) I posted this question thread in this section because this where published scientific research is posted.

I am searching for published research that shows that genes alone cause ADD?



This is important to me because if genes aren't proven to be the only factor,

then that means there are other factor(s),

and these factors may be preventable?



First I want to figure out if genes are the only factor,

so far nobody has posted any published research so far,

saying that genes are the only factor.

.

immabum
04-24-13, 02:34 PM
Ok I'll save you time.
You won't find any articles stating genes alone cause ADHD.
Nor will you find any articles showing any environmental effect on ADHD in the absence of humans. Pretty simple!

You don't need to do your own analysis looking for environmental variables. If you are looking for different factors...use a medical research search engine.(recall Pubmed?)
Here's one to get you started:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17718779

Amtram
04-24-13, 02:57 PM
I also haven't finished posting all the research links in the "missing links" thread. However, if you have some time to read them, you will find a lot of information about how which specific genes appear with higher frequency among people with ADHD vs. people without, how specific genes appear to be linked to specific behaviors and/or symptoms that are specific to ADHD, how specific genes are found in families with high rates of ADHD diagnosis, and how specific genes are demonstrated to be responsible for building specific areas of the brain that are associated with specific symptoms of ADHD.

If you look at scientific research since the late 1990s, you will NOT find a single paper that states "this gene causes ADHD." However, you will find tens of thousands of papers that address individual genetic components that demonstrate statistically high correlation with the presence of ADHD and related condition, or with the presence of a particular symptom that is common to ADHD.

Despite boatloads of evidence of genetic correlations and even genetic causation for many, many, many things, you won't find scientific research that says "genes cause ADHD" any more easily than you would if your search were "food causes cancer" or "sadness causes depression."

Genes are the foundation that builds us, but there are about 24,000 of them in each individual, and they're combinations of what is inherited randomly from two other unique individuals. It has to be narrowed down from 24,000 to a much, much smaller number to stand any chance of being valid.

mildadhd
04-24-13, 03:06 PM
I also haven't finished posting all the research links in the "missing links" thread. However, if you have some time to read them, you will find a lot of information about how which specific genes appear with higher frequency among people with ADHD vs. people without, how specific genes appear to be linked to specific behaviors and/or symptoms that are specific to ADHD, how specific genes are found in families with high rates of ADHD diagnosis, and how specific genes are demonstrated to be responsible for building specific areas of the brain that are associated with specific symptoms of ADHD.

If you look at scientific research since the late 1990s, you will NOT find a single paper that states "this gene causes ADHD." However, you will find tens of thousands of papers that address individual genetic components that demonstrate statistically high correlation with the presence of ADHD and related condition, or with the presence of a particular symptom that is common to ADHD.

Despite boatloads of evidence of genetic correlations and even genetic causation for many, many, many things, you won't find scientific research that says "genes cause ADHD" any more easily than you would if your search were "food causes cancer" or "sadness causes depression."

Genes are the foundation that builds us, but there are about 24,000 of them in each individual, and they're combinations of what is inherited randomly from two other unique individuals. It has to be narrowed down from 24,000 to a much, much smaller number to stand any chance of being valid.


Well so far, at the present time,

unless anyone presents any information other wise?

The idea that genes alone cause ADD is untrue?

Which means if I understand correctly,

genes are components of ADD,

and there are other components to ADD besides genes?

Genes are not the only factors.

Right?


.

atSWIMtooboreds
04-24-13, 03:37 PM
Well so far, at the present time,

unless anyone presents any information other wise?

The idea that genes alone cause ADD is untrue?

Which means if I understand correctly,

genes are components of ADD,

and there are other components to ADD besides genes?

Genes are not the only factors.

Right?


.

If it's untrue, it's untrue point blank, not just at the present moment. Anyway, we often use the word "cause" without meaning "is/are the only cause for". For example, I might say "The rain caused me to stay in tonight" even if, under certain circumstances, I might have gone out despite the rain. "Cause" generally just means a really important factor. And, as Amtram outlined (her posts are very consistently very informative!), genes are definitely a really important factor in ADHD.

mildadhd
04-24-13, 04:07 PM
If it's untrue, it's untrue point blank, not just at the present moment. Anyway, we often use the word "cause" without meaning "is/are the only cause for". For example, I might say "The rain caused me to stay in tonight" even if, under certain circumstances, I might have gone out despite the rain. "Cause" generally just means a really important factor. And, as Amtram outlined (her posts are very consistently very informative!), genes are definitely a really important factor in ADHD.




Don't disagree.

Genes are factors.

Amtram knows a lot about genetic factors.

Amtram
04-24-13, 07:40 PM
And that, Peripheral, is why we have people whose families have high rates of ADHD ending up without it, or ending up with autism instead, or ending up with one or two behaviors but not the whole disorder. You're combining a random collection of gene-containing chromosomes from one person with a random collection of gene-containing chromosomes from another. In some cases one set of chromosomes has absolute say; in others, they combine in unique ways; in others a dominant gene seems to have won out, but the non-dominant one is still there in the individual's genetic makeup waiting to appear in a different generation.

Take something simple - eye color. Back in the old days, we were taught a very simple formula of gene dominance. Blue eyes were recessive, brown eyes were dominant. Simple. End of story. However. . .both my parents have blue eyes, and all four of my grandparents had blue eyes. . .my eyes are hazel, my youngest sister's are greenish-brown, and my other sister's and my brother's eyes a deep brown. So eye color isn't so simple, after all - somewhere in our family history, that "dominant" brown eye gene lay hidden until meiosis decided to plop it into the chromosomes of a sperm or an egg that just happened to meet up and make me or one of my siblings.

And. . .the chromosome that determines eye color is not the same as the ones that determine the shape of the eye, or build the retina, or connect the optic nerves to the brain, or build the occipital lobe that interprets what is seen and sends it off the part of the brain that will understand it.

And. . .even if your eye is extremely like the eyes of one parent or another, even to the point of needing the same prescription glasses as that parent, its cells still die off and are replaced, and you can still do things to and with those eyes that can make them work better or worse.

But your eye was built in its original form by the genetic contributions from the chromosomes of your parents and their parents and so on through time. Even when there is cause and effect, it's not necessarily a one-to-one ratio.

I'm going to stop before this gets too big, but I hope I'm making sense so far.

mildadhd
04-24-13, 08:55 PM
Amtram,

I've always wanted to discuss these topics with you,

because your knowledge of the genetic side of things is strong.

But we always seem to get side tracked for what ever reason.


If we are discussing eyesight,

I agree there is genetic factors in the development of eyesight.

But there is also environmental factors like light that are required to complete development.

No exposure to light stimuli, no eyesight is the result.


My understanding is that prefrontal cortex also has genetic factors,

and environmental factors like attachment which is required to complete healthy development of self regulation.

No exposure to attachment stimuli, lack of self regulation is the result.




So if even if there is no genetic predisposition,

development could still be interrupted,

if either light (in the case of eyesight) and attachment (in the case of self regulation) is lacking.


(during critical time of development)(rapid rate of development) (most environmentally influences period of development)

Before the age of 4 (In regards to healthy development of self regulation)


I will stop here and see what you and other peoples opinions are.

(I also agree that some people have "a stronger" predisposition than others that can make gene expression more likely)

But predisposition is not required if the stimulus for healthy development is lacking.

(research provided upon request)

There is more to this but I want to keep the explanation as simple as possible.

.

Amtram
04-25-13, 12:11 PM
That's true, but I was hoping that I was illustrating in a clear way that genetics do one thing, experiences and exposures do another. Covering the kittens' eyes makes them lose their sight, but it doesn't make their eyes go away.

And it doesn't make them lose their sight simply because the eyes aren't stimulated. . .it also prevents the neural connections that would be made from experiencing visual stimuli from being made. If the cats gradually became physically able to see, they would still act like blind cats because all the brain activity that is activated by sight would have simply not happened, while all the rest of their brain activity unrelated to sight would progress as it normally would if the kitten were born blind in the first place.

This has been studied in people, too. People who have had sight restored after being blind often never perceive what they see normally enough to function fully as seeing people, because the blindness affected their brain development. The physical parts of the brain that process visual input do not react to it, and haven't formed the connections with the other parts of the brain needed to interpret it.

Another phenomenon we've observed in humans is brain blindness. . .there is absolutely nothing wrong with the eyes, and they're sending messages through the optic nerves into the brain, but because there has been damage to the occipital lobe, they are unable to recognize that they are seeing. They can maneuver around familiar spaces without bumping into things, and some of them can even get around quite well in unfamiliar places as well - but they don't know that they're doing it. They will know that you moved their favorite chair, and go sit down in it in its new place, but they will claim that they couldn't see it, or see that it had been moved.

We've learned a lot about how the brain works by studying brains that have been damaged in particular places, and that's how we know what we do about what parts do what. It's also how we know what many parts do when they're working normally, and and when they're not.

If a function that's controlled by a specific brain area is not normal, then clearly there's something wrong with that brain area. If there has been no physical trauma, then it was built wrong. If it was built wrong, and there has been no chemical factor prior to the malfunction that's directly associated with that specific area being built wrong, then we know it was built "right" according to genetic programming as the person was being formed before birth.

When we find something that runs in families to such a high degree that we can't dismiss heritability as a factor, that only reinforces that.

mctavish23
04-25-13, 12:50 PM
"Peri/Geri,"

The evidence is overwhelming; so much so, that it makes the question posed similar to

asking if the disorder is real?

I'll refer you to the (still) "landmark" molecular genetics study of Cook, et. al. (1995).

If you don't feel like reading the whole thing, then at least take a look at the "short"

version, contained in the U.S. Surgeon General's Report on Mental Health, Chapter 3 -

-Disorders of Infancy, Childhood, and Adolescents.

It's still looked at as "landmark" after 18 years.

Hope that helps to ANSWER the question posed.

tc

mctavish23

(Robert)

mildadhd
04-25-13, 12:55 PM
That's true, but I was hoping that I was illustrating in a clear way that genetics do one thing, experiences and exposures do another. -Amtram


This is where our the conversation always goes astray.

When discussing early brain development of higher cortical areas.

Experiences and exposure are actual factors in what genes are expressed. (not separate)


(there is more to this but I will stop here for discussion)

(research provided upon request)


.

mildadhd
04-25-13, 01:01 PM
"Peri/Geri,"

The evidence is overwhelming; so much so, that it makes the question posed similar to

asking if the disorder is real?

I'll refer you to the (still) "landmark" molecular genetics study of Cook, et. al. (1995).

If you don't feel like reading the whole thing, then at least take a look at the "short"

version, contained in the U.S. Surgeon General's Report on Mental Health, Chapter 3 -

-Disorders of Infancy, Childhood, and Adolescents.

It's still looked at as "landmark" after 18 years.

Hope that helps to ANSWER the question posed.

tc

mctavish23

(Robert)


I will check out the information and get back to you.

I would like to ask you some questions.


Are you saying that genes are the only factor in genetic expression (concerning ADD)?

Are you saying that genes cause ADD alone?


.

mildadhd
04-25-13, 01:18 PM
"Peri/Geri,"

The evidence is overwhelming; so much so, that it makes the question posed similar to

asking if the disorder is real?

I'll refer you to the (still) "landmark" molecular genetics study of Cook, et. al. (1995).

If you don't feel like reading the whole thing, then at least take a look at the "short"

version, contained in the U.S. Surgeon General's Report on Mental Health, Chapter 3 -

-Disorders of Infancy, Childhood, and Adolescents.

It's still looked at as "landmark" after 18 years.

Hope that helps to ANSWER the question posed.

tc

mctavish23

(Robert)

Is there a link to the material,

I put in the title you provided in the search,

but don't think it is the right information that you want me to read?

Lunacie
04-25-13, 02:18 PM
I will check out the information and get back to you.

I would like to ask you some questions.


Are you saying that genes are the only factor in genetic expression (concerning ADD)?

Are you saying that genes cause ADD alone?


.

Peri/Geri, you could ask every member of the forum, but the answer won't change.
No one really knows what the exact causes of ADHD are.

Genetics appear to play a large part, and environment may also play a role.
We don't know if they do, or how they do, but they both may.

Amtram
04-25-13, 02:41 PM
I think the biggest problem is that when you argue that it's an either/or dichotomy, you toss out the MOST IMPORTANT aspect of all of it - the sheer complexity of either one.

Genes are what start the ball rolling for life - you can do everything right during your pregnancy (if you're female, of course) but you can't change the genes you've given your child - and if there's a problem built into the genetic code, nothing you do prenatally or postnatally is going to change that. If you pass on your eye color or your allergies or your musical aptitude. . .or one or more brain structures that cause you symptoms of ADHD or anxiety or autism. . .those genes are there. Before there's any environmental influence to speak of, those genes are at work building every single cell of a new human being.

And to make things even more complex, "gene expression" is even a pretty broad term. At the cellular level, "gene expression" means that this cell over here, with the same DNA as all the other cells, is a skin cell. This other cell with the same DNA, expresses itself as a cell in a heart valve. This cell up at the top, again with the same DNA as all the others, expresses itself as a neuron.

Changes can happen over time not only as a result of gene-environment interactions (psychological, physical, chemical) but also because of gene-gene interactions, or even simply because of normal changes associated with aging. Puberty brings hormones into the mix that were dormant before. Brain growth continues into the mid-20s in the frontal lobes, and that can be altered by the hormones, as well. Over time, cells that are created to replace cells that die off are imperfect copies of the originals - part of the process of aging we see outside and inside. Or sometimes, for no apparent reason, cells start reproducing wildly and cause various cancers - and we've found that some of them come from a signal in the DNA, and some of them come from a misinterpretation of a signal from the DNA - "replace this cell with a new one" becomes "make new cells! I don't care what kind of cells, just start making them!!"

If we reduce our possibilities to only two, either/or, then we will never, ever understand how either of them works. "Houses are made of either bricks or wood" is going to equal no houses being built at all.

mildadhd
04-25-13, 03:45 PM
I think the biggest problem is that when you argue that it's an either/or dichotomy, you toss out the MOST IMPORTANT aspect of all of it - the sheer complexity of either one.

Genes are what start the ball rolling for life - you can do everything right during your pregnancy (if you're female, of course) but you can't change the genes you've given your child - and if there's a problem built into the genetic code, nothing you do prenatally or postnatally is going to change that. If you pass on your eye color or your allergies or your musical aptitude. . .or one or more brain structures that cause you symptoms of ADHD or anxiety or autism. . .those genes are there. Before there's any environmental influence to speak of, those genes are at work building every single cell of a new human being.

And to make things even more complex, "gene expression" is even a pretty broad term. At the cellular level, "gene expression" means that this cell over here, with the same DNA as all the other cells, is a skin cell. This other cell with the same DNA, expresses itself as a cell in a heart valve. This cell up at the top, again with the same DNA as all the others, expresses itself as a neuron.

Changes can happen over time not only as a result of gene-environment interactions (psychological, physical, chemical) but also because of gene-gene interactions, or even simply because of normal changes associated with aging. Puberty brings hormones into the mix that were dormant before. Brain growth continues into the mid-20s in the frontal lobes, and that can be altered by the hormones, as well. Over time, cells that are created to replace cells that die off are imperfect copies of the originals - part of the process of aging we see outside and inside. Or sometimes, for no apparent reason, cells start reproducing wildly and cause various cancers - and we've found that some of them come from a signal in the DNA, and some of them come from a misinterpretation of a signal from the DNA - "replace this cell with a new one" becomes "make new cells! I don't care what kind of cells, just start making them!!"

If we reduce our possibilities to only two, either/or, then we will never, ever understand how either of them works. "Houses are made of either bricks or wood" is going to equal no houses being built at all.


I am trying to keep things simple so people can understand.

I've always held the opinion that it is both (or more)


(in the examples below, lets say there is no ADD genetic predisposition.)


Can self regulation develop without attachment?

No.

Can eyesight develop without exposure to light?

No.


Genes are involved in these examples,

but I don't even need to bring up genes in this conversation,

in these examples,

and impairment would be the results.


Do genes cause these impairment in these examples?

No.


So there is obviously other factors other than genes involved in the cause of these impairments,

in these examples.


.

atSWIMtooboreds
04-25-13, 03:49 PM
I am trying to keep things simple so people can understand.

I've always held the opinion that it is both (or more)


Can self regulation develop without attachment?

No.

Can eyesight develop without exposure to light?

No.


Genes are involved in these examples,

but I don't even need to bring up genes in this conversation,

in these examples,

that can result in impairments.

Do genes cause these impairment in these examples.

No.

So there is obviously other factors other than genes involved in the cause of these impairments, in these examples.

That's a different question entirely. Obviously you could impair someone's executive function or their dopaminergic system or whatever we think is behind the ADHD without their genes being involved. For example, you might, like, punch them in the dopaminergic system, or lobotomize part of their prefrontal cortex or something like that. But that's not even worth noting. That's like saying, "It's not your genes that made you tall, it's the fact that I never cut off your head." Really just not worth discussion.

mildadhd
04-25-13, 04:04 PM
That's a different question entirely. Obviously you could impair someone's executive function or their dopaminergic system or whatever we think is behind the ADHD without their genes being involved. For example, you might, like, punch them in the dopaminergic system, or lobotomize part of their prefrontal cortex or something like that. But that's not even worth noting. That's like saying, "It's not your genes that made you tall, it's the fact that I never cut off your head." Really just not worth discussion.


If I plant 3 plant seeds all with the same DNA.

one in light,

one in shade,

one in light/shade

(all other variables the same)

Are all 3 plants going to grow the same size?

No


Did the genes cause a difference in plant size,

or did the environment influence gene expression?


The environment influence gene expression resulting in different sizes.



Was the genes the cause of differences in plant size?

No


Were genes involved?

yes

atSWIMtooboreds
04-25-13, 04:12 PM
If I plant 3 plant seeds all with the same DNA.

one in light,

one in shade,

one in light/shade

(all other variables the same)

Are all 3 plants going to grow the same size?

No


Did the genes cause a difference in plant size,

or did the environment influence gene expression?


The environment influence gene expression resulting in different sizes.



Was the genes the cause of differences in plant size?

No


Where genes involved?

yes

As I said above, this is just obvious, and I doubt anyone will disagree with it at all. If you have more specific claims about what non-genetic factors play into ADHD and how important they are, you might start to be saying something substantive enough that others will take issue with it. For now you just seem to be saying things everybody knows and directing them against a very extreme view ("genes are 'the only cause' of ADHD") that nobody actually holds.

mildadhd
04-25-13, 04:29 PM
As I said above, this is just obvious, and I doubt anyone will disagree with it at all. If you have more specific claims about what non-genetic factors play into ADHD and how important they are, you might start to be saying something substantive enough that others will take issue with it. For now you just seem to be saying things everybody knows and directing them against a very extreme view ("genes are 'the only cause' of ADHD") that nobody actually holds.


If it is OK to say that genes cause ADD,

and genes and environment are both involved/required,

then I guess it will be OK for me to say environment causes ADD?

With the same idea that both genes and environment are involved, and everyone agrees.

The same concept while referring only to environment as the cause of ADD (instead of genetics) shouldn't be misleading?



http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1477558#post1477558




.

Lunacie
04-25-13, 04:54 PM
As I said above, this is just obvious, and I doubt anyone will disagree with it at all. If you have more specific claims about what non-genetic factors play into ADHD and how important they are, you might start to be saying something substantive enough that others will take issue with it. For now you just seem to be saying things everybody knows and directing them against a very extreme view ("genes are 'the only cause' of ADHD") that nobody actually holds.

If it is OK to say that genes cause ADD,

and genes and environment are both involved/required,

then I guess it will be OK for me to say environment causes ADD?

With the same idea that both genes and environment are involved, and everyone agrees.

The same concept while referring only to environment as the cause of ADD (instead of genetics) shouldn't be misleading?


http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1477558#post1477558
.

But that's not what atSWIMtooboreds said. I haven't seen anyone say that.

Amtram
04-25-13, 05:10 PM
The problem is that nobody who understands genetics says "genes cause ADHD." The only appropriate use of "genes cause" is when there is a direct correlation between a single gene and a single outcome - or, in much rarer cases, in which the presence of the gene is only among people with the outcome and never in people without it.

However, as we unravel the genome, we find more and more very specific outcomes (mostly neutral, not "good" or "bad") from specific genes - in fact, we breed laboratory animals to have individual genes especially for the purpose of exploring what those genes do and what happens if we manipulate them or expose them to different variables.

In fact, since the gene is responsible for the creation of cells, it's much easier to establish a cause and effect and recreate it for research purposes. As far as environment, we are much more limited, except when it comes to chemicals and pathogens, because the human experience is so varied.

And in this, the statistics matter. If you take a single, specific environmental factor and measure it against the presence or absence of ADHD, and it comes up almost the same one way or another (for example, if people exposed to chemical A show a rate of ADHD that's only slightly higher than the norm, it's an indication that chemical A doesn't cause ADHD. If you take people with ADHD and without ADHD and find that both populations show similar percentages were exposed to chemical A, that also indicates that chemical A doesn't cause ADHD) then you need to move on to something else.

If you look at some of the other chemical exposures that have been measured and chart them on a graph, and put those graphs side by side with graphs showing ADHD diagnoses, they will look nothing alike. A graph, for example, of lead exposure based on ppm in blood samples over the last 50 years is a downward line that approaches zero. A chart showing ADHD diagnoses over the last 50 years, even if it includes only childhood diagnoses, inches upwards slightly. How could you look at a chart with a line that goes down to almost nothing next to a chart that goes up only a tiny bit and conclude that the thing measured in the first chart is causing the thing that's measured in the second chart? It would make no sense!

mildadhd
04-25-13, 05:14 PM
The problem is that nobody who understands genetics says "genes cause ADHD." The only appropriate use of "genes cause" is when there is a direct correlation between a single gene and a single outcome - or, in much rarer cases, in which the presence of the gene is only among people with the outcome and never in people without it.

However, as we unravel the genome, we find more and more very specific outcomes (mostly neutral, not "good" or "bad") from specific genes - in fact, we breed laboratory animals to have individual genes especially for the purpose of exploring what those genes do and what happens if we manipulate them or expose them to different variables.

In fact, since the gene is responsible for the creation of cells, it's much easier to establish a cause and effect and recreate it for research purposes. As far as environment, we are much more limited, except when it comes to chemicals and pathogens, because the human experience is so varied.

And in this, the statistics matter. If you take a single, specific environmental factor and measure it against the presence or absence of ADHD, and it comes up almost the same one way or another (for example, if people exposed to chemical A show a rate of ADHD that's only slightly higher than the norm, it's an indication that chemical A doesn't cause ADHD. If you take people with ADHD and without ADHD and find that both populations show similar percentages were exposed to chemical A, that also indicates that chemical A doesn't cause ADHD) then you need to move on to something else.

If you look at some of the other chemical exposures that have been measured and chart them on a graph, and put those graphs side by side with graphs showing ADHD diagnoses, they will look nothing alike. A graph, for example, of lead exposure based on ppm in blood samples over the last 50 years is a downward line that approaches zero. A chart showing ADHD diagnoses over the last 50 years, even if it includes only childhood diagnoses, inches upwards slightly. How could you look at a chart with a line that goes down to almost nothing next to a chart that goes up only a tiny bit and conclude that the thing measured in the first chart is causing the thing that's measured in the second chart? It would make no sense!

What about RAD (reactive attachment disorder) I am guessing that there are genes involved?

Is RAD genetic?

Amtram
04-25-13, 05:27 PM
Never heard of it, so I don't know. I'm far behind enough in my reading as it is, so I'm not even going to start looking for it.

mildadhd
04-25-13, 05:37 PM
Never heard of it, so I don't know. I'm far behind enough in my reading as it is, so I'm not even going to start looking for it.

I'm getting a good idea why some people need to lean toward environment,

to be heard.

In my opinion I think the biggest problem in our conversations, is you don't look at the whole picture.

I will look for the genes that cause RAD.

And get back to you.

mildadhd
04-25-13, 06:05 PM
I'm not making any conclusions yet, but I wanted to present this information for discussion.


Dopamine D4 receptor (DRD4) gene polymorphism is associated with attachment disorganization in infants.

Abstract
About 15% of one-year-old infants in non-clinical, low-risk and up to 80% in high-risk (eg maltreated) populations show extensive disorganized attachment behavior(1,2) in the Strange Situation Test.(3) It has also been reported that disorganization of early attachment is a major risk factor for the development of childhood behavior problems.(4) The collapse of organized attachment strategy has been explained primarily by inappropriate caregiving, but recently, the contribution of child factors such as neurological impairments and neonatal behavioral organization(6) has also been suggested. Here we report an association between the DRD4 III exon 48-bp repeat polymorphism and attachment disorganization. Attachment behavior of 90 infants was tested in the Strange Situation and they were independently genotyped for the number of the 48-bp repeats by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The 7-repeat allele was represented with a significantly higher frequency in infants classified as disorganized compared to non-disorganized infants: 12 of 17 (71%) vs 21 of 73 (29%) had at least one 7-repeat allele (chi2 = 8.66, df = 1, P < 0.005). The estimated relative risk for disorganized attachment among children carrying the 7-repeat allele was 4.15. We suggest that, in non-clinical, low-social-risk populations, having a 7-repeat allele predisposes infants to attachment disorganization.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11126393?dopt=Abstract

Amtram
04-28-13, 07:48 PM
If you think about it, anything that influences dopamine processing could have a connection with anything related to inappropriate pleasure responses. Without the neurochemical reward system working properly, normal emotional interactions between adult and infant are going to take a hit.

mildadhd
04-28-13, 07:56 PM
If you think about it, anything that influences dopamine processing could have a connection with anything related to inappropriate pleasure responses. Without the neurochemical reward system working properly, normal emotional interactions between adult and infant are going to take a hit.


Exactly the reason why understanding the relationship between attachment and a hypersenstive infant, is so essential.

SB_UK
04-29-13, 04:23 AM
Exactly the reason why understanding the relationship between attachment and a hypersenstive infant, is so essential.

Attachment (pair-bonding) supplies reward.
Reward is a problem in ADHD.
Stressed mother cannot attach.
Stressed mother deranges child reward machinery resulting in increased need for reward system activation (eg excess eating, ADHD medication).
Even if kid could attach - would kiddy get sufficient reward with a deranged reward system ?

The road to Hell is signposted.

What do we need to know about genetics ? - absolutely nothing.

We correct the problems by first and foremost - preventing a mother from being stressed by preventing human beings from needing money to acquire the basics of human survival - food (low calorie raw vegan ketogenic) and shelter.

Away from stress - mother will have appropriately developed baby, will have the peace of mind to attach - and through stress elimination - will not reach for the wrong foods in stress relief.

To clarify - the study of genetics is of no use in preventing ADHD - and is, in fact, a large part of the problem - as people ignore societal change for a list of novel genes and drugs (which will never be forthcoming) to treat their disease.

The analysis of genes ('Thrifty gene' hypothesis) can be performed to understand ADDer's altered dietary needs (optimal profile of food to maintain physiological state) - though once again, it's not necessary - just try out some ADDers on a diet and observe ... ... and we'll find that a low cal. raw vegan ketogenic diet 'll be optimal.

So - the (epi)genetic and environmental basis to ADHD and the mechanism of prevention of the disorder element in ADHD/Thrifty (epi)genome is provided.

Amtram
04-29-13, 08:58 AM
Peripheral, have you looked into any of the free Coursera classes? You've missed the first week, but you can catch up, because they don't take the videos down. This one, Genes and the Human Condition (https://www.coursera.org/course/genes?from_restricted_preview=1&cid=970365&r=https%3A%2F%2Fclass.coursera.org%2Fgenes-001%2Fauth%2Fauth_redirector%3Ftype%3Dlogin%26subt ype%3Dnormal%26visiting%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fclas s.coursera.org%252Fgenes-001%252Fclass%252Findex) is broken down into five short videos per week, with the powerpoint text and illustrations laid over the speaker, so you can pause, go back, and review the information at any time. I'm a week behind, too, but I started watching last week's videos to catch up, and it seems to be understandable and uses a few analogies I hadn't heard before that might click for you, too.

Since there's no obligation and no rush unless you decide that you want to get a certificate that says you completed the course, you can take it at your own pace. I thought of you while I was watching, because I thought that the way it was organized it might give you just the kind of information you've been looking for.

meadd823
04-29-13, 10:49 AM
As a moderator I am expected to keep thread on track.


In reading most of this thread it appears that we are heading down the same path as the one already in progress on the the principle of parsimony (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=143603)


Once enviroment gets placed into the mix we end up in the same discussion / argument which is painfully redundant and basically un-necessary.


Unless a merge of this thread with the principle of parsimony thread is desired I would suggest that only the genetics portion be taken into account for the sake of topic clarity. {as well as this moderators sanity}


Simply stated we already have a thread about genes versus environment in progress we do not need a second.

Keep this thread's topic to addressing ONLY the genetics other wise I am merging the two threads together.

Dizfriz
04-29-13, 02:38 PM
Peripheral, have you looked into any of the free Coursera classes? You've missed the first week, but you can catch up, because they don't take the videos down. This one, Genes and the Human Condition (https://www.coursera.org/course/genes?from_restricted_preview=1&cid=970365&r=https%3A%2F%2Fclass.coursera.org%2Fgenes-001%2Fauth%2Fauth_redirector%3Ftype%3Dlogin%26subt ype%3Dnormal%26visiting%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fclas s.coursera.org%252Fgenes-001%252Fclass%252Findex) is broken down into five short videos per week, with the powerpoint text and illustrations laid over the speaker, so you can pause, go back, and review the information at any time. I'm a week behind, too, but I started watching last week's videos to catch up, and it seems to be understandable and uses a few analogies I hadn't heard before that might click for you, too.

Since there's no obligation and no rush unless you decide that you want to get a certificate that says you completed the course, you can take it at your own pace. I thought of you while I was watching, because I thought that the way it was organized it might give you just the kind of information you've been looking for.

Peri,

These are the courses I am either have taken, are taking or have enrolled in. All are relevant to ADHD.


"Pay Attention!!" ADHD Through the Lifespan
Mar 18thJun 10th
University of Pennsylvania
Mar 31st (9 weeks long)
I highly suggest this one. The instructor comes from a medical orientation and approaches it from that point of view. While mostly agreeing with Barkley, he has another way of looking at the disorder that might be useful to you. He gives a good discussion on the role of genetics and ADHD.

I am getting a lot out of the course and can highly recommend it for you. I think you can still enroll.

Synapses, Neurons and Brains
Mar 31stJun 2nd
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Apr 22nd (6 weeks long)
I am not sure about this one yet. The instructor breaks each week into a number of small segments. That does not fit all that well with how I work but it might work well for others.

Genes and the Human Condition (From Behavior to Biotechnology)
Apr 22ndJun 3rd
University of Maryland, College Park
Jul 1st (6 weeks long)
Just getting ready to start this one.

Epigenetic Control of Gene Expression
Starts in 2 months
University of Melbourne
Really looking forward to this one!

Introduction to Genetics and Evolution
Duke University (12 weeks)
Ended a month ago
Starts again Jan 4
I got a lot out of it.

Basic Behavioral Neurology
University of Pennsylvania
Date: TBA
Sounds interesting.

I might suggest two for you: I highly recommend "Pay Attention) and the one recommend by Amtram Genes and the Human Condition (https://www.coursera.org/course/genes?from_restricted_preview=1&cid=970365&r=https%3A%2F%2Fclass.coursera.org%2Fgenes-001%2Fauth%2Fauth_redirector%3Ftype%3Dlogin%26subt ype%3Dnormal%26visiting%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fclas s.coursera.org%252Fgenes-001%252Fclass%252Findex) . I would tend to trust her recommendation and signed up based on it.

What I do is to download the lectures and look at them as time permits as I am not after a certificate. I still have two more weeks lecture to watch in the basic genetics course.

Again, they are free and there is no obligation to finish or anything else when signing up.

I saw Amtram's post in passing and wanted to add this information for you.

Dizfriz

Lunacie
04-29-13, 02:45 PM
Thank you for pointing out the courses are free, Dizfriz. I'm going to check
out the first one you linked to.

Spacemaster
04-29-13, 07:23 PM
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3245028/

Sorry if this has been posted already. I'll admit that I'm not too knowledgeable about the "genes" part of ADHD study. I believe that genes are the *start* to the problem, and then other factors can aggravate it or increase severity. I also believe that those other factors don't necessarily need to be present to *cause* ADHD, but they will greatly increase the chance of getting it.

Again, I really don't know very much about the genetics end of it.

Lunacie
04-29-13, 07:59 PM
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3245028/

Sorry if this has been posted already. I'll admit that I'm not too knowledgeable about the "genes" part of ADHD study. I believe that genes are the *start* to the problem, and then other factors can aggravate it or increase severity. I also believe that those other factors don't necessarily need to be present to *cause* ADHD, but they will greatly increase the chance of getting it.

Again, I really don't know very much about the genetics end of it.

Thank you, that study is new to me.

What you wrote is also how I understand the roles of genetics and environment.

Amtram
04-29-13, 08:52 PM
There have been a few other direct links to individual pages in the article mentioned in the abstract. . .but here's the home page: http://adhd.psych.ac.cn/index.do There is a tutorial on how to use it, and a lot of charts and lists. Not all of it is going to be useful, but it's a good collection of information.

mildadhd
05-05-13, 03:23 PM
I don't doubt genes are involved,

but does anyone have any evidence that genes cause ADD?

People have the genes related to ADD, but don't have ADD.

Just because genes are involved doesn't mean genes cause ADD.

I don't see any evidence so far that ADD is caused by genes?

mctavish23
05-06-13, 12:07 AM
Okay,

The EXACT Etiology is Unknown.

The Possible Causes Implicated To Date Are :

1) Neurotransmitter Deficits - Beginning with the Biogenic Amine Hypothesis;

2) Genetics - Beginning With Cook et. al. (1995) Genetic Marker Found;

3) Birth Complications - Pre + Peri-natal + Brain Injuries.

Check Out U. S. Surgeon General's Report on Mental Illness - Chapter 3

Hope that helps.

Robert

SB_UK
05-06-13, 02:56 AM
What do you think ?

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-the-zone/201107/adhd-inflammatory-condition

General idea is right.

What's the major cause of inflammation ?

LPS.

How might LPS enter the body ?
sub-spoilage processed food/animal products -> hitchhike on long chain Saturated fatty acids (lauric, myristic, palmitic acid) --- via Toll-like receptors / chylomicron --- cross gastric mucosa -> inflammation.

It's the obvious answer.

What's the apparently 'genetic' propensity ?
Stress sensitivity (leading to cortisol resistance under stress (eg processed grain/sugar consumption)) - which will remove our defences (eliminating anti-inflammatory sensitivity) from pro-inflammatory food-based (note gram neg. bacteria can be alive or dead -> no difference in effect) -> ADHD (hypothalamic inflammation).

ConcertaParent
05-06-13, 01:45 PM
So Barry Sears wants me to give my child ten times the Omega-3 that has been recommended by the psychiatrist and other specialists?
"7.5 and 10 grams per day of omega-3 fatty acids"
What do you think ?
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...tory-condition