Here is a local news story (Okinawa) that I don't think has made the English-language media yet, so I will share a rough translation of it here.

==================
17 February 2006, Okinawa Times (http://www.okinawatimes.co.jp/eng/)

Gene Found to Cause ADHD
Discovered by Kenji Naritomi of University of the Ryukyus

A team of genetic researchers from the University of the Ryukyus Faculty of Medicine consisting of professor Kenji Naritomi, assistant professor Tadashi Kaname, and research assistant Kumiko Yanagi has recently discovered a gene thought to be a cause of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This is the first time in the world a gene has been found to cause ADHD. The results will be announced in the US medical journal American Journal of Medical Genetics in the near future.

ADHD is a developmental disorder that, while not characterized by mental retardation, includes such features as restlessness and a tendency to interrupt. The X sex chromosome had been thought to be a cause of ADHD due to the fact that eight times as many boys have it as girls, but this had not been proven.

This discovery has increased the chances that an accurate diagnosis at a medical level will become possible, and opens the path to a treatment.

According to a study by a team of US researchers, 5–10% of children develop ADHD by puberty. Although this has been researched worldwide, it had not progressed beyond conjectures as to the general location of genes thought to be causative.

Professor Naritomi's team studied the X chromosomes of two boys who had both ADHD and Aarskog Syndrome, a genetic abnormality causing short stature and other symptoms, and found that both had common abnormalities in a gene called FGD1. The study showed that there is a high probability that this gene is deeply implicated in the occurrence of ADHD.

"I think this will be a vital piece of information for researchers around the world," commented Naritomi. "I hope it opens the door to a treatment."

Article in Japanese:
http://www.okinawatimes.co.jp/day/200602171300_06.html
==================

Very interesting article -- thanks for translating it Uminchu!:)

So thats it? The Scientologists et al say uncle? :)
Yes...I know...it would never be that simple.

Not that simple, but maybe we can find out if ADD and ADHD are the same or different disorders!:D

This article put a lot of questions in my mind, like the 8-to-1 difference in boys and girls. I think the latest research says the ratio is lower, but that girls are less likely to be spotted due to cultural biases and less hyperactivity.

But this is a newspaper article, and they tend to dumb down subtleties. I guess we will have to wait for the scientific publication to get more details.

By the way, I had to edit the article because I spelled the name of the gene wrong! A translator I am, geneticist I am not. :p

Not that simple, but maybe we can find out if ADD and ADHD are the same or different disorders!:D
I bet someday we'll learn that the only connection between these two conditions is the attention-related effects, other than that, it's like night and day and that's why so many ADD'ers remain undiagnosed. Just my opinion.

I bet someday we'll learn that the only connection between these two conditions is the attention-related effects, other than that, it's like night and day and that's why so many ADD'ers remain undiagnosed. Just my opinion.You ought to look around the threads for the discussion of Russell Barkley's research/belief about what he calls Slow Cognitive Tempo -- he believes they are totally different disorders. You might find it interesting.

Scattered

I'm starting to lean back towards the idea that they are not two totally different conditions. They still share many things.

Hmm... That's interesting.

What concerns me is that they say both boys had two disorders.
What would lead them to believe that the abnormality they found could be the cause of ADHD and not Aarskog Syndrome?

Uminchu, did you see anything addressing that?

Thanks for posting that.

A sample size of two is never going to cut it, but at least it's a start.

Hmm... That's interesting.

What concerns me is that they say both boys had two disorders.
What would lead them to believe that the abnormality they found could be the cause of ADHD and not Aarskog Syndrome?

Uminchu, did you see anything addressing that?No, what you see in the article is basically it. I think we will have to wait until the results are published to know more.

I suspect this is a premature etiologization of genetic material. :D

But thanks for the heads up.

Hey guys,

23McTavishes have it 'spot' on ... here's why ...

One of the frequent observations that one will make over the scientific publication, is of a subtle subtext that is included to instigate a modicum of non-toxic hype around one's findings ... *all* towards securing that next grant cheque or getting onto the lucrative lecture circuit to propound ones' theories; 'survival' might be another way of putting it. Academic research funding can be very difficult to come by, if the edges of the picture aren't shaded with 'in-yer-face' luminescent marker ink.

Although I may be doing a huge disservice to these guys (I don't believe I am though ... because we are all guilt of this to some extent) -- we are actually seeing the perfectly valid genetic basis of a relatively rare disease -- misleadingly aligned with a very common condition ... for purposes of netting the green-backed yen-equivalent turtle menace.

Fund researchers studying a condition known to just 2 or as many as 2-10 billion ...?... your call! ... I'm contrary and would choose 2, but then I'm Mary Mary and am quite contra- ... :-)

In the past, only scientists could access science, however with the Internet, we can now all access the latest ideas on some, any and (in fact) all subjects.

To do this effectively though, one needs to read between the lines of what has been written.

Funding committees are human and their members are just as susceptible to faddish 'man bites dog' headlines. The publication is the fodder that is fed to the funding committee, and the list of publications (and future work projections) ... the major determinant of likelihood of retention of funding.

Keep on top of this story guys, and I'll check it out with the researchers themselves, if you like.

I haven't been to Japan previously, but need to visit these guys ... http://www.nig.ac.jp/ ... regarding a World tie-up in decentralization, mirroring and collection of all information on life (science) using ... you know the deal ... GRID on XML ... distributed data (storage *and* processing) loveliness.

... Which reminds me, must visit Speedo and HF for a lesson on process parallelization.

Our collaboration will be offered over the Internet without the moniker of any single country (i.e. a .org domain) ... a world community, if you like, kinda' like this boy Big bad addforums.com ... By the way, have you ever tried it??? ... it's very good ... Doh!!!

In the first instance we'll involve 3 continents, and the chappies I'll be seeing are at the Japanese Institute of Genetics and so, if this story is continuing to burn brightly, and if this studys' researchers are geographically close to N.I.G. -- I'll pop in and check 'em out.

No worries :-) !

By the way -- that's the cool thing about academia; one may pop into tea on anyone ... though a preemptory email is considered polite.

And guys ... if you ever want a copy of a paper -- and the Journal is seeking to charge ... just email the authors requesting a .pdf, explaining your interest, and they'll oblige.

The author email details are almost always trivial to come by ...
PM me if you'd like some help ... or alternatively, post a title for a paper of some interest -- and I'll help you track down the perps :-)

It's that easy!

Honest :-) !

In the old days ( toothless :-) ), we had to send out official reprints on parchment, but since the dawn of electrickery Internet scary email pointandclickery ... we have changed our ways ...

So ... Uminchu ... if you want a copy of the paper ... email them ... and if they don't send you a copy ... email me ... I'll intervene :-)

The only proviso is that they'll hold off from sending you a copy until their paper has been officially accepted for publication; however, one shouldn't really need to worry about this issue ... because the way that it works ... is that the news stories are usually concomitant with publication release ... you know the deal ... drum up a little attention for all those concerned ... the Journal, Scientist, Research Institute and Funding agency ... each one needing to bask in the limelight to ensure their continued existence.

Science for all ... mostly 'cos it's fun ... :-), and as I mentioned to Andi a couple of days ago ... "Good spot, dude* (*now considered a unisex term of respect) !"

SB.

premature etiologization Rude boi! ... and ...
Wouldn't it be wise to keep your head down ("heads up"), given all of this premature excitement? And -- yes, I do mean further down than you currently think I am advocating that you sink to.

P.S. *a*etio... some 'Stans', eh ...?... :-)

Plato'd be turning in his gcave ... dude!
And don't think I'm being serious ... think Plato looking seriously into your eyes, and asking you for the whereabouts of your diphthong?
Yeah!!! - not comfortable, but we are such victims of fashion.

Or are you a 'Berk'?

I'm getting 'Davis', but your love of Sci-Fi or SF might lead me to think 'UCSF' ... more public ... less private ... yupsy ... you're UCSF.

SB.

Sure, there can be some exaggeration, but generally if they're dishonest they can lose funding if they don't show promising prelim findings or future funding.

I think what happens more often is that the media's summary is misleading and that's obvious when you compare it to the original publication.

I'm starting to lean back towards the idea that they are not two totally different conditions. They still share many things.I agree -- I was just teasing you!:p If they're two different disorder, than I have them both!:faint:

Actually, I find it unlikely that they have found "the" ADHD gene -- there's already pretty good evidence for D2R2, and a couple others I won't hazard to accurately name. But it's very interesting if they've found another piece of the puzzle!:D

Scattered

I am now starting to think that there may be as many as 6-8 different attention-related classifications! Thanks for the Barkley referral...think I have my doctoral dissertation figured out! I am going to make a Briggs-Meyer for what type of ADD do you have! LOL! I will need all your help! LOL!

Sounds interesting, Kokomo! Keep us posted!

Scattered

We read it the same way SB did. Note further, though, that at best this might establish a connection. Anyone looking for a cause is likely to be disappointed even if it does pan out. We also might expect statistical links to more than a single gene, but not the holy grail that Robert might hope for, I’m afraid: one for one type, one for another…


...Which reminds me, must visit Speedo and HF for a lesson on process parallelization…
too late… you might be able to talk about how you should have been doing it, along with this, at this then (as opposed to this now, not your this, but our this about your this then, now…) (grins…)

This is a really interesting thread. I honestly believe that both my parents had ADD/HD - although I have often wondered if my mother is bi-polar. Is there any information available in laymans terms? I don't understand a lot of the scientific aspects here - creative type me.

This is a really interesting thread. I honestly believe that both my parents had ADD/HD - although I have often wondered if my mother is bi-polar. Is there any information available in laymans terms? I don't understand a lot of the scientific aspects here - creative type me.Yes, there's is good information on the forums here and some excellent books out there. You Mean I'm Not Lazy, Stupid or Crazy by Kelly and Ramundo; Women with Attention Deficit Disorder by Sari Solden; and Driven to Distraction by Hallowell and Ratey are the 3 my therapist recommend are a good bet in my book. They are also very readable. I also liked Adult AD/HD by Novotni and Whiteman. John Ratey has a book out that looks at various mental disorders including ADHD and Bipolar called Shadow Syndromes. All of these books are quite readable for lay folks.

If they're not available locally you can order them from www.addwarehouse.com (http://www.addwarehouse.com/).

You can also go to www.schwablearning.com (http://www.schwablearning.com) and download free articles there about ADHD. Sam Goldstein has some very good ones.

Take care,
Scattered

Sure, there can be some exaggeration, but generally if they're dishonest they can lose funding if they don't show promising prelim findings or future funding.

I think what happens more often is that the media's summary is misleading and that's obvious when you compare it to the original publication.
I think SB’s describing the system, not those who intentionally go outside it. Dishonesty is gravy; what happens routinely might seem dishonest to us straight ADDers, but that’s the way the game is played.

This quote from the thread starter:


ADHD is a developmental disorder that, while not characterized by mental retardation, includes such features as restlessness and a tendency to interrupt. The X sex chromosome had been thought to be a cause of ADHD due to the fact that eight times as many boys have it as girls, but this had not been proven.
is a good example of how code phrases give you a clue to what’s going on behind the scenes, and supports your point, too.

We suspect at least some of the first part is a mix of what the researcher said and flawed casual information available to the writer and/or editors. The second bit seems to drift too far from scientific understanding for us to believe it came from the source implied.

So yes, we would expect the paper to reveal a more reasonable and staid take, especially given that it’s to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. But the back story is there, too: the researcher(s) interviewed probably didn’t go out of his/her way to steer the writer away from those ideas, either.

It’s a game, and the object is to try to grab the most toys when Santa hands them out each year. Dishonesty has nothing to do with it, as it’s played in the mainstream.

Unless, of course, you’re an ADDer. When the game is at this level, we either wouldn’t play or would hate ourselves for being sucked in. That’s exactly why we tend to distrust those who can play with no apparent attack of conscience.

--T&K

SB said "And don't think I'm being serious ... think Plato looking seriously into your eyes, and asking you for the whereabouts of your diphthong?"

Is 'dipthong' the Greek word for thong ? (0:
Hey...!!! Don't throw something at me, SB...I'm just trying make you laugh.


I have my own opinion on the differences between ADD and ADHD.
I believe we're as entitled to our opinions, as much as the doctors, researchers, and pharmaceutical companies. (0:


Namaste,
Nova

Aside:
This post is of tangential relationship to the subject of discussion.

Soliloquy:
That was then and this is now.

you might be able to talk about how you should have been doing it, along with this, at this then (as opposed to this now, not your this, but our this about your this then, now…) (grins…) How could I not see it? It was right there all this time? :-)

I can't believe you're pulling me into Ian's Tater field ... can't help myself ...

So ... {freedom}

That then defines my then, this ...ie... your then and now, as my now ... that then as a subset of your then and now, now our now, now then ... that my then resides within my now ... proof that ... ... ...

... please forgive me Mods ... for I am about to sin ... :-) ...

'that then (that then that I then had),
that then that had me,
now that then, that then did I see,
that that then, that then had had me,
now that then I have and now, your then and now has me
and here and now I see that that then, that then! back then --->
{ those trees, those trees ... :-) ... }
---> then then,
that then then that then, is that then and not now ...
... not this, this here and this now ...
. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... friend.'

SB.

Soliloquy ends.

Aside ends.

Is 'dipthong' the Greek word for thong ?

No silly :-)
It's Greek for slingshot ... twaeaeaeaeaeaeaeng ...

SB.

...isn’t that now three parallel threads-within-the-thread and counting?

I believe we're as entitled to our opinions, as much as the doctors, researchers, and pharmaceutical companies. (0:
Maybe more so.

If we’re correct about what causes this stuff, we ADDers are more likely to be using the analytical tool that allows us to ‘look inside’ and discern real patterns in our experience (read: symptoms).

It’s not that researchers don’t ‘have’ AD/HD, but rather that the normal way is strongly enforced; we all tend to adopt the commonly accepted models when we learn a professional discipline, and that includes learning to apply the prevailing type of model in use as well.

So even a researcher who has/is AD/HD is likely to think like a normal when at work. Us scientific types using the metamodel web are a rare but growing minority, in our experience.

What that means is that you’re more likely to have an unambiguous model of what you experience than someone using more limited logical tools.

As far as the gene(s) responsible, well, there has to be something genetic that determines how the neural machinery gets revved up, and to an extent what form it takes. Those genetic connections should show some relationship, although we expect for a while it will be a slippery one at best, exceedingly sensitive to the analysis.

Too much of what we see at work is the result of choices of a sort. We’re slowly learning to see those, and eventually we’ll develop conscious models to guide us to particular individual choices. This process is well under way in the general population, although still below the radar of most straight-ahead professionals.

And what that will do is change the stats, sliding them right out from underneath genetic studies such at the one that’s the subject of this thread. The holy grail of genetic connections is something like Tay-Sachs. No such hard biochemical mechanism has ever been identified in AD/HD, and so every genetic study suffers from a form of fuzziness due to the highly derivative nature of what they’re trying to explain.

Cool Like alot of things on this forum you begin to wounder how and Why people find it. Luckly we have a lot of members. ADHD Gene huh? Cool. Nothing like that really bothers me any more as my life seems to have found its way along the track.