4.4 Article

Common variation in the autism risk gene CNTNAP2, brain structural connectivity and multisensory speech integration

Journal

BRAIN AND LANGUAGE
Volume 174, Issue -, Pages 50-60

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.bandl.2017.07.005

Keywords

CNTNAP2; Autism; Speech perception in noise; Multisensory; Iffusion tensor imaging; Mediation analysis; Fractional anisotropy; Language; Genetics; Tract based spatial statistics; Development; Connectome

Funding

  1. U.S. National Institute of Mental Health [NIMH RO1 MH085322]
  2. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development [NICHD U54 HD090260]
  3. Sheryl and Daniel R. Tishman Charitable Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Three lines of evidence motivated this study. 1) CNTNAP2 variation is associated with autism risk and speech-language development. 2) CNTNAP2 variations are associated with differences in white matter (WM) tracts comprising the speech-language circuitry. 3) Children with autism show impairment in multisensory speech perception. Here, we asked whether an autism risk-associated CNTNAP2 single nucleotide polymorphism in neurotypical adults was associated with multisensory speech perception performance, and whether such a genotype-phenotype association was mediated through white matter tract integrity in speech-language circuitry. Risk genotype at rs7794745 was associated with decreased benefit from visual speech and lower fractional anisotropy (FA) in several WM tracts (right precentral gyrus, left anterior corona radiata, right retrolenticular internal capsule). These structural connectivity differences were found to mediate the effect of genotype on audiovisual speech perception, shedding light on possible pathogenic pathways in autism and biological sources of inter-individual variation in audiovisual speech processing in neurotypicals. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available