As documented above, de novo genetic variation has an important role in risk for an ASD phenotype. From an evolutionary perspective, this is unsurprising because interest in reproductive success B-Raf assay is typically low in individuals with autism, such that genetic variants would be subject to negative selection. If inherited variation were to contribute significantly in ASD risk, it would need to be shielded, at least partly, from this selection [ 90]. Possible mechanisms

include sex-differential expression (i.e., 4:1 male:female), recessive inheritance [ 61], parent-of-origin effects (e.g., maternal 15q11–13 duplications), and gene–gene or gene–environment interactions [ 91]. In addition, variation must be replenished by de novo risk events at a rate matching the selection differential. Indeed CNV

and exome sequencing studies suggest that some 10–15% of ASD subjects carry a de novo risk variant and this value may rise as whole genome sequencing efforts reveal further previously undetected events. De novo events are ‘genetic’, and identifying them can yield deep insight into the biology of ASD, but they are not necessarily heritable variation in the traditional sense [ 92]. They also do not fit in the design of twin studies that estimate Baf-A1 chemical structure heritability from twin recurrence. Assuming strict independence of de novo events in dizygotic twins, de novo mutations play only a minor role in recurrence, but their impact increases as the probability of recurrence of de novo events within the same family increases. This within-family dependence has not been quantified, but the

fact that mutation rate is a function of parental age [ 93] and germline or gonadal mosaicism is evoked fairly often to explain concordant selleck kinase inhibitor mutations in ASD sibs (and other disorders) suggests the dependence is non-negligible. This and other features of twin study designs [ 94] limit their general applicability for accurate estimates of heritability. An important paper by Risch et al. [ 91] suggested that the inheritance patterns of ASD could be due to gene–gene interaction, but not simply to a few genes of major effect, even if they interacted to generate risk. Research in the past decade has begun to uncover numerous genes and loci and the mechanisms that govern their action, but there are hundreds of other ASD risk loci estimated to exist [ 20••, 38•, 80, 81 and 82] that await further genetic and functional characterization. Moreover, there has been rudimentary progress in identifying multiple ‘mutations’ in single individuals [ 95, 96 and 97], suggesting possible multigenic threshold models for ASD. These variants include multiple CNVs [ 95 and 96], smaller sequence-level changes [ 97], variants affecting apparent non-coding regions of the genome [ 20•• and 72•], and combinations of each [ 24 and 72•], all of which are predicted to be etiologic due to both the rarity in populations and the presumed damaging effect on the genes.