OTSLPCohortMolecular autism2021

Touch and olfaction/taste differentiate children carrying a 16p11.2 deletion from children with ASD.

Joana Maria Almeida Osório, Borja Rodríguez-Herreros, David Romascano and 12 others

PMID 33546725

WHAT IT FOUND

Children with idiopathic autism showed more touch and taste/smell issues than children with a 16p11.2 deletion.

Both groups had higher sensory scores than typical children. The deletion group’s touch and taste/smell profiles looked more like typical children.

Key findings

01Touch and taste/smell were the only sensory domains that significantly differentiated children with idiopathic ASD from children carrying a 16p11.2 deletion.

02Children with 16p11.2 deletions scored higher than typically developing children on all sensory subscales except touch and taste/smell.

03Sensory issues were associated with social communication symptoms in both clinical groups, but not with repetitive behaviors or nonverbal IQ.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The study relies heavily on parent-report questionnaires, which can be influenced by caregiver bias. The sample size for the 16p11.2 deletion group was small (17 children), limiting statistical power. The laboratory tactile task was only performed on a small subset of participants, particularly few in the ASD group. Differences between the ASD and deletion groups were exploratory and require replication.

Declared interests

The research was supported by non-U.S. government funding. No specific commercial conflicts of interest were reported in the text provided.

The easy way to misread this

Do not assume that all children with autism share the same sensory profile. Children with 16p11.2 deletions may not have the touch and taste/smell difficulties typical of idiopathic autism, so interventions based on the latter may not fit the former.

Read it on PubMed →