As hypothesized, multiple brain regions were found to have GM volume differences between the FXS and autism groups. Four regions were observed to be significantly larger in the FXS group relative to both the autism and control groups in our separate group analyses, as well as in our conjunction analyses: the left middle and superior frontal gyri; and the left and right caudate nuclei. An increased caudate nucleus is among the most consistent neuroanatomical findings for FXS. The caudate together with the putamen forms the striatum, which is involved in neural circuits linking the basal ganglia to the cortex, with the most numerous of these to frontal cortex. Frontostriatal circuits are important for executive functions such as selection and perception of pertinent information, behavioral control and adaptation, and manipulation of information held in working memory (
Chudasama and Robbins, 2006). As a result, frontostriatal dysfunction is thought to contribute to the behavioral phenotype of FXS, which includes executive function impairments, perseveration in language and behavior, attention problems, hyperactivity, and deficits in impulse control (
Hagerman, 1997;
Hjalgrim et al., 1999;
Barnea-Goraly et al., 2003;
Cornish et al., 2004;
Menon et al., 2004;
Hoeft et al., 2007). Although increased caudate findings are well replicated in FXS, there is a note of caution regarding our findings. Neuroleptic medication treatments have been previously associated with caudate volume increases in schizophrenia (
Chakos et al., 1994;
Keshavan et al., 1994). Medication use was not recorded for four of our FXS subjects, but for the remaining six, as well as all individuals in our autism and comparison groups, there was no history of neuroleptic use. Neuroleptics are not commonly prescribed to individuals with FXS, but nevertheless we cannot be certain that medication use is not a factor influencing our caudate findings.
For the autism group, six areas were significantly larger than the FXS group: the left inferior and middle frontal gyri; the right superior frontal gyrus; the right inferior temporal gyrus; the left middle temporal gyrus; and the right fusiform gyrus. None of these regions were also found to differ between the autism and control groups in our individual analyses. However, the middle temporal and fusiform gyri were found to be increased in both the control and autism groups relative to the FXS group in our conjunction analyses suggesting that these regions are areas of possible deficits in FXS rather than increases in autism. While no areas of increases in the autism group relative to the FXS and control groups were observed in either our individual group analyses or conjunction analyses, both analyses did reveal cerebellar crus I deficits in the autism group. The cerebellar crus I has previously been reported as reduced in autism compared to controls (
Rojas et al., 2006) and has also been implicated in language processing (
Gizewski et al., 2004;
Gizewski et al., 2005;
Frings et al., 2006). There is also evidence that the cerebellum has projections to inferior prefrontal cortex (
Leiner et al., 1993), which was identified well over a century ago as key for language function and which has been implicated in the autism phenotype in both anatomical and functional studies (e.g.,
Herbert et al., 2002;
Just et al., 2004;
Harris et al., 2006). Our findings regarding cerebellar deficits and left prefrontal cortex increases may be suggestive of regions and circuits involved in the language deficits in autism, but not FXS.
Cerebellar anomalies are one of the most replicated neuroanatomical findings for both disorders individually. In our sample, cerebellar deficits relative to controls were observed in both individuals with FXS and autism, with the autism group exhibiting cerebellar deficits relative to both other groups. While cerebellar anomalies are one of the most consistent findings in autism, both increases (
Piven et al., 1997b;
Abell et al., 1999;
Hardan et al., 2001;
Sparks et al., 2002;
Herbert et al., 2003;
Palmen et al., 2005;
Salmond et al., 2005;
Ke et al., 2008) and decreases (
Murakami et al., 1989;
McAlonan et al., 2002;
Boddaert et al., 2004;
McAlonan et al., 2005;
Rojas et al., 2006;
Hallahan et al., 2009) in the cerebellar hemispheres, as well as negative findings (
Kwon et al., 2004;
Waiter et al., 2004;
Brieber et al., 2007;
Salmond et al., 2007) have been reported. With the exception of
Boddaert et al. (2004) and
McAlonan et al. (2005), the cited studies reporting deficits in the cerebellar hemispheres included older adults similar to the present study. The two studies reporting deficits in younger subjects (ages 7-15 and 8-14 respectively) found deficits restricted to white matter with no differences in cerebellar gray matter, and the age ranges of these studies are similar to the cited studies reporting negative cerebellar findings. Studies reporting increases have also tended to include younger groups although
Piven et al. (1997),
Abell et al. (1999), and
Hardan et al. (2001) did include adults. The range of cerebellar findings, including our findings of cerebellar deficits, may be consistent with the hypothesis that brain maturation in individuals with autism is marked by an atypical developmental trajectory with early brain overgrowth followed by decreases in adolescence and adulthood (
Courchesne et al., 2001;
Aylward et al., 2002;
Courchesne et al., 2003). In addition to age, other factors that have been suggested to contribute to the inconsistent cerebellar findings in autism have included small sample sizes, as well as differences in IQ, presence of epilepsy, and subcategory of ASD. In
Hallahan et al. (2009), the effect of subgroup and IQ were investigated in a sample including 80 individuals with Asperger's disorder, 28 with autistic disorder, and 6 with PDD-NOS between the ages of 18 and 58 years. Significantly smaller total cerebellar volumes relative to controls were found in the autism group as a whole before and after correcting for both intracranial volume and IQ, as well in each subgroup except for those with PDD-NOS. There were, however, no differences in cerebellar volume between the ASD subgroups. In general, we suggest that age may be an important factor to consider in comparing across anatomical studies of autism.
Only one other neuroimaging study has directly compared individuals with FXS and autism, so therefore warrants additional comment. Based on the findings of
Kaufmann et al. (2003), we hypothesized that larger effects would be observed in the FXS group for regions found to be atypical in both FXS and autism. An enlarged caudate nucleus and a reduction in the cerebellar vermis are among the most consistent neuroanatomical findings for both FXS and autism. In our sample, an enlarged caudate was observed in the FXS group relative to both the autism and control groups suggestive of greater effect sizes for the FXS group. In addition, reductions in the vermis were only observed in the FXS group relative to the control group. In contrast, cerebellar crus I volume deficits were observed in the autism group relative to both the FXS and control groups suggesting greater effect sizes for the autism group in this particular region of the cerebellum. More informative comparisons, however, cannot be made since
Kaufmann et al. (2003) limited their analyses to measurements of the cerebellar vermis and intracranial space.
In addition to examining regional GM volume differences between the three groups, we proposed to examine the effect of controlling IQ on our results. The groups were matched for age, total GM, total white matter, brain to intracranial volume ratio, and handedness, but not IQ. While it has been argued that controlling for IQ either by matching subject groups for IQ or using IQ as a covariate in the analysis is needed for neuroanatomical investigations, there is some controversy concerning this issue (
Yeung-Courchesne and Courchesne, 1997). We agree with
Yeung-Courchesne and Courchesne (1997) that using IQ as a covariate in the analysis of group differences involving subjects with developmental disorders may essentially result in removing the variance inherent to the disorder. The main reason to include a covariate in an analysis of variance is the existence of a known confounding effect on the dependent variable. While it is true that IQ may affect brain volumes over time, it is equally true that brain volumes may impact IQ, although there is scant evidence for either proposition in the imaging literature. Covarying for IQ in the latter case would result in removing anatomical differences that are not only impacting IQ, but are also important features of the disorder being studied. In
Rojas et al. (2006), we reported that IQ did not reliably predict regional brain volumes in a sample of people with autism and healthy controls, consistent with findings from a cortical thickness study of autism (
Hadjikhani et al., 2006). In our present sample, a correlation analysis revealed that significant correlations existed for some, but not all, of the reported structures. Of the reported regions found to correlate with FSIQ, all were reported in contrasts involving the FXS group, and only the GM volume excesses observed in the right and left caudate for the FXS group relative to the autism group remain significant after covarying for FSIQ and total GM. Therefore, a possible consideration is that the correlations are being driven by the significantly lower FSIQ in the FXS group. Caudate volumes have been found to positively correlate with IQ in healthy controls, but negatively correlate with IQ in individuals with FXS (
Reiss et al., 1995). In our sample, caudate volumes were also found to negatively correlate with IQ. However, given our limited findings specific to the autism group relative to the control group, these results are hard to interpret. Nonetheless, we suggest that caution is warranted in covarying IQ in anatomical studies since the causal relationship between brain volumes and IQ remains unknown, as well as the underlying assumption in doing so that IQ is dissociable from the disorder being studied.
This is the first study to directly compare whole-brain anatomy in FXS and autism. As such, it clearly warrants replication. There are two further limitations to this study. First, while inclusion in the autism group required that subjects test negative for the fragile X mutation, we do not have consistent autism measures for our FXS sample. And second, the sample size of ten in each group is relatively small so caution on the generalization of these findings is warranted. Given that autism and FXS are both developmental disorders, the distributed nature of the brain regions identified in this study is not surprising. While the etiology of autism remains largely unknown, FXS is diagnosed on the basis of a mutation in a single gene,
FMR1. It is widely accepted, however, that both disorders lead to abnormal neuronal growth patterns early in development, which then further impact the development of functional connections between and within brain regions. FXS is often called a single-gene disorder. However, since FMRP is an mRNA binding protein that negatively regulates the translation of many mRNAs, it is a disorder that involves many genes, which have been found to be important for dendritic maturation and synaptic plasticity (
Irwin et al., 2000;
Grossman et al., 2006;
Hagerman R.J. et al., 2008). FMRP dysregulation therefore leads to abnormal neuronal morphology and growth. It has been suggested that a subset of the genes regulated by FMRP is responsible for autism in FXS and that by comparing the two disorders, a starting point for investigations into the genetics of autism could be gained. With the exception of cerebellar deficits, although in different regions, the present study failed to find areas of similar abnormalities in both disorders relative to controls. However, given the exploratory nature of this study and the lack of consistent measures for autism in our FXS group, further studies will be needed to judge the potential of this approach.