Dopaminergic Gene Dosage Reveals Distinct Biological Partitions between Autism and Developmental Delay as Revealed by...

The neurobiological mechanisms underlying Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) remains controversial. One factor contributing to this debate is the phenotypic heterogeneity observed in ASD, which suggests that multiple system disruptions may contribute to diverse patterns of impairment which have been reported between and within study samples. Here, we used SFARI data to address genetic imbalances affecting the dopaminergic system. Using complex network analysis, we investigated the relations between phenotypic profiles, gene dosage and gene ontology (GO) terms related to dopaminergic neurotransmission from a polygenic point-of-view. We observed that the degree of distribution of the networks matched a power-law distribution characterized by the presence of hubs, gene or GO nodes with a large number of interactions. Furthermore, we identified interesting patterns related to subnetworks of genes and GO terms, which suggested applicability to separation of clinical clusters (Developmental Delay (DD) versus ASD). This has the potential to improve our understanding of genetic variability issues and has implications for diagnostic categorization. In ASD, we identified the separability of four key dopaminergic mechanisms disrupted with regard to receptor binding, synaptic physiology and neural differentiation, each belonging to particular subgroups of ASD participants, whereas in DD a more unitary biological pattern was found. Finally, network analysis was fed into a machine learning binary classification framework to differentiate between the diagnosis of ASD and DD. Subsets of 1846 participants were used to train a Random Forest algorithm. Our best classifier achieved, on average, a diagnosis-predicting accuracy of 85.18% (sd 1.11%) on the test samples of 790 participants using 117 genes. The achieved accuracy surpassed results using genetic data and closely matched imaging approaches addressing binary diagnostic classification. Importantly, we observed a similar prediction accuracy when the classifier uses only 62 GO features. This result further corroborates the complex network analysis approach, suggesting that different genetic causes might converge to the dysregulation of the same set of biological mechanisms, leading to a similar disease phenotype. This new biology-driven ontological framework yields a less variable and more compact domain-related set of features with potential mechanistic generalization. The proposed network analysis, allowing for the determination of a clearcut biological distinction between ASD and DD (the latter presenting much lower modularity and heterogeneity), is amenable to machine learning approaches and provides an interesting avenue of research for the future.