24
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Estimates of the prevalence of speech and motor speech disorders in persons with complex neurodevelopmental disorders

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Estimates of the prevalence of speech and motor speech disorders in persons with complex neurodevelopmental disorders (CND) can inform research in the biobehavioural origins and treatment of CND. The goal of this research was to use measures and analytics in a diagnostic classification system to estimate the prevalence of speech and motor speech disorders in convenience samples of speakers with one of eight types of CND. Audio-recorded conversational speech samples from 346 participants with one of eight types of CND were obtained from a database of participants recruited for genetic and behavioural studies of speech sound disorders (i.e., excluding dysfluency) during the past three decades. Data reduction methods for the speech samples included narrow phonetic transcription, prosody-voice coding, and acoustic analyses. Standardized measures were used to cross-classify participants’ speech and motor speech status. Compared to the 17.8% prevalence of four types of motor speech disorders reported in a study of 415 participants with idiopathic Speech Delay (SD), 47.7% of the present participants with CND met criteria for one of four motor speech disorders, including Speech Motor Delay (25.1%), Childhood Dysarthria (13.3%), Childhood Apraxia of Speech (4.3%), and concurrent Childhood Dysarthria and Childhood Apraxia of Speech (4.9%). Findings are interpreted to indicate a substantial prevalence of speech disorders, and notably, a substantial prevalence of motor speech disorders in persons with some types of CND. We suggest that diagnostic classification information from standardized motor speech assessment protocols can contribute to research in the pathobiologies of CND.

          Related collections

          Most cited references69

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Dorsal and ventral streams: a framework for understanding aspects of the functional anatomy of language.

          Despite intensive work on language-brain relations, and a fairly impressive accumulation of knowledge over the last several decades, there has been little progress in developing large-scale models of the functional anatomy of language that integrate neuropsychological, neuroimaging, and psycholinguistic data. Drawing on relatively recent developments in the cortical organization of vision, and on data from a variety of sources, we propose a new framework for understanding aspects of the functional anatomy of language which moves towards remedying this situation. The framework posits that early cortical stages of speech perception involve auditory fields in the superior temporal gyrus bilaterally (although asymmetrically). This cortical processing system then diverges into two broad processing streams, a ventral stream, which is involved in mapping sound onto meaning, and a dorsal stream, which is involved in mapping sound onto articulatory-based representations. The ventral stream projects ventro-laterally toward inferior posterior temporal cortex (posterior middle temporal gyrus) which serves as an interface between sound-based representations of speech in the superior temporal gyrus (again bilaterally) and widely distributed conceptual representations. The dorsal stream projects dorso-posteriorly involving a region in the posterior Sylvian fissure at the parietal-temporal boundary (area Spt), and ultimately projecting to frontal regions. This network provides a mechanism for the development and maintenance of "parity" between auditory and motor representations of speech. Although the proposed dorsal stream represents a very tight connection between processes involved in speech perception and speech production, it does not appear to be a critical component of the speech perception process under normal (ecologically natural) listening conditions, that is, when speech input is mapped onto a conceptual representation. We also propose some degree of bi-directionality in both the dorsal and ventral pathways. We discuss some recent empirical tests of this framework that utilize a range of methods. We also show how damage to different components of this framework can account for the major symptom clusters of the fluent aphasias, and discuss some recent evidence concerning how sentence-level processing might be integrated into the framework.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Do multiple outcome measures require p-value adjustment?

            Background Readers may question the interpretation of findings in clinical trials when multiple outcome measures are used without adjustment of the p-value. This question arises because of the increased risk of Type I errors (findings of false "significance") when multiple simultaneous hypotheses are tested at set p-values. The primary aim of this study was to estimate the need to make appropriate p-value adjustments in clinical trials to compensate for a possible increased risk in committing Type I errors when multiple outcome measures are used. Discussion The classicists believe that the chance of finding at least one test statistically significant due to chance and incorrectly declaring a difference increases as the number of comparisons increases. The rationalists have the following objections to that theory: 1) P-value adjustments are calculated based on how many tests are to be considered, and that number has been defined arbitrarily and variably; 2) P-value adjustments reduce the chance of making type I errors, but they increase the chance of making type II errors or needing to increase the sample size. Summary Readers should balance a study's statistical significance with the magnitude of effect, the quality of the study and with findings from other studies. Researchers facing multiple outcome measures might want to either select a primary outcome measure or use a global assessment measure, rather than adjusting the p-value.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Foxp2 Regulates Gene Networks Implicated in Neurite Outgrowth in the Developing Brain

              Introduction Forkhead-box protein P2 is a highly conserved vertebrate protein, belonging to an important group of transcription factors [1]. By modulating the expression of downstream target genes, forkhead-box proteins influence a diverse array of processes, including cell-cycle regulation, signal transduction, differentiation, patterning and metabolism [2]. They thereby play crucial roles during embryogenesis, in postnatal development and in the mature organism, and many have been linked to disease states [3]. The P subgroup is a divergent branch of forkhead-box proteins that share a distinctive DNA-binding domain located near the C-terminal end of the protein, as well as zinc-finger/leucine-zipper motifs that mediate dimerization, and a glutamine-rich region towards the N-terminus [4], [5]. Functional evidence from multiple species implicates Forkhead-box protein P2 in particularly intriguing aspects of brain development and function [1]. (Here we adopt the standard accepted nomenclature to refer to the protein in different species: FOXP2 in humans, Foxp2 in mice, FoxP2 in other chordates, with the corresponding gene names in italics [6].) In humans, damage to one copy of the FOXP2 gene causes a rare neurodevelopmental disorder, characterised by difficulties mastering sequences of mouth movements during speech, as well as impaired language processing [4], [7], [8]. Heterozygous disruptions of the mouse orthologue (Foxp2) yield dramatic reductions in synaptic plasticity of cortico-striatal brain circuits, associated with deficits in learning of rapid motor skills [9]. Mouse pups with homozygous Foxp2 mutations show more severe neural effects – gross motor impairments, delayed postnatal maturation of the cerebellum and dramatic reductions in emission of ultrasonic vocalisations – against a background of reduced weight-gain and postnatal lethality [9]-[11]. In addition, the avian orthologue (FoxP2) is required for normal vocal learning in songbirds [12], [13]. Selective knockdown of the gene in a key striatal nucleus in juvenile zebrafinches leads to incomplete and inaccurate imitation of tutor songs [14]. Studies of both human FOXP2 and mouse Foxp2 identified similarly strong CNS (central nervous system) expression during embryogenesis, which is confined to neurons (absent from glial cells) and enriched in various brain structures, including deep layers of the developing cortical plate, and parts of the striatum, thalamus and cerebellum [15],[16]. These embryonic expression patterns appear highly concordant in the different species, and show remarkable overlaps with sites of pathology identified by neuroimaging of human children and adults carrying FOXP2 mutations [16], [17]. Neural expression of the gene continues postnatally and into adulthood [4], [15], and is also observed in certain non-neural tissues, most notably the distal alveolar lung epithelium, and the outflow tract and atrium of the cardiovascular system [18]. The above observations of well-conserved and specific CNS expression patterns [15], [16] suggest that Foxp2 is likely to have important functions in neurodevelopment. Nevertheless, as data continue to accumulate regarding its impacts on the postnatal brain [9], [11], [14], the specific roles of Foxp2 in the developing CNS remain largely elusive. One route for gaining insights into the biological processes controlled by a transcription factor is to define the regulatory networks that are directly downstream of it [1]. An efficient strategy for identifying direct targets exploits chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) methods to screen the tissue of interest [19]. Two previous investigations have coupled ChIP with hybridisation to promoter microarrays (ChIP-chip) in order to uncover binding sites of FOXP2 in human foetal brain tissue [20] and in human neurons grown in culture [21]. Both screens were of limited scope – the microarrays in these studies comprised fragments from the 5′ ends of ∼5,000 loci [20], [21], representing a small percentage of the known gene promoters in the genome. Neither study combined ChIP data with large-scale expression analyses. A more recent report used mRNA expression profiling in human neuronal models transfected with different versions of FOXP2 to explore regulatory differences between the human and chimpanzee orthologues, but did not include any ChIP screening for direct targets [22]. In the present study, we performed a systematic large-scale in vivo ChIP-chip screen of the embryonic mouse brain, coupling Foxp2-ChIP to high-density arrays with oligonucleotides tiled across >17,000 promoters. We robustly established the empirical significance of our ChIP results in wild-type brains by determining the null distribution of signals generated by matched control tissue from littermates that expressed no Foxp2 protein. Under strict empirical thresholds that minimised false positive signals, we isolated a set of 264 high-confidence in vivo targets. Gene ontology (GO) analyses of the ChIP-chip data, as well as genome-wide expression profiling and in situ hybridisations of wild-type and mutant mice, converged on neurite outgrowth as one of the most prominent biological themes associated with Foxp2 function in the embryonic CNS. We went on to directly demonstrate, using neuronal cell models and primary neurons from the embryonic mouse brain, that Foxp2 alters expression of neurite-outgrowth targets and thereby influences neurite process length and branch number. Results Genome-wide identification of in vivo Foxp2 targets in embryonic mouse brain In vivo Foxp2-ChIP screening was carried out using brains harvested from embryonic mice. Experiments were performed with mice that were wild-type for Foxp2, as well as homozygous littermates that do not express any Foxp2 protein (Foxp2-S321X mutants; see Materials and Methods) [9]. The different types of sample were screened in parallel, undergoing identical experimental manipulations and data processing. In this context, the homozygous mutant mouse tissue acts as an ideal negative control [21]. Since such samples completely lack Foxp2 protein (see Figure S1 and [9]), fragments that are pulled down by Foxp2-ChIP in these cases give an unbiased empirical indication of background noise and false positive rates yielded by the procedure. Whole mouse brains from wild-type or mutant mice were harvested at embryonic day 16 (E16), corresponding to a timepoint at which particularly high levels of Foxp2 expression are observed in the developing CNS [16]. Chromatin isolated by Foxp2-ChIP was labelled and hybridised to DNA microarrays covering the promoter regions of ∼17,000 mouse transcripts (Agilent Technologies), using total input DNA as a reference sample. Each promoter on these arrays is represented by an average of twenty-five 60-mer probes spanning ∼5.5 kb upstream and ∼2.5 kb downstream of the transcription start site, allowing peak regions of binding to be precisely defined (Figure 1). Moreover, the presence of multiple probes for each promoter scattered throughout the array gives independent enrichment values within the same promoter, which aids discrimination of real biological targets from false positive events. Specifically, since the shearing process during ChIP produces overlapping fragments of chromatin, true targets should show evidence of enrichment for multiple probes across the promoter region, while promoters with only a single enriched probe are most likely to be false positive results. 10.1371/journal.pgen.1002145.g001 Figure 1 In vivo Foxp2 promoter occupancy in embryonic mouse brain. (A) Foxp2-ChIP window enrichment scores of probes across promoters of a subset of putative targets from the neurite outgrowth and axon guidance pathways. The window score (Y axis) is given versus the distance across the promoter region (X axis) - each cross bar represents 1000 bp and each data point represents a single probe (chromosome and position in bp are given below the X axis of each graph). The enrichment in the wild-type experiments is shown by the blue trace, and the pink trace indicates the corresponding values in null mutant controls that lack Foxp2 protein. The predicted start site of the gene (as annotated on UCSC genome browser: http://genome.ucsc.edu/) is given by the black box and arrows denote the direction of transcription. Grey shading indicates the peak area of enrichment and the most likely region for Foxp2 binding to occur. (B) Analysis of in vivo promoter occupancy. DNA isolated via Foxp2-ChIP was PCR amplified using primers directed towards the promoter regions of Nrp2, Sema3a, Nrn1 or the β-actin control. The position of these amplicons within the target promoter region is given by red bars in part A. Results from E16 wild type mice were compared to those from homozygous null mutant littermates. Lane 1 =  wild-type Foxp2-ChIP, lane 2 =  mutant null Foxp2-ChIP, lane 3 =  wild-type total DNA, lane 4 =  mutant total DNA. Target gene promoters were found to be specifically enriched in Foxp2-ChIP samples isolated from wild-type brains compared to those from null mutant brains, unlike the β-actin control promoter. Gels are representative of results from triplicate experiments. In order to identify enriched promoters, Foxp2-ChIP data were analysed as per Materials and Methods. Briefly, array data from independent biological replicates (three independent ChIP experiments hybridised to one each of three array sets) were normalised for each genotype (wild-type or mutant control) separately. Normalised array data (excluding probes with a negative average enrichment across replicate experiments) were subjected to a sliding window analysis, using a similar method to that employed in genome-wide ChIP-chip studies of other forkhead transcription factors [23]. Each probe was assigned a value (window-adjusted score) based on the median fold enrichment of itself and its neighbouring probe on either side (within 500 bp upstream and 500 bp downstream), and then probes were ranked based on this window score. By analysing the distribution of window scores observed in the mutant null control experiments we were able to derive an empirical threshold for significance, which could then be applied to the wild-type data. We found that window scores greater than or equal to 0.974 (corresponding to ∼2-fold enrichment) excluded 99% of the data-points in the mutant null control experiments. When we applied this threshold to data from wild-type experiments, we identified a set of 1,217 promoter regions that were consistently enriched by Foxp2-ChIP over 3 replicates in wild-type mouse brains (Table S1). On inspection of the locations of the enriched probes throughout the mouse genome, no positional bias was observed (Figure S2). Since some of the enriched regions lay close to the transcriptional start site (TSS) of more than one gene, the 1,217 promoter regions corresponded to 1,253 genes. Of note, using the same analysis parameters, only 147 genes were enriched in the mutant null controls, suggesting a low false discovery rate. Nevertheless, in order to minimize false-positive findings, we excluded any enriched genes from the wild-type dataset that also had window scores exceeding the 99% threshold in the mutant control dataset. This filtering process yielded a slightly smaller set of 1,164 putative targets (Table S2). When we applied stricter thresholds to the wild-type data, selecting only those promoters in which at least one probe gave a window score of ≥ 1.5, we identified a shortlist of 259 promoter regions. Since a small number of peak regions lay directly between the TSSs of two different genes, these 259 promoters corresponded to a slightly higher total of 266 genes. Crucially, the same analyses of the entire mutant null control dataset identified only a single gene in the genome with a window score of ≥ 1.5 (the Pigt gene), indicating an extremely low rate of false positives under these stricter selection criteria. We excluded two genes from the strict wild-type shortlist (Pigt and Zfp496) since they contained probes that exceeded the 99% threshold (i.e. window score of >0.974) in mutant null controls (Figure S3). The outcome of these analyses was a final curated shortlist of 264 high-confidence in vivo targets (Table S3). Given that DNA is sheared randomly during the ChIP process, we would expect a true Foxp2 binding event to be represented by a peak of enrichment at a target promoter. This peak would result from the sheared DNA forming a series of overlapping fragments, with the region closest to the binding site showing the highest degree of enrichment (i.e. highest number of fragments pulled down during immunoprecipitation) and with progressively less enrichment observed as the distance to the binding site increases on either side. Figure 1A gives typical examples of the enrichment peaks observed for putative targets from our Foxp2-ChIP dataset. Examination of corresponding data from mutant control experiments emphasises the relative lack of enrichment in nulls that lack Foxp2 protein, indicating that the enrichment in wild-type samples results from highly specific Foxp2-mediated interactions. Furthermore, we followed up a subset of candidates with qPCR, consistently confirming their enrichment (Figure 1B). Enriched regions represented in the shortlist of high-confidence targets were assessed in silico for any over-represented sequence motifs (see Text S1). This analysis did not enforce a priori conditions of motif sequence, other than a length restriction of 8 bases. This meant that rather than limiting our search to occurrences of known patterns in the promoters, we obtained an unbiased list of motifs that were characteristic of the Foxp2-ChIP target promoters. Eight sequences (motifs A-H) were found to be significantly over-represented (p 0.974) are highlighted on the WebGestalt KEGG pathway in red, with those from expression analysis (p 15 images taken for three independent clones of each cell type (Scale bar, 100 µm). To further assess the in vivo relevance of these findings, we examined whether there were corresponding phenotypic effects mediated by functional Foxp2 in neurons of the developing brain. We isolated primary neurons from the ganglionic eminences of E16 mouse brains, matching the region and timepoint used for our original target screening. Here, we aimed to directly test whether the Foxp2-positive neurons derived from the developing basal ganglia show altered neurite outgrowth when the gene is mutated. The assay was facilitated by availability of a mouse model (Foxp2-R552H) in which the protein is expressed at normal levels, but is nevertheless dysfunctional [9]. R552H mice recapitulate an aetiological mutation that causes speech and language deficits in a large human family. This change yields a substitution in the DNA-binding domain which severely impairs the transcription factor function of the mutant protein [30], such that the overall phenotype of homozygous R552H animals is very similar to that observed for mice which completely lack Foxp2 [9]–[11]. However, unlike the Foxp2-null mice, R552H homozygotes still express detectable levels of the protein, allowing us to clearly identify Foxp2-positive cells in our primary cultures via antibody staining. This represents an important measure, given the heterogeneous nature of the dissected material used to generate the primary culture. We again observed obvious differences in neurite outgrowth associated with presence of functional Foxp2 (Figure 6A). A blinded analysis revealed statistically significant changes in quantitative measures of neurite outgrowth for Foxp2-expressing neurons from wild-type embryos as compared to those from homozygous Foxp2-R552H littermates (Figure 6B). In particular, the latter showed significant reductions in total outgrowth (p = 0.001); mean (p 1.5) in wild-type Foxp2-chip. (TIF) Click here for additional data file. Figure S4 EMSA analysis of a novel Foxp2 DNA-binding motif. (TIF) Click here for additional data file. Figure S5 Differential expression of Foxp2 target genes in E16 developing mouse ganglionic eminences. (TIF) Click here for additional data file. Figure S6 Co-expression of Foxp2 and putative target genes in the E16 mouse brain. (TIF) Click here for additional data file. Figure S7 Expression of Foxp2 in medium spiny neurons (MSNs). (TIF) Click here for additional data file. Figure S8 In vivo binding of mouse Foxp2 to intron 1 of Cntnap2 in embryonic brain tissue. (TIF) Click here for additional data file. Table S1 Foxp2-ChIP (window score ≥0.97) complete dataset. (XLS) Click here for additional data file. Table S2 Foxp2-ChIP putative target promoters (curated long list n = 1164, window score ≥0.97). (XLS) Click here for additional data file. Table S3 Foxp2-ChIP putative target promoters (curated short list n = 264, at least 1 window score ≥1.50). (XLS) Click here for additional data file. Table S4 Foxp2-dependent gene expression changes in the E16 mouse brain (p<0.01). (XLS) Click here for additional data file. Table S5 Overlapping target genes from Foxp2-ChIP and expression analysis studies. (XLS) Click here for additional data file. Table S6 Significant over-represented KEGG pathways identified in the Foxp2-ChIP and gene expression datasets. (XLS) Click here for additional data file. Table S7 Cntnap2 semi-quantitative PCR primers. (XLS) Click here for additional data file. Text S1 Supporting Materials and Methods. (DOC) Click here for additional data file.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                8802622
                26996
                Clin Linguist Phon
                Clin Linguist Phon
                Clinical linguistics & phonetics
                0269-9206
                1464-5076
                26 June 2019
                2019
                16 July 2019
                : 33
                : 8
                : 707-736
                Affiliations
                [a ]Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research Center, Waisman Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
                [b ]Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
                [c ]Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Augustana College, Rock Island, IL, USA
                Author notes
                CONTACT Lawrence D. Shriberg, shriberg@ 123456waisman.wisc.edu , University of Wisconsin-Madison, Waisman Center, Room 439, 1500 Highland Ave. Madison, WI 53705, USA
                Article
                NIHMS1524504
                10.1080/02699206.2019.1595732
                6633911
                31221012
                3d3ba60e-04ec-49c2-bd48-ad331c4f2f38

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License, which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.

                History
                Categories
                Article

                apraxia,dysarthria,speech motor delay,speech sound disorders

                Comments

                Comment on this article