Background
Minor physical anomalies (MPAs) are defined as subtle, abnormal morphological features, such as deviations in morphology of the head, eyes, ears, mouth, hands, and feet [
1]. As the brain and skin are derived from the same neuroectodermal layer during early fetal development, MPAs may mirror altered brain development [
2]. Therefore, the presence of multiple MPAs could suggest the possibility of an underlying genetic and/or environmental perturbation affecting embryogenesis.
Neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs) emerge in early childhood and cause persistent impairment in cognitive, social, academic, and/or occupational functioning. NDDs include intellectual disability (ID), communication disorders, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), specific learning disorders, and motor disorders and there is substantial overlap among NDDs [
3]. For the purposes of this study, participants were diagnosed with NDDs according to DSM-5 and could have one or more NDDs based on the outcomes of their diagnostic assessment.
MPAs are common in the general population [
4,
5]. In NDDs, the presence of MPAs has been studied predominantly in ASD, ADHD, and ID [
4,
6‐
9]. Multiple MPAs have been found in approximately 20% of individuals with ASD [
1,
10]. Ozgen et al. [
9] conducted a meta-analysis comparing effect sizes of seven studies exploring MPAs in ASD and found higher frequencies of MPAs in individuals with ASD compared to typically developing (TD) controls. Only one study has examined MPAs in twins with ASD [
11] and found that affected twins exhibited more MPAs than their co-twins. However, the assessment only covered a few MPAs and the findings were minimally described. Meanwhile, studies examining the association between ADHD and MPAs demonstrate mixed results. One found no association between MPAs and ADHD, but with ID [
6], while others found higher rates of MPAs in children diagnosed with ADHD [
12,
13]. Research is lacking on the relationship between MPAs and NDDs as an overarching diagnostic entity as defined by the DSM-5.
Ozgen et al. [
4,
9] addressed limitations in studies to date on MPAs in children with ASD. They noted that studies did not use standardized instruments to determine diagnosis, had participants with varying ethnic backgrounds, used physical examinations not originally designed for MPA assessment, lacked controls, examined small samples, failed to report interrater agreement, and did not account for the effects of gender and intelligence (IQ) on MPA scores. Further studies are needed that address these limitations, especially using twins to adjust for confounding familial factors.
The objective of the current study was to investigate MPAs in carefully characterized participants with NDDs in a rare sample of monozygotic (MZ) and dizygotic (DZ) twins concordant or discordant for the conditions and TD control pairs. We aimed to examine (i) the frequency and most common MPAs in relation to diagnostic status, (ii) the association between MPAs and NDD diagnoses, (iii) MPAs by twin pair zygosity, and (iv) MPA differences in discordant pairs. We expected an excess of MPAs in individuals with NDD diagnoses compared with TD controls. Moreover, we predicted that affected twins from MZ NDD-discordant pairs would have more MPAs than their unaffected co-twins. Lastly, we expected that MZ pairs overall, compared to DZ pairs, would present with similar amounts and types of MPAs.
Discussion
This study examined MPAs in a sample of twins concordant or discordant for NDDs, as well as TD pairs. While MPAs were descriptively more frequent in individuals with NDDs, particularly those with ASD, which is in alignment with earlier studies [
1,
4,
9,
10], only ASD was significantly associated with the extent of MPAs. Interestingly, the association was not only confirmed for clinical ASD, but also autistic traits. Bolton et al. [
18] suggested that the presence of MPAs in individuals with ASD may point to genetic issues such as de novo copy number variants. Indeed, Miles and Hillman [
1] found individuals with atypical phenotypes (as assessed through physical anomalies on morphological exams) were 10 times more likely to be diagnosed with a genetic syndrome. Tammimies et al. [
10] also found that individuals with greater numbers of MPAs were more likely to receive a positive result on genetic testing through both whole exome sequencing and chromosomal microarray. Therefore, examining children for MPAs in ASD may provide insight into potential genetic issues for this neurodevelopmental disorder. Although recommendations exist within the USA to conduct genetic testing on any child who receives a diagnosis of a neurodevelopmental disorder [
19,
20], similar recommendations have not yet been made in other parts of the world. Even with recommendations for genetic testing, recent studies from the USA show parents report just under 35% of children with ASD actually receive genetic testing [
21]. Due to the constraints that may exist in conducting universal genetic testing for children diagnosed with ASD that are summarized in Tammimies et al. [
22], an approach to the diagnostic evaluation of a child with ASD that takes into account the number of MPAs from a clinical genetic assessment as screening for a potential underlying genetic cause for the disorder may be warranted.
For participants with ADHD or any NDD diagnosis, no associations were found between MPAs and either diagnosis. For ADHD, these results are similar to previous research in children [
6], but conflict with a more recent study in adults reporting an increasing number of MPAs in individuals with ADHD compared with controls [
8]. Finally, we did find that IQ was significantly associated with MPAs, similar to previous research [
6].
The most frequent MPAs found in individuals in our study confirmed earlier findings, for example, hypermobility/lax joints and flat feet in ASD [
7]. Additionally, previous research has found overrepresentation of overweight cases in ASD and ADHD cohorts [
23], similar to our study. Although our original hypothesis was that affected twins from MZ NDD-discordant pairs would have more MPAs than their co-twin, this was not found in our study. We did find the presence of scoliosis in two affected twins and not their co-twins. Scoliosis has been reported previously in children with ASD and ADHD with known genetic syndromes such as of the 16p11.2 deletion syndrome [
24,
25]. In our study, a total of five participants had scoliosis (two diagnosed with ASD, one diagnosed with ASD and ADHD, and two with TD). Genetic testing is being performed on all study participants, and the results could be further explored for the presence of any high risk genetic variants in these participants.
We explored the association between the total number of MPAs and the number of specific MPAs that differed within pairs and demonstrated that MZ pairs had a stronger correlation of MPAs compared to DZ pairs. Our findings are similar to a nested case–control study of children with ASD and their siblings that found that the adjusted odds of congenital defects were not different for cases compared to sibling controls [
26], whereas an older study showed that children diagnosed with ASD had more minor malformations than their siblings and matched TD children [
27]. The results of our study suggest that genetic factors may strongly influence the presence of MPAs and that additional risk factors, such as non-shared environmental factors, may contribute to differences in the NDD diagnoses within the twin pairs, especially in ASD-discordant MZ pairs, as we have shown in recent studies [
28,
29]. Additionally, epigenetic factors or variable expressivity of genetic syndromes, such as 16p11.2 deletion syndrome, may explain why the diagnostic phenotype varied within these discordant pairs [
30].
This study addressed several weaknesses noted in previous research through the use of standardized measures for diagnoses, comprehensive MPA assessments, report of interrater agreement, and examination of the effects of IQ and gender on MPAs. Although previous research has utilized matched patient–control pairs to explore MPAs in ASD [
4], this is only the second study to examine differences in MPAs in twins with ASD and the first study in twins with ADHD or NDDs overall. Our sample was comprised mainly of MZ twins, which allows for exploration of the relationship between genetics and environmental factors in the development of MPAs, as was called for in early research on MPAs and ASD [
31].
Still, there are also several limitations to this study. The comparably small number of individuals with NDD diagnoses may have limited the study’s power to detect associations with MPAs for NDDs other than ASD. Moreover, there was lack of blinding of the diagnoses as the clinical geneticists needed to interact with the participants to complete the MPA assessments. However, they were not aware of the participants’ consensus diagnoses. The MPA checklist was developed specifically for this study with no previous validation, although it was based on extensive clinical expertise, along with the use of common dysmorphology references. Neither parent MPA assessments nor parent photos were obtained in the study, as was done in previous studies [
1,
10]. Therefore, the familial tendency of some MPAs was not possible to ascertain. Finally, MPA assessments are subject to examiner bias. Research is currently underway in our center to explore the ability to conduct assessments using computer-based technology to potentially limit the subjectivity of these assessments.
Authors’ contributions
LM analyzed the data and drafted the initial version of the manuscript and made the final edits to the submitted manuscript. BMA and AN designed the physical anomalies checklist and completed the MPA assessments for the study and provided a critical review of the manuscript. CW provided clinical insight into the diagnostic process used to categorize the participants for the RATSS study and provided a critical review of the manuscript. RHK assisted with the development and use of the statistical models in the analysis for this study and provided a critical review of the manuscript. KT provided support with the design of this study and the statistical analysis and assisted with the drafting, revision and approval of the manuscript. SB designed the overall RATSS study and assisted with the drafting, revision and approval of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.