Brain-derived neurotrophic factor and autism: maternal and infant peripheral blood levels in the Early Markers for Autism (EMA) Study.
Newborn BDNF levels do not predict later autism, so stick with behavioral screening and early ABA.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Doctors drew blood from 84 moms at mid-pregnancy and from their babies at birth. They froze the samples and later tested them for BDNF, a brain-growth protein. Years later they compared levels in the kids who got an autism diagnosis, the kids with other delays, and 29 typically developing kids.
What they found
BDNF numbers were almost identical across all three groups. High, low, or middle levels did not predict who later had autism. The protein showed no value as an early warning sign.
How this fits with other research
Reichow (2012) and Bigham et al. (2013) show that early intensive ABA raises IQ and daily-living scores in the same age group. Those papers focus on what helps after signs appear; Porter et al. (2008) shows a blood test cannot flag babies before signs start.
Ohan et al. (2015) followed toddlers diagnosed at age 2 and found half scored in the average range by age 9. Their long-term gains line up with the null biomarker result: kids change, so a single newborn protein level is not destiny.
No direct contradiction exists, but the message is clear: look at behavior and learning history, not blood drops, when planning early services.
Why it matters
You can skip BDNF blood tests when screening infants. Instead, use low-cost checklists at 18 and 24 months. If red flags show up, start parent-mediated ABA right away. The earlier you teach parents to reinforce communication, the bigger the child’s gains will be.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pull the M-CHAT-R checklist for every 18-month-old on your caseload and schedule parent training if any item fails.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
To investigate levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) in mid-pregnancy and neonatal blood specimens as early biologic markers for autism, we conducted a population-based case-control study nested within the cohort of infants born from July 2000 to September 2001 to women who participated in the prenatal screening program in Orange County, CA. Cases (n=84) were all children receiving services for autism at the Regional Center of Orange County. Two comparison groups from the same study population were included: children with mental retardation or developmental delay (n=49) receiving services at the same regional center, and children not receiving services for developmental disabilities, randomly sampled from the California birth certificate files (n=159), and frequency matched to autism cases on sex, birth year, and birth month. BDNF concentrations were measured in archived mid-pregnancy and neonatal blood specimens drawn during routine prenatal and newborn screening using a highly sensitive bead-based assay (Luminex, Biosource Human BDNF Antibody Bead Kit, Invitrogen-Biosource, Carlsbad, CA). The concentration of BDNF in maternal mid-pregnancy and neonatal specimens was similar across all three study groups. These data do not support previous findings of an association between BDNF and autism and suggest that the concentration of BDNF during critical periods of early neurodevelopment is not likely to be a useful biomarker for autism susceptibility.
Autism research : official journal of the International Society for Autism Research, 2008 · doi:10.1016/j.ijdevneu.2007.07.002