Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T08:41:11.459Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Maternal Age in Familial Mongolism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2018

L. S. Penrose
L. S. Penrose*
Affiliation:
University College, University of London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In recent years several writers have attempted to bring the known aetiological effect of maternal age in mongolism into direct relationship with its causation. Brousseau (1928) sifted the available data very carefully, but failed to come to any conclusion as to how maternal age could exert its effect. Benda (1947) considers that advanced age is only a subsidiary factor making maternal illness or endocrine disorder more significant, and a similar view seems to be held by Ingalls (1947). The conclusion is drawn by Geyer (1939) that mongolism is due to an abnormal ovum; if so, the older the mother, presumably the more likely are ova to be abnormal. Conversely, Engler (1949) believes that the foetal dysplasia is caused by faulty embedding of a normal ovum in uterine mucosa which has deteriorated in consequence of age, infection or surgical interference. Jenkins (1933) lays stress on the analogy with certain phenomena seen in animal genetics, for Wright (1926) had shown that the manifestation of hereditary Polydactyly in guinea-pigs was influenced by the age of the dam: young mothers produced more polydactylous offspring than older ones. A similar effect has been found by Holt (1947) in polydactylous mice. There is no experimental evidence as to the nature of the mechanism involved, but it may be supposed to be physical or chemical. The search for a process akin to antigenic incompatibility has also been suggested (Penrose, 1946), immunity developing with greater ease in maturer than in younger maternal tissues. It is not necessary to look for a specifically pathological process, however, since the maternal-foetal reaction might be analogous to that in the aetiology of fraternal twins, which especially occurs at late maternal ages, which centre around 38 years.

Type
Part I.—Original Articles
Information
Journal of Mental Science , Volume 97 , Issue 409 , October 1951 , pp. 738 - 747
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1951 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anonymous, Brit. Med. J., 1950, ii, 959.Google Scholar
Auden, G. A., ibid., 1947, ii, 869.Google Scholar
Beall, G., and Stanton, R. G., Canad. J. Pub. Health, 1945, 36, 33.Google Scholar
Benda, C. E., Mongolism and Cretinism, 1947. London: W. Heinemann.Google Scholar
Borovsky, M. F., J. Amer. Med. Ass., 1928, 90, 469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brousseau, K., Mongolism, 1928. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chotzen, , Brousseau, K., Monatschr. f. Kinderheilk., 1925, 30, 120.Google Scholar
Doxiades, L., and Portius, W., Zts. mensch. Vererb. -u. Konst.-lehre, 1938, 21, 384.Google Scholar
Engler, M., Mongolism, 1949. Bristol: J. Wright & Sons.Google Scholar
Fantham, H. B., S. Afr. J. Sci., 1925, 22, 400.Google Scholar
Ford-Walker, N., personal communication, 1948.Google Scholar
Geyer, H., Zur. Atiologie d. mongoloiden Idiotie, 1939. Leipzig: G. Theime.Google Scholar
Glassburg, J. A., J. Amer. Med. Ass., 1924, 82, 1196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halperin, S. J., personal communication, 1939.Google Scholar
Hanhart, E., Arch. J. Klaus Stift., 1944, 19, 549.Google Scholar
Idem, personal communication, 1948.Google Scholar
Holt, S. B., Ann. Eugen. Lond., 1947, 14, 144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingalls, T. H., Amer. J. Dis. Child., 1947, 74, 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, R. L., Amer. J. Ch. Dis., 1933, 45, 506.Google Scholar
Jervis, G. A., Amer. J. Ment. Def., 1943, 47, 364.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. J., Amer. J. Psychiat., 1936, 93, 533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keith, H. M., Brit. Med. J., 1948, i, 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lahdensuu, S., Monatschr. f. Kinderheilk., 1937, 71, 14.Google Scholar
Lelong, , Borniche, , Kreisler, and Baudy, , Arch. franç. de péd., 1949, 6, 231.Google Scholar
Lipnitzky, S. J., and Boshes, B., J. Hered., 1942, 33, 155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKaye, L., Amer. J. Dis. Ch., 1936, 52, 141.Google Scholar
Orel, H., Zts. f. Kinderheilk., 1927, 44, 449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Péhu, M., and Gaté, J., Rev. franç. de péd., 1937, 13, 212.Google Scholar
Penrose, L. S., J. Genet., 1932, 25, 407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Idem, J. Ment. Sci., 1938, 84, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Idem, “A Clinical and Genetic Study of 1,280 Cases of Mental Defect,” Spec. Rep. Ser. Med. Res. Coun. Lond., No. 229, 1938. H.M. Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Idem, material personally collected, 1939.Google Scholar
Idem, Ann. Eugen. Lond., 1946, 13, 141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tatafiore, E., La Pediatria, 1937, 45, 238.Google Scholar
van der Scheer, W. M., Abh. a. d. Neurol., Psychiat. u. Psychol., 1927, 41, 1.Google Scholar
Wright, S., Amer. Nat., 1926, 60, 552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.