Heterogeneity within the autism diagnosis obscures the genetic basis of the disorder and impedes our ability to develop effective treatments. We found that by using two readily available tests, autism can be divided into two subgroups, "essential autism" and "complex autism," with different outcomes and recurrence risks. Complex autism consists of individuals in whom there is evidence of some abnormality of early morphogenesis, manifested by either significant dysmorphology or microcephaly. The remainder have "essential autism." From 1995 to 2001, 260 individuals who met DSM-IV criteria for autistic disorder were examined. Five percent (13/260) were microcephalic and 16% (41/260) had significant physical anomalies. Individually, each trait predicted a poorer outcome. Together they define the "complex autism" subgroup, comprising 20% (46/233) of the total autism population. Individuals with complex autism have lower IQs (P=0.006), more seizures (P=0.0008), more abnormal EEGs (46% vs. 30%), more brain abnormalities by MRI (28% vs. 13%). Everyone with an identifiable syndrome was in the complex group. Essential autism defines the more heritable group with higher sib recurrence (4% vs. 0%), more relatives with autism (20% vs. 9%), and higher male to female ratio (6.5:1 vs. 3.2:1). Their outcome was better with higher IQs (P=0.02) and fewer seizures (P=0.0008). They were more apt to develop autism with a regressive onset (43% vs. 23%, P=0.02). Analysis of the features predictive of poor outcome (IQ<55, functionally non-verbal) showed that microcephaly was 100% specific but only 14% sensitive; the presence of physical anomalies was 86% specific and 34% sensitive. The two tests combined yielded 87% specificity, 47% sensitivity, and an odds ratio of 4.8:1 for poor outcome. Separating essential from complex autism should be the first diagnostic step for children with autism spectrum disorders as it allows better prognostication and counseling. Definition of more homogeneous populations should increase power of research analyses.

Alcohol is a potent somnogen and one of the most commonly used “over the counter” sleep aids. In healthy non-alcoholics, acute alcohol decreases sleep latency, consolidates and increases the quality (delta power) and quantity of NREM sleep during the first half of the night. However, sleep is disrupted during the second half. Alcoholics, both during drinking periods and during abstinences, suffer from a multitude of sleep disruptions manifested by profound insomnia, excessive daytime sleepiness, and altered sleep architecture. Furthermore, subjective and objective indicators of sleep disturbances are predictors of relapse. Finally, within the USA, it is estimated that societal costs of alcohol-related sleep disorders exceeds $18 billion. Thus, although alcohol-associated sleep problems have significant economic and clinical consequences, very little is known about how and where alcohol acts to affect sleep. In this review, we have described our attempts to understand how and where alcohol acts to affect sleep. We have conducted a series of experiments using two different species, rats and mice, as animal models, and a combination of multi-disciplinary experimental methodologies to examine and understand anatomical and cellular substrates mediating the effects of acute and chronic alcohol exposure on sleep-wakefulness. The results of our studies suggest that the sleep-promoting effects of alcohol may be mediated via alcohol’s action on the mediators of sleep homeostasis: adenosine (AD) and the wake-promoting cholinergic neurons of the basal forebrain (BF). Alcohol, via its action on AD uptake, increases extracellular AD resulting in the inhibition of BF wake-promoting neurons. Lesions of the BF cholinergic neurons or blockade of AD A1 receptors results in attenuation of alcohol-induced sleep promotion, suggesting that AD and BF cholinergic neurons are critical for sleep-promoting effects of alcohol. Since binge alcohol consumption is a highly prevalent pattern of alcohol consumption and disrupts sleep, we examined the effects of binge drinking on sleep-wakefulness. Our results suggest that disrupted sleep homeostasis may be the primary cause of sleep disruption observed following binge drinking. Finally, we have also shown that insomnia and associated sleep disruptions, observed during acute withdrawal, are caused due to impaired sleep homeostasis. Based on our findings, we suggest that alcohol may disrupt sleep homeostasis to cause sleep disruptions.

J. Neurochem. (2010) 115, 782–794. Abstract Insomnia is a severe symptom of alcohol withdrawal; however, the underlying neuronal mechanism is yet unknown. We hypothesized that chronic ethanol exposure will impair basal forebrain (BF) adenosinergic mechanism resulting in insomnia‐like symptoms. We performed a series of experiments in Sprague–Dawley rats to test our hypothesis. We used Majchrowicz’s chronic binge ethanol protocol to induce ethanol dependency. Our first experiment verified the effects of ethanol withdrawal on sleep–wakefulness. Significant increase in wakefulness was observed during ethanol withdrawal. Next, we examined c‐Fos expression (marker of neuronal activation) in BF wake‐promoting neurons during ethanol withdrawal. There was a significant increase in the number of BF wake‐promoting neurons with c‐Fos immunoreactivity. Our third experiment examined the effects of ethanol withdrawal on sleep deprivation induced increase in BF adenosine levels. Sleep deprivation did not increase BF adenosine levels in ethanol dependent rats. Our last experiment examined the effects of ethanol withdrawal on equilibrative nucleoside transporter 1 and A1 receptor expression in the BF. There was a significant reduction in A1 receptor and equilibrative nucleoside transporter 1 expression in the BF of ethanol dependent rats. Based on these results, we suggest that insomnia observed during ethanol withdrawal is caused because of impaired adenosinergic mechanism in the BF.