ADAM "sequence" part II: Hypothesis and speculation

• Published in: American journal of medical genetics. Part A 2015-03, Vol.167A (3), p.478-503
• Main Authors: Opitz, John M., Johnson, Dennis R., Gilbert-Barness, Enid F.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Abnormalities, Multiple - diagnosis; Abnormalities, Multiple - etiology; ADAM (amniotic disruptions; ADAM (amniotic disruptions, deformities, adhesions, multilations) complex; adhesions; deformities; Female; Fetus - abnormalities; genes; Humans; Male; multilations) complex; Phenotype; Placenta - abnormalities; pleiotropy; Pregnancy; primary malformations; Stillbirth; Streeter; syncytins; Syndrome; Torpin
• ISSN: 1552-4825; 1552-4833
• DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.36937

Noted for centuries in humans, a relatively hairless mammal [e.g., Hallero, 1766; Hohl, 1828 in Klunker, 2003], the so‐called amniotic deformities, adhesions, mutilations (ADAM) sequence remains causally and pathogenetically incognito. In 1930 Streeter stated “ apodictically” that no evidence has been found that intra‐uterine amputation is due to amniotic bands or adhesions …” and that his 16 cases provided (histological) evidence for a “germinal origin.” He concluded that an amniotic cord was “not an adhesion or inflammatory product but … an anomalous developmental structure and present from the outset.” In survivors the “traces” of damaged limb‐buds “reveal the scars of poor germ‐plasm.” In 1958, Willis, in dismissing the amniotic origin of the ADAM defects (or “Streeter” or “Simonart” bands) quoted Keith [1940] to the effect that “(a)mniotic adhesions … are always produced by … the fetus – as a result of dysplasia in foetal tissues. They are the result, not the cause, of foetal malformations.” Streeter [1930] mentions a potential familial case (56‐year‐old man and his mother), not controlled by photographs or other records and concluded “that the (ADAM) deformity is not easily transmissible,” but “due to the constitution of the germ‐plasm.” Torpin [1968] concluded, as apodictically as Streeter and Willis, that “… proof of amnion rupture without damage to the chorionic sac is no longer “in question.” Considering Torpin's decades‐long study of the ADAM phenomenon and review of 494 references (missing many) it is surprising that he does not discuss the relationship between the apparent ADAM defects and other, internal anomalies that maybe present in an affected fetus or infant not evidently caused by the amniotic disruptions, adhesions or mutilations, unless his mind was made up. Our review of these internal and other presumed primary malformations in ADAM is ongoing. However, on a preliminary basis, it seems likely to us that: (1) there is an increased prevalence of such primary anomalies in the ADAM condition confirming the view and experience of others, for example Czeizel et al. [1993]; (2) these malformations (e.g., heterotaxy) may arise as early as gastrulation; (3) that, given the ADAM phenomenon is exclusively ascertained as the ADAM phenotype in fetuses and infants, that is, that its cause and ascertainment are completely congruent, then the apparent amniotic defect must also be regarded as a malformation; (4) that in such a case the ADAM phenomen