The National Institute of Mental Health’s $9-million bet on aggressive autism drug development reflects the dearth of treatment options for the disorder. Will this ‘fast-fail’ approach pay off?

The National Institute of Mental Health is moving away from research proposals that hew closely to clinical diagnoses such as autism spectrum disorder. The announcement has struck many autism researchers as an attack on the already-controversial new diagnostic criteria for the disorder.

A $9 million grant to the University of California, Los Angeles aims to drive clinical trials for autism that would quickly rule out ineffective compounds.

A new microscopy technique, published in the May issue of Nature Methods, can show the activity of more than 80 percent of the brain’s neurons at one time.

The precious few long-term studies of autism have produced unique insight into the development and ultimate outcomes of the disorder. How can we encourage more of them?

We check in with the community about building more efficient bridges between families affected by autism and the scientists seeking its cure.

In April, Massachusetts-based diagnostics company SynapDx launched a large-scale study of its blood test for autism, which analyzes expression of a panel of genes.

Most parents educate themselves as much as possible when their child is diagnosed with a disorder. A handful of others — in many cases, mothers — have devoted their professional lives to research on autism-related disorders.

Using high-resolution microscopy, researchers can watch as signaling complexes assemble at neuronal junctions in zebrafish embryos, according to a study published 17 April in Cell Reports.

A genetic test purported to detect children with autism may instead be highlighting ancestry differences, says T. Grant Belgard.