Title |
A functional genomic perspective on human well-being
|
---|---|
Published in |
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, July 2013
|
DOI | 10.1073/pnas.1305419110 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Barbara L. Fredrickson, Karen M. Grewen, Kimberly A. Coffey, Sara B. Algoe, Ann M. Firestine, Jesusa M. G. Arevalo, Jeffrey Ma, Steven W. Cole |
Abstract |
To identify molecular mechanisms underlying the prospective health advantages associated with psychological well-being, we analyzed leukocyte basal gene expression profiles in 80 healthy adults who were assessed for hedonic and eudaimonic well-being, as well as potentially confounded negative psychological and behavioral factors. Hedonic and eudaimonic well-being showed similar affective correlates but highly divergent transcriptome profiles. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells from people with high levels of hedonic well-being showed up-regulated expression of a stress-related conserved transcriptional response to adversity (CTRA) involving increased expression of proinflammatory genes and decreased expression of genes involved in antibody synthesis and type I IFN response. In contrast, high levels of eudaimonic well-being were associated with CTRA down-regulation. Promoter-based bioinformatics implicated distinct patterns of transcription factor activity in structuring the observed differences in gene expression associated with eudaimonic well-being (reduced NF-κB and AP-1 signaling and increased IRF and STAT signaling). Transcript origin analysis identified monocytes, plasmacytoid dendritic cells, and B lymphocytes as primary cellular mediators of these dynamics. The finding that hedonic and eudaimonic well-being engage distinct gene regulatory programs despite their similar effects on total well-being and depressive symptoms implies that the human genome may be more sensitive to qualitative variations in well-being than are our conscious affective experiences. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 31 | 20% |
Japan | 7 | 5% |
United Kingdom | 7 | 5% |
Canada | 6 | 4% |
Netherlands | 5 | 3% |
Australia | 4 | 3% |
Italy | 3 | 2% |
Sweden | 2 | 1% |
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 2 | 1% |
Other | 28 | 18% |
Unknown | 57 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 110 | 72% |
Scientists | 25 | 16% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 13 | 9% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 25 | 3% |
Germany | 4 | <1% |
United Kingdom | 4 | <1% |
Australia | 3 | <1% |
Switzerland | 2 | <1% |
Sweden | 2 | <1% |
South Africa | 2 | <1% |
New Zealand | 2 | <1% |
France | 2 | <1% |
Other | 4 | <1% |
Unknown | 722 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 147 | 19% |
Researcher | 142 | 18% |
Student > Master | 97 | 13% |
Student > Bachelor | 55 | 7% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 54 | 7% |
Other | 180 | 23% |
Unknown | 97 | 13% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Psychology | 280 | 36% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 89 | 12% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 56 | 7% |
Social Sciences | 49 | 6% |
Neuroscience | 34 | 4% |
Other | 128 | 17% |
Unknown | 136 | 18% |