Human social genomics

Darwin's legacy II: why biology is not physics, or why it has taken a century to see the dependence of genes on the environment

Genes and environment make the organism. Darwin stood firm in his denial of any direct role of environment in the modification of heredity. His theory of evolution heralded two debates: one about the importance and adequacy of natural selection as the main mechanism of evolution, and the other about the role of genes versus environment in the modification of phenotype and evolution. Here, I provide an overview of the second debate and show that the reasons for the gene versus environment battle were twofold: first, there was confusion about the role of environment in modifying the inheritance of a trait versus the evolution of that trait, and second, there was misunderstanding about the meaning of environment and its interaction with genes in the production of phenotypes. It took nearly a century to see that environment does not directly affect the inheritance of a phenotype (i.e., its heredity), but it is nevertheless the primary mover of phenotypic evolution. Effects of genes and environment are not separate but interdependent. One cannot separate the effect of genes from that of environment, or nature from nurture. To answer the question posed in the title, it is partly because the 20th century has been a century of unending progress in genetics. But also because unlike physics, biology is not colorblind; progress in biology has often been delayed beyond the Kuhnian paradigm change due to built-in interest in negating the influence of environment. Those who are against evolution, of course, cannot be expected to understand the role of environment in evolution. Those for it, many biologists included, believing in the supremacy of genes empowers them by giving adaptation a solely gene-directed (self-driven) "teleological" interpretation.

Psychological well-being and the human conserved transcriptional response to adversity

Research in human social genomics has identified a conserved transcriptional response to adversity (CTRA) characterized by up-regulated expression of pro-inflammatory genes and down-regulated expression of Type I interferon- and antibody-related genes. This report seeks to identify the specific aspects of positive psychological well-being that oppose such effects and predict reduced CTRA gene expression. In a new confirmation study of 122 healthy adults that replicated the approach of a previously reported discovery study, mixed effect linear model analyses identified a significant inverse association between expression of CTRA indicator genes and a summary measure of eudaimonic well-being from the Mental Health Continuum – Short Form. Analyses of a 2- representation of eudaimonia converged in finding correlated psychological and social subdomains of eudaimonic well-being to be the primary carriers of CTRA associations. Hedonic well-being showed no consistent CTRA association independent of eudaimonic well-being, and summary measures integrating hedonic and eudaimonic well-being showed less stable CTRA associations than did focal measures of eudaimonia (psychological and social well-being). Similar results emerged from analyses of pooled discovery and confirmation samples (n = 198). Similar results also emerged from analyses of a second new generalization study of 107 healthy adults that included the more detailed Ryff Scales of Psychological Well-being and found this more robust measure of eudaimonic well-being to also associate with reduced CTRA gene expression. Five of the 6 major sub-domains of psychological well-being predicted reduced CTRA gene expression when analyzed separately, and 3 remained distinctively prognostic in mutually adjusted analyses. All associations were independent of demographic characteristics, health-related confounders, and RNA indicators of leukocyte subset distribution. These results identify specific sub-dimensions of eudaimonic well-being as promising targets for future interventions to mitigate CTRA gene expression, and provide no support for any independent favorable contribution from hedonic well-being.

The microbiome mutiny hypothesis: can our microbiome turn against us when we are old or seriously ill?

Background

The symbiotic organisms of the healthy microbiome tend to be harmless or even beneficial for the host; however, some symbionts are able to adjust their virulence in response to external stimuli. Evolutionary theory suggests that optimal virulence might increase if the mortality of the host (from unrelated causes) increases.

Presentation of the hypothesis

We hypothesize that microorganisms of the human microbiome may be capable of a coordinated phenotypic switch to higher virulence (“microbiome mutiny”) in old or seriously ill people, to optimize their transmission under the conditions of increased background mortality. This proposed virulence shift might contribute to the death of old or seriously ill people even in the absence of apparent disease.

Testing the hypothesis

Testable predictions of the hypothesis include increased expression of virulence factors in isolates of the same species of the microbiome obtained from ailing/old versus healthy/young individuals, and the existence of microbial mechanisms to assess the general condition (background mortality) of the host. Such tests are going to be important to distinguish the cases of “microbiome mutiny” from the situation where opportunistic infections or increased effective virulence arise from relaxed immune control in ailing or old individuals in the absence of changes in the symbionts/pathogens.

Implications of the hypothesis

Elucidating this potential mechanism might open up new possibilities for the clinical management of age related health issues and critical injuries or disease. Targeted prophylaxis against the microbes capable of virulence shifts could break the harmful feedback loop between deteriorating health and the “mutiny” of the microbiome.

Reviewers

This article was reviewed by Eugene V Koonin, Neil Greenspan and Michael Gilchrist.

Blood gene expression profiles suggest altered immune function associated with symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder

Prospective epidemiological studies found that generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) can impair immune function and increase risk for cardiovascular disease or events. Mechanisms underlying the physiological reverberations of anxiety, however, are still elusive. Hence, we aimed to investigate molecular processes mediating effects of anxiety on physical health using blood gene expression profiles of 336 community participants (157 anxious and 179 control). We examined genome-wide differential gene expression in anxiety, as well as associations between nine major modules of co-regulated transcripts in blood gene expression and anxiety. No significant differential expression was observed in women, but 631 genes were differentially expressed between anxious and control men at the false discovery rate of 0.1 after controlling for age, body mass index, race, and batch effect. Gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) revealed that genes with altered expression levels in anxious men were involved in response of various immune cells to vaccination and to acute viral and bacterial infection, and in a metabolic network affecting traits of metabolic syndrome. Further, we found one set of 260 co-regulated genes to be significantly associated with anxiety in men after controlling for the relevant covariates, and demonstrate its equivalence to a component of the stress-related conserved transcriptional response to adversity profile. Taken together, our results suggest potential molecular pathways that can explain negative effects of GAD observed in epidemiological studies. Remarkably, even mild anxiety, which most of our participants had, was associated with observable changes in immune-related gene expression levels. Our findings generate hypotheses and provide incremental insights into molecular mechanisms mediating negative physiological effects of GAD.