Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Genomic Counter-Stress Changes Induced by the Relaxation Response

posted by cmn32480 on Tuesday December 15 2015, @05:51PM   Printer-friendly
from the i'm-too-fat-for-yoga-pants dept.

Phoenix666 writes:

Abstract

Background

Mind-body practices that elicit the relaxation response (RR) have been used worldwide for millennia to prevent and treat disease. The RR is characterized by decreased oxygen consumption, increased exhaled nitric oxide, and reduced psychological distress. It is believed to be the counterpart of the stress response that exhibits a distinct pattern of physiology and transcriptional profile. We hypothesized that RR elicitation results in characteristic gene expression changes that can be used to measure physiological responses elicited by the RR in an unbiased fashion.

Methods/Principal Findings

We assessed whole blood transcriptional profiles in 19 healthy, long-term practitioners of daily RR practice (group M), 19 healthy controls (group N1), and 20 N1 individuals who completed 8 weeks of RR training (group N2). 2209 genes were differentially expressed in group M relative to group N1 (p<0.05) and 1561 genes in group N2 compared to group N1 (p<0.05). Importantly, 433 (p<10−10) of 2209 and 1561 differentially expressed genes were shared among long-term (M) and short-term practitioners (N2). Gene ontology and gene set enrichment analyses revealed significant alterations in cellular metabolism, oxidative phosphorylation, generation of reactive oxygen species and response to oxidative stress in long-term and short-term practitioners of daily RR practice that may counteract cellular damage related to chronic psychological stress. A significant number of genes and pathways were confirmed in an independent validation set containing 5 N1 controls, 5 N2 short-term and 6 M long-term practitioners.

Conclusions/Significance

This study provides the first compelling evidence that the RR elicits specific gene expression changes in short-term and long-term practitioners. Our results suggest consistent and constitutive changes in gene expression resulting from RR may relate to long term physiological effects. Our study may stimulate new investigations into applying transcriptional profiling for accurately measuring RR and stress related responses in multiple disease settings.

You heard 'em, put on your yoga pants.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Genomic Counter-Stress Changes Induced by the Relaxation Response | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 16 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday December 15 2015, @07:16PM

    by frojack (1554) on Tuesday December 15 2015, @07:16PM (#276762) Journal

    When something sounds new-age-ie to this extent I start digging through the credentials of the authors.

    I didn't have to read very far to confirm my fears.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday December 15 2015, @08:40PM

    by FatPhil (863) <reversethis-{if.fdsa} {ta} {tnelyos-cp}> on Tuesday December 15 2015, @08:40PM (#276796) Homepage
    That was the first thing that went through my head, but after a little bit of clicking around I was unable to prove to muself that thet were simply publishing unfounded pet theories in the woo-woo domain. Sure, one of the authors is the inventer of the jargon, and he's in a scarily high proportion of the references, and all the other authors have a slightly suspicious incestuous publishing record, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything - there are lots of serious academic fields where the same people are always co-authoring papers.

    Personally I'm suspicious of any p>0.01, p<0.05 should not be the gold standard for studies like this, given how flawed-to-meaningless p values have been demonstrated to be. And N=20 is just pathetic. This sounds like bad stats, even if it's not deliberately or incompetently bad science.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 16 2015, @12:56AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 16 2015, @12:56AM (#276915)

      >given how flawed-to-meaningless p values have been demonstrated to be.

      uh wut? they have to be used with care sure, because stats, but "flawed-to-meaningless"?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 16 2015, @02:49AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 16 2015, @02:49AM (#276942)

      "there are lots of serious academic fields where the same people are always co-authoring papers."

      Name three.