| Literature DB >> 18596974 |
Jeffery A Dusek1, Hasan H Otu, Ann L Wohlhueter, Manoj Bhasin, Luiz F Zerbini, Marie G Joseph, Herbert Benson, Towia A Libermann.
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/PRINCIPALEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2008 PMID: 18596974 PMCID: PMC2432467 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0002576
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Gene Ontology Analysis.
Analysis of differentially expressed genes: a) Venn diagrams: * indicates significant overlaps (p<106); b) Heatmaps of the 595 differentially regulated genes in both M vs. N1 and M vs. N2 (left) and the 418 differentially regulated genes in both M vs. N1 and N2 vs. N1; c) Heatmap of 15 genes in the intersection of all three groups (gene symbols listed on the right). In heatmaps, rows represent genes and columns represent samples from N1, N2, and M groups. Genes are clustered using row-normalized signals and mapped to the [−1,1] interval (shown in scales beneath each heatmap). Red and green represent high and low expression values, respectively.
Gene Ontology Categories
| SELECTED GENE ONTOLOGY CATEGORY | Original Data-set (n = 58) | Validation Data-set (n = 16) | ||
| M vs. N1 (2209) | N2 vs. N1 (1561) | M vs. N1 (1846) | N2 vs. N1 (2390) | |
|
| 20† | 7 | 7 | 20† |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 19* | 16* | 21** | 17 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 22** | 15* | 18* | 21* |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 64‡ | 20* | 31‡ | 33† |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 667‡ | 477‡ | 574† | 694† |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 31* | 24* | 30* | 35* |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 38 | 37** | 48† | 42 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 12 | 14** | 14* | 13 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 16 | 13* | 17* | 18* |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 9* | 11‡ | 8* | 13‡ |
|
|
|
|
| |
Numbers in parentheses are the total number of genes per comparison for each data-set or the GO reference set. The number of differentially expressed genes with representative members in that GO category for each comparison and data-set are listed. Significance of EASE scores are indicated as follows: p<0.05*, p<0.01**, p<0.001†, p<0.0001‡.
Figure 2GSEA Analysis.
The analysis has been performed for >1200 predefined datasets using GSEA 2.0 software. Signal values for each gene are obtained by collapsing the probe values using max_probe algorithm. Representative datasets, significantly enriched (FDR<50%, or NPV< = 0.01) between any two groups and corresponding heatmaps (depicting relative gene expression changes of core enrichment) are shown in a) N2 vs. N1 and b) M vs. N1. Datasets that are enriched in both the original and validation analyses are marked with *. c) Heatmaps of ribosomal proteins and ubiquitin mediated proteolysis illustrate transitional trends in gene expression across the N1, N2 and M groups.
Demographics
| N group | M group | p-value | |
|
| 36.68±6.22-3 | 37.21±6.93 | 0.81 |
|
|
|
| 0.15 |
|
|
| ||
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| 1.0 |
|
| 66.32±3.73 | 68.79±4.22 | 0.06 |
|
| 152.47±24.40 | 153.58±16.82 | 0.87 |
|
|
|
| 0.73 |
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
The demographic characteristics for the N and M groups. The age, height, and weight p-values were calculated using t-test, whereas the race, gender, and marital status p-values were calculated using chi-square test. There were no significant differences across the groups