Maya B Mathur1, Elissa Epel2, Shelley Kind3, Manisha Desai4, Christine G Parks5, Dale P Sandler5, Nayer Khazeni6. 1. Quantitative Sciences Unit, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA. Electronic address: mmathur@stanford.edu. 2. Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. 3. Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Quantitative Sciences Unit, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA. 5. Epidemiology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIH, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA. 6. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA; Center for Health Policy and Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Psychological stress contributes to numerous diseases and may do so in part through damage to telomeres, protective non-coding segments on the ends of chromosomes. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the association between self-reported, perceived psychological stress (PS) and telomere length (TL). DATA SOURCES: We searched 3 databases (PubMed, PsycInfo, and Scopus), completed manual searches of published and unpublished studies, and contacted all study authors to obtain potentially relevant data. STUDY SELECTION: Two independent reviewers assessed studies for original research measuring (but not necessarily reporting the correlation between) PS and TL in human subjects. 23 studies met inclusion criteria; 22 (totaling 8948 subjects) could be meta-analyzed. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We assessed study quality using modified MINORS criteria. Since not all included studies reported PS-TL correlations, we obtained them via direct calculation from author-provided data (7 studies), contact with authors (14 studies), or extraction from the published article (1 study). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We conducted random-effects meta-analysis on our primary outcome, the age-adjusted PS-TL correlation. We investigated potential confounders and moderators (sex, life stress exposure, and PS measure validation) via post hoc subset analyses and meta-regression. RESULTS: Increased PS was associated with a very small decrease in TL (n=8724 total; r=-0.06; 95% CI: -0.10, -0.008; p=0.01; α=0.025), adjusting for age. This relationship was similar between sexes and within studies using validated measures of PS, and marginally (nonsignificantly) stronger among samples recruited for stress exposure (r=-0.13; vs. general samples: b=-0.11; 95% CI: -0.27, 0.01; p=0.05; α=0.013). Publication bias may exist; correcting for its effects attenuated the relationship. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Our analysis finds a very small, statistically significant relationship between increased PS (as measured over the past month) and decreased TL that may reflect publication bias, although fully parsing the effects of publication bias from other sample-size correlates is challenging, as discussed. The association may be stronger with known major stressors and is similar in magnitude to that noted between obesity and TL. All included studies used single measures of short-term stress; the literature suggests long-term chronic stress may have a larger cumulative effect. Future research should assess for potential confounders and use longitudinal, multidimensional models of stress.
IMPORTANCE: Psychological stress contributes to numerous diseases and may do so in part through damage to telomeres, protective non-coding segments on the ends of chromosomes. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the association between self-reported, perceived psychological stress (PS) and telomere length (TL). DATA SOURCES: We searched 3 databases (PubMed, PsycInfo, and Scopus), completed manual searches of published and unpublished studies, and contacted all study authors to obtain potentially relevant data. STUDY SELECTION: Two independent reviewers assessed studies for original research measuring (but not necessarily reporting the correlation between) PS and TL in human subjects. 23 studies met inclusion criteria; 22 (totaling 8948 subjects) could be meta-analyzed. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We assessed study quality using modified MINORS criteria. Since not all included studies reported PS-TL correlations, we obtained them via direct calculation from author-provided data (7 studies), contact with authors (14 studies), or extraction from the published article (1 study). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We conducted random-effects meta-analysis on our primary outcome, the age-adjusted PS-TL correlation. We investigated potential confounders and moderators (sex, life stress exposure, and PS measure validation) via post hoc subset analyses and meta-regression. RESULTS: Increased PS was associated with a very small decrease in TL (n=8724 total; r=-0.06; 95% CI: -0.10, -0.008; p=0.01; α=0.025), adjusting for age. This relationship was similar between sexes and within studies using validated measures of PS, and marginally (nonsignificantly) stronger among samples recruited for stress exposure (r=-0.13; vs. general samples: b=-0.11; 95% CI: -0.27, 0.01; p=0.05; α=0.013). Publication bias may exist; correcting for its effects attenuated the relationship. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Our analysis finds a very small, statistically significant relationship between increased PS (as measured over the past month) and decreased TL that may reflect publication bias, although fully parsing the effects of publication bias from other sample-size correlates is challenging, as discussed. The association may be stronger with known major stressors and is similar in magnitude to that noted between obesity and TL. All included studies used single measures of short-term stress; the literature suggests long-term chronic stress may have a larger cumulative effect. Future research should assess for potential confounders and use longitudinal, multidimensional models of stress.
Authors: Elissa S Epel; Jue Lin; Frank H Wilhelm; Owen M Wolkowitz; Richard Cawthon; Nancy E Adler; Christyn Dolbier; Wendy B Mendes; Elizabeth H Blackburn Journal: Psychoneuroendocrinology Date: 2005-11-17 Impact factor: 4.905
Authors: Janice Humphreys; Elissa S Epel; Bruce A Cooper; Jue Lin; Elizabeth H Blackburn; Kathryn A Lee Journal: Biol Res Nurs Date: 2011-03-08 Impact factor: 2.522
Authors: Shannon M Lynch; M K Peek; Nandita Mitra; Krithika Ravichandran; Charles Branas; Elaine Spangler; Wenting Zhou; Electra D Paskett; Sarah Gehlert; Cecilia DeGraffinreid; Timothy R Rebbeck; Harold Riethman Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-01-11 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Kathryn K Ridout; Samuel J Ridout; Constance Guille; Douglas A Mata; Huda Akil; Srijan Sen Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2019-05-09 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Laura K M Han; Josine E Verhoeven; Audrey R Tyrka; Brenda W J H Penninx; Owen M Wolkowitz; Kristoffer N T Månsson; Daniel Lindqvist; Marco P Boks; Dóra Révész; Synthia H Mellon; Martin Picard Journal: Psychoneuroendocrinology Date: 2019-04-05 Impact factor: 4.905
Authors: Helen C S Meier; Mustafa Hussein; Belinda Needham; Sharrelle Barber; Jue Lin; Teresa Seeman; Ana Diez Roux Journal: Psychoneuroendocrinology Date: 2019-04-29 Impact factor: 4.905
Authors: Samaah Sullivan; Muhammad Hammadah; Ibhar Al Mheid; Amit Shah; Yan V Sun; Michael Kutner; Laura Ward; Elizabeth Blackburn; Jinying Zhao; Jue Lin; J Douglas Bremner; Arshed A Quyyumi; Viola Vaccarino; Tené T Lewis Journal: Psychoneuroendocrinology Date: 2019-03-25 Impact factor: 4.905