usually cooperate to control inflammation were underactive. The underactive genes also included key antiviral genes.
This opened a whole new avenue of insight. If social stress reliably created this gene-expression profile, it might explain a lot about why, for instance, the lonely HIV carriers in Coleâs earlier studies fell so much faster to the disease.
But this was a study of just fourteen people. Cole needed more.
Over the next several years, he got them. He found similarly unbalanced gene-expression or immune-response profiles in groups including poor children, depressed people with cancer, and people caring for spouses dying of cancer. He topped his efforts off with a study in which social stress levels in young women predicted changes in their gene activity six months later. Cole and his collaborators on that study, psychologists Gregory Miller and Nicolas Rohleder of the University of British Columbia, interviewed 103 healthy Vancouver-area women aged fifteen to nineteen about their social lives, drew blood, and ran gene-expression profiles, and after half a year drew blood and ran profiles again. Some of the women reported at the time of the initial interview that they were having trouble with their love lives, their families, or their friends. Over the next six months, these socially troubled subjects took on the sort of imbalanced gene-expression profile Cole found in his other isolation studies: busy attack dogs and broken leashes. Except here, in a prospective study, he saw the attack dog breaking free of its restraints: social stress changed these young womenâs gene-expression patterns before his eyes.
Â
In early 2009, Cole sat down to make sense of all this in a review paper that he would publish later that year in
Current Directions in Psychological Science.
Two years later we sat in his spare, rather small office at UCLA and discussed what heâd found. Cole, trimly built but close to 6 feet tall, speaks in a reedy voice that is slightly higher than his frame might lead you to expect. Sometimes, when heâs grabbing for a new thought or trying to emphasize a point, it jumps a register. He is often asked to give talks about his work, and itâs easy to see why: relaxed but animated, he speaks in such an organized manner that you can almost see the paragraphs form in the air between you. He spends much of his time on the road. Thus the half-unpacked office, he said, gesturing around him. His lab, down the hall, âis essentially one really good lab managerââJesusa M. Arevalo, whom he frequently lists on his papersââand a bunch of robots,â the machines that run the assays.
âWe typically think of stress as being a risk factor for disease,â said Cole. âAnd it is, somewhat. But if you actually measure stress, using our best available instruments, it canât hold a candle to social isolation. Social isolation is the best-established, most robust social or psychological risk factor for disease out there. Nothing can compete.â
This helps explain, for instance, why many people who work in high-stress but rewarding jobs donât seem to suffer ill effects, while others, particularly those isolated and in poverty, wind up accruing lists of stress-related diagnosesâobesity, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, atherosclerosis, heart failure, stroke.
Despite these well-known effects, Cole said he was amazed when he started finding that social connectivity wrought such powerful effects on gene expression.
âOr not that we found it,â he corrected, âbut that weâre seeing it with such consistency. Science is noisy. I wouldâve bet my eyeteeth that weâd get a lot of noisy results that are inconsistent from one realm to another. And at the level of individual genes thatâs kind of trueâthere is some noise there.â But the kinds of genes that get dialed up or down in response to social experience, he said,
James M. Cain
Jane Gardam
Lora Roberts
Colleen Clay
James Lee Burke
Regina Carlysle
Jessica Speart
Bill Pronzini
Robert E. Howard
MC Beaton