We next investigated the behavioral mechanisms that give rise to social status effects on gene expression, focusing on NK and helper T cells where the observed effects were strongest. Mediation analysis revealed that rates of received harassment—a measure of the agonistic, competitive element of social status inequality— contributed to these effects for 17.3% (helper T) and 7.8% (NK) of rank-responsive genes, respectively. However, in rhesus macaques, dominance rank also influences affiliative social interactions (15). Grooming rates mediated rank effects on gene expression levels for 17.6% of genes in helper T cells, comparable to the results for agonistic interactions. In contrast, grooming behavior was more important than harassment for rankresponsive NK genes (n = 560 genes, 33.4% of all rank-responsivegenes; chi-squared test P = 1.33 × 10e−74)(Fig. 2, D and E). A lack of positive social interactions may therefore be equally or more important than social subordination per se in shaping social status effects on gene expression, consistent with the known effects of social integration on health and mortality in both humans and other primates (16–18).
Already done.
I refer to the "Dunedin Study", (Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study). [0] Read the summaries of how this was/is being conducted. The most revealing insight into the links between poverty, disease and mortality. People born into poverty and who increase their wealth considerably in later life, do not get healthier.
Disease (damage to the immune system) is directly related to poverty.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunedin_Multidisciplinary_Heal...
[1] http://dunedinstudy.otago.ac.nz and http://dunedinstudy.otago.ac.nz/publications
Like, "Poor people live in darker homes, and the photosensitive ganglion cells are connected to the part of the brain that controls melanin production. And this triggers a sleep response more often, which causes the immune system to behave in X, Y, and Z".
How does a statistician make a decision about what to change given only statistical data? It seems very mysterious to me. I understand how to interpret a scientific result(give people brighter homes), but not a statistical one.
(See also for example Judea Pearl's work http://causality.cs.ucla.edu/blog/ )
@Michael, biology is messy compared to machines. To judge a measure of certainty in the methodology and results, read the peer-reviewed papers submitted to scientists working in this and other fields ~ http://dunedinstudy.otago.ac.nz/publications
> A detailed analysis of the monkeys' blood showed 1,600 differences in the activity levels of genes involved in running the immune system between those at the top and bottom.
Could it be that the grooming procedure itself helps with the immune system? For example, cats will often lick their fur, which could bring in small quantities of pathogens to help build an immunity. If something similar happens with the monkeys, the result might not generalize to humans.
> Dr Snyder-Mackler said: "Status is always relative, but if we could flatten the slope so the differences between the highest and lowest weren't as much, or find ways to focus attention on lower social environments so they are not as 'crappy' we could mediate some of those consequences.
It's fine for the doctor to have his own political philosophy and motivations to do this study, but I would wait for a biologist to do a more careful analysis of why those genes are being activated before using this to justify any political action.
Certainly, if every conceivable biological variable except for feeling like you're at the bottom is accounted for and the effect remains, that would be a very interesting result.