*κB as a key transcription factor target, while acknowledging additional pathways suggested by
the broader pattern of gene expression changes observed in this meta-analysis.*

**Practical and Clinical Implications**

**Implications for Integrative Medicine**

The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis have important implications for the field of integrative medicine, which seeks to combine conventional medical treatments with complementary approaches that address the whole person—body, mind, and spirit. The demonstration that mind-body interventions produce measurable transcriptional changes in immune cells provides molecular evidence supporting the biological plausibility of integrative medicine approaches. Healthcare practitioners can cite these findings when discussing with patients and colleagues the scientific rationale for incorporating meditation, mindfulness, or yoga into treatment plans.

The identification of specific genes and pathways affected by mind-body interventions suggests potential mechanisms that may mediate clinical benefits. The trend-level effects on inflammatory pathways are particularly relevant, as chronic inflammation is now recognized as a key contributor to numerous conditions including cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, cancer, neurodegenerative diseases, and depression. Mind-body practices that modulate inflammatory gene expression may provide adjunctive benefits for patients with these conditions, potentially enhancing the efficacy of conventional treatments or reducing medication requirements.

The finding that different intervention types (meditation vs. yoga) may produce somewhat different transcriptional profiles suggests the potential for tailoring mind-body prescriptions to individual patients and conditions. Just as pharmacological treatments are
selected based on their mechanism of action and the patient's specific pathophysiology, mind-body interventions could potentially be matched to patients based on anticipated molecular effects. For example, patients with primarily inflammatory conditions might benefit most from practices showing the strongest effects on inflammatory gene expression, while patients with anxiety or stress-related conditions might benefit from practices with different molecular signatures.

The modest effect sizes observed in this meta-analysis have implications for how mind-body interventions should be positioned within integrative medicine. The findings suggest that mind-body practices should not be viewed as replacements for proven pharmacological or surgical treatments but rather as complementary approaches that may provide incremental benefits. The small-to-medium transcriptional effects are more consistent with adjunctive benefits—reducing medication doses, enhancing quality of life, preventing recurrence—than with primary treatment effects sufficient to replace conventional care for serious conditions.

## Potential Biomarkers for Intervention Efficacy

The genes identified as consistently regulated across studies in this meta-analysis represent potential biomarkers for assessing the efficacy of mind-body interventions. The 94 genes showing consistent direction of effect across the Relaxation Response and Mindfulness studies could form the basis of a "mind-body intervention response signature" that could be measured before and after treatment to objectively assess whether a patient is responding to the intervention. Such biomarkers would complement subjective assessments of well-being and psychological measures by providing objective molecular endpoints.

The development of biomarker panels for mind-body intervention efficacy would have several practical applications. First, biomarkers could help identify patients who are likely to
respond to mind-body interventions, enabling personalized treatment recommendations. Patients whose baseline gene expression suggests they are good candidates for mind-body approaches could be preferentially referred to these programs. Second, biomarkers could provide early indicators of treatment response, allowing clinicians to adjust recommendations if a patient is not showing molecular changes despite adherent practice. Third, biomarkers could facilitate research by providing quantitative endpoints for clinical trials comparing different intervention protocols or identifying optimal dosing (frequency and duration) of mind-body practices.

The pathway-level findings, while not reaching robust statistical significance, also suggest candidate biomarker approaches. Measuring the expression of NF-κB target genes as a panel could provide a focused assessment of anti-inflammatory effects. Similarly, measuring expression of CTRA-related genes could assess whether interventions are reversing the stress-associated transcriptional signature. These targeted approaches may be more practical than genome-wide profiling for clinical applications, as they require less tissue, are less expensive, and can be analyzed more rapidly.

It is important to note that the translation of these findings into validated clinical biomarkers will require substantial additional research. The genes identified in this meta-analysis represent candidates that warrant further validation in prospective studies specifically designed to evaluate their performance as biomarkers. Key validation steps include demonstrating that changes in these genes correlate with clinical outcomes (not just intervention assignment), establishing the sensitivity and specificity of the biomarkers for detecting responders versus non-responders, and determining the appropriate timing and methods for sample collection and analysis.
Personalized Medicine Considerations

The findings of this meta-analysis contribute to the emerging field of personalized or precision medicine for mind-body interventions. The observation that transcriptional effects vary across individuals within studies (reflected in the statistical variability underlying the modest mean effect sizes) suggests that some individuals may be more responsive to mind-body practices than others. Understanding the sources of this individual variability could enable tailoring of intervention recommendations to optimize outcomes for each patient.

Several factors may contribute to individual variability in transcriptional response to mind-body interventions. Baseline gene expression profiles may influence responsiveness, with individuals showing elevated inflammatory gene expression at baseline potentially having more "room" for intervention-induced reduction. Genetic polymorphisms in genes regulating stress response, inflammation, or neural function may moderate the effects of contemplative practices on downstream gene expression. Psychological factors including baseline stress levels, personality traits, and prior meditation experience may influence the depth or quality of practice and thereby the molecular response. Lifestyle factors including sleep, diet, exercise, and social relationships may interact with mind-body practice effects.

The development of personalized approaches to mind-body medicine will require research programs that collect comprehensive baseline assessments, genotype participants, measure multiple intermediate and outcome variables, and employ analytical methods capable of identifying predictors of response and moderators of treatment effects. Such research programs are more complex and expensive than traditional mind-body intervention studies but are necessary to move the field toward precision medicine approaches.
In the interim, the findings of this meta-analysis support some general recommendations for practice. First, the consistency of effects across different intervention types suggests that patients should be encouraged to select practices they find engaging and sustainable, as adherence may be more important than the specific technique. Second, the larger proportion of differentially expressed genes at 8 weeks compared to 4 days suggests that sustained practice over weeks to months may be necessary to achieve meaningful transcriptional changes. Third, the finding that effects are detectable even with brief interventions (4 days of intensive yoga) suggests that initial benefits may occur relatively quickly, which can encourage patients to continue practice.

## Public Health Implications

The public health implications of this research extend beyond individual patient care to population-level considerations. Chronic inflammatory conditions—including cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, and depression—represent leading causes of morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs in developed nations. If mind-body interventions can modulate inflammatory gene expression, widespread adoption of these practices could have meaningful impacts on population health burden.

The accessibility and low cost of mind-body interventions make them particularly attractive from a public health perspective. Unlike pharmacological treatments that require manufacturing, distribution, and medical supervision, practices such as meditation and yoga can be learned from community classes, smartphone applications, or online resources and practiced independently without ongoing costs. This scalability distinguishes mind-body interventions from many other evidence-based health interventions that face barriers to widespread implementation.
Several initiatives could leverage the molecular evidence from this meta-analysis to promote population health. Workplace wellness programs could incorporate meditation or mindfulness training, with the molecular evidence providing justification for the investment. School-based programs could introduce contemplative practices to children and adolescents, potentially establishing lifelong habits that support inflammatory health. Community health centers could offer group meditation classes as part of chronic disease management programs. Public health campaigns could highlight the scientific evidence for mind-body practices alongside recommendations for diet and exercise.

It is important to acknowledge limitations in translating the molecular findings to population health recommendations. The meta-analysis demonstrated transcriptional effects, but the clinical significance of these effects—whether they translate to reduced disease incidence or improved health outcomes at the population level—remains to be definitively established. Large-scale epidemiological studies and community-based intervention trials will be necessary to determine whether the molecular effects observed in controlled research settings produce meaningful population health benefits.

## Limitations

### Methodological Limitations

Several methodological limitations of this systematic review and meta-analysis must be acknowledged. First, the analysis relied on secondary data from publicly available repositories, which limited control over study design, data collection procedures, and analytical methods. While the use of existing GEO datasets enabled efficient synthesis of evidence from multiple studies, it also meant accepting the methodological choices made by the original investigators, which varied across studies in ways that may have introduced heterogeneity.
Second, the meta-analytic methods employed have inherent limitations when applied to gene expression data. Fisher's combined probability method, used for the primary meta-analysis, tests whether consistent evidence exists for differential expression across studies but does not directly estimate effect sizes or account for effect size heterogeneity. The random effects meta-analysis approach, while providing effect size estimates, assumes that true effects are normally distributed across studies, which may not hold for all genes. The triangulation of multiple meta-analytic methods helps mitigate the limitations of any single approach, but each method has assumptions that may be violated to varying degrees.

Third, the comparison of studies using different microarray platforms (Affymetrix in GSE10041 and GSE108215, Illumina in GSE44777) introduces technical heterogeneity that complicates interpretation. Different platforms measure different probe sets, employ different normalization methods, and may have different technical noise characteristics. The primary meta-analysis was restricted to the two Affymetrix studies to minimize platform-related heterogeneity, but this choice reduced the number of studies contributing to the combined analysis.

Fourth, the gene-level analysis conducted in this meta-analysis may not fully capture the functional consequences of mind-body interventions. Gene expression is necessary but not sufficient for protein production and function, and post-transcriptional, translational, and post-translational regulatory processes may modify the relationship between transcript levels and biological outcomes. The observed transcriptional changes should be interpreted as indicators of biological activity rather than direct measures of functional immune changes.
## Data Source Limitations

The reliance on the Gene Expression Omnibus as the primary data source introduces potential biases. Publication bias may affect which datasets are deposited in GEO, with studies showing significant or interesting results potentially being more likely to be archived than null studies. This positive result bias could inflate estimates of mind-body intervention effects if negative studies are systematically under-represented in the repository.

The metadata available in GEO, while generally sufficient for basic analysis, was sometimes incomplete regarding details of intervention protocols, participant characteristics, sample handling procedures, and quality control metrics. This incompleteness limited the ability to conduct moderator analyses examining how study-level characteristics influence results.

Efforts to obtain additional information from original authors were only partially successful, resulting in missing data for some potentially important covariates.

The requirement that datasets include both pre- and post-intervention measurements from the same participants limited the pool of eligible studies. Some potentially relevant datasets employed cross-sectional designs comparing experienced practitioners to novices, which provide valuable information about the characteristics of long-term practice but cannot isolate the effects of intervention from selection effects (individuals who continue practice may differ from those who do not). The focus on within-subject pre-post designs increases internal validity but may reduce generalizability and the number of available studies.

## Heterogeneity of Interventions

The three included studies employed substantially different mind-body interventions: Relaxation Response training based on Benson's protocol, Mindfulness Awareness Practice adapted from MBSR, and Sudarshan Kriya Yoga involving intensive rhythmic breathing. While
Transcriptional Signature

this heterogeneity enabled assessment of whether transcriptional effects generalize across
intervention types, it also complicated interpretation of specific findings. The meta-analysis
cannot determine whether the identified effects are common to all mind-body practices or
specific to particular intervention elements.

Intervention duration varied substantially across studies, from 4 days (GSE44777) to 8 weeks (GSE10041 and GSE108215). Duration may influence both the magnitude and the pattern of transcriptional effects, with acute effects potentially differing from sustained changes following longer practice periods. The limited number of studies precluded formal analysis of duration as a moderator, but the observed differences in directional patterns (more downregulation in the short-duration yoga study) suggest that duration may be an important factor.

The intensity and format of interventions also varied. Some programs involved group instruction with daily practice requirements, while others were more flexible. The original publications did not consistently report adherence data, making it impossible to assess the "dose" of practice actually received by participants. This dosing uncertainty could attenuate observed effects (if poor adherence reduced intervention potency) or introduce variability (if adherence varied across participants within studies).

Sample Size Considerations

The sample sizes in the included studies, while adequate for gene expression analysis by
field standards, were modest from the perspective of detecting small effects with high precision.
The three studies together included 236 samples, but the number of independent participants was
smaller because each study measured the same individuals before and after intervention. The
effective sample sizes for detecting differential expression ranged from approximately 30 to 43
Transcriptional Signature

participants per study, limiting statistical power for individual study analyses and for moderator
analyses in the meta-analysis.

The modest sample sizes particularly affected the pathway-level analyses, which require
detecting coordinated changes across multiple genes. Even when individual genes show
differential expression, pathway enrichment tests may not reach significance if the number of
genes meeting significance thresholds is small relative to the total number tested. Larger studies
with greater statistical power at the gene level would likely show stronger pathway-level effects
by identifying more differentially expressed genes within each pathway.

The combination of modest sample sizes and multiple testing correction created a
stringent environment for detecting effects. With over 50,000 probes tested and standard FDR
correction, the effective significance threshold was extremely conservative. This conservative
approach protects against false positives but substantially increases false negatives, potentially
missing genuine effects that fail to reach the corrected significance threshold. The focus on
nominal p-values in addition to FDR-corrected results represents a trade-off between type I and
type II error that favors detection of effects at the cost of accepting some false positives.

Generalizability Concerns

The generalizability of the findings is limited by the characteristics of the included
studies. Two of three studies employed adult populations (healthy adults in GSE10041 and
GSE44777), while one studied older adults with mild cognitive impairment (GSE108215). The
extent to which findings generalize to children, adolescents, or adults with other health
conditions is uncertain. Mind-body intervention effects may differ across the lifespan and in the
presence of various disease states that alter baseline inflammatory biology.
All three studies were conducted in Western research settings (United States), potentially limiting generalizability to other cultural contexts. Mind-body practices have diverse cultural origins, and the specific protocols used in Western research may differ from traditional practices in ways that affect their biological effects. Additionally, cultural factors may influence how participants engage with and respond to mind-body interventions.

The focus on blood cells as the primary tissue for gene expression analysis reflects practical considerations (non-invasive collection) but limits conclusions about effects in other tissues. Mind-body interventions may have different effects in different organ systems, and the transcriptional changes in circulating immune cells may not reflect changes in the brain, gut, or other organs that are also involved in mind-body-immune communication. The blood transcriptome provides a window into systemic biology but is not a direct measure of effects in the tissues most immediately affected by contemplative practice.

<table><caption>**Table 5.3 Study Limitations and Mitigation Strategies**</caption><thead><tr><td>Limitation Category</td><td>Specific Limitation</td><td>Impact</td><td>Mitigation Strategies</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Methodological</td><td>Secondary data analysis</td><td>Limited control over design</td><td>Systematic quality assessment; sensitivity analyses</td></tr><tr><td>Methodological</td><td>Platform heterogeneity</td><td>Technical variation confounded results</td><td>Restricted primary meta-analysis to same platform</td></tr><tr><td>Data Source</td><td>GEO completeness</td><td>Potential publication bias</td><td>Comprehensive search including PubMed; author contact</td></tr><tr><td>Data Source</td><td>Incomplete metadata</td><td>Limited moderator analysis</td><td>Reported all available information; noted gaps</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>Intervention</td><td>Heterogeneous protocols</td><td>Unclear intervention specificity</td><td>Compared effects across types; noted differences</td></tr><tr><td>Intervention</td><td>Variable duration</td><td>Dose-response unclear</td><td>Discussed duration effects qualitatively</td></tr><tr><td>Sample</td><td>Modest sample sizes</td><td>Limited statistical power</td><td>Combined studies; used nominal thresholds</td></tr><tr><td>Sample</td><td>Population homogeneity</td><td>Limited generalizability</td><td>Noted population characteristics; suggested replication</td></tr><tr><td>Outcome</td><td>Blood cells only</td><td>Uncertain tissue generalizability</td><td>Interpreted as systemic marker; noted limitations</td></tr><tr><td>Analysis</td><td>Multiple testing burden</td><td>Conservative FDR may miss effects</td><td>Reported both nominal and corrected p-values</td></tr></table>

## Recommendations for Future Research

### Methodological Improvements

Future research in mind-body genomics should implement several methodological improvements to strengthen the evidence base. First, studies should employ larger sample sizes to provide adequate statistical power for both gene-level and pathway-level analyses. Based on the effect sizes observed in this meta-analysis, studies with at least 100 participants per group would be needed to detect pathway-level effects with 80% power at conventional significance levels. Consortium approaches that coordinate data collection across multiple sites may be necessary to achieve these sample sizes while maintaining protocol standardization.

Second, future studies should incorporate randomized controlled designs with active control conditions. Several of the studies included in this meta-analysis used pre-post designs
without control groups, making it difficult to distinguish intervention effects from time effects,
regression to the mean, or placebo responses. Active control conditions that match the
intervention in terms of time, attention, and social contact (such as health education programs or
relaxation without the specific contemplative elements) would help isolate the specific effects of
mind-body practices from nonspecific factors.

Third, studies should employ newer genomic technologies that may provide greater sensitivity and specificity than microarray platforms. RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) offers advantages including broader dynamic range, single-nucleotide resolution, and the ability to detect novel transcripts and splice variants. Single-cell RNA sequencing could further advance the field by enabling analysis of gene expression in specific immune cell populations, potentially revealing cell-type-specific effects that are obscured in bulk tissue analysis.

Fourth, studies should collect comprehensive data on potential moderators and mediators of intervention effects. Variables of interest include baseline psychological state, adherence to practice protocols, quality of practice (which might be assessed through physiological measures such as heart rate variability), genetic polymorphisms in relevant pathways, and lifestyle factors. These data would enable analysis of who responds to mind-body interventions and through what mechanisms, advancing the field toward personalized medicine approaches.

Fifth, protocols should be standardized and pre-registered to enhance reproducibility and
reduce selective reporting. Pre-registration of hypotheses, sample size calculations, and analysis
plans would address concerns about researcher degrees of freedom in the high-dimensional
context of gene expression analysis. The adoption of reporting guidelines such as PRISMA for
systematic reviews and CONSORT for randomized trials would improve the transparency and
completeness of published research.
## Longitudinal Studies Needed

The studies included in this meta-analysis assessed gene expression at single time points before and after intervention periods ranging from 4 days to 8 weeks. Longitudinal studies with multiple assessment points are needed to characterize the time course of transcriptional changes and to distinguish acute effects from sustained alterations. Questions that longitudinal designs could address include: How rapidly do transcriptional changes emerge following initiation of practice? Do effects plateau, continue to increase, or diminish over extended practice periods? Are effects maintained during periods of non-practice, or do they require ongoing practice to persist?

Long-term follow-up studies are particularly needed to assess the durability of intervention effects. The clinical relevance of transcriptional changes depends on whether they persist long enough to influence downstream health outcomes. Studies following participants for months to years after intervention completion, with periodic gene expression assessments, would reveal whether brief intervention periods can produce lasting molecular changes or whether ongoing practice is necessary to maintain beneficial transcriptional profiles.

Dose-response studies systematically varying the frequency and duration of practice would help optimize intervention protocols. Questions include: What is the minimum effective dose of practice to produce detectable transcriptional changes? Is there a dose-response relationship where more practice produces larger effects, or is there a ceiling beyond which additional practice provides no further benefit? Do intensive retreats produce different effects than distributed daily practice of comparable total duration?

Studies examining the developmental trajectory of mind-body intervention effects across the lifespan would inform public health recommendations about when to initiate contemplative
practices. The transcriptional response to mind-body interventions may differ in children, adolescents, middle-aged adults, and older adults due to developmental changes in the neuroimmune axis. Identifying critical or sensitive periods for establishing beneficial transcriptional patterns could guide the timing of intervention programs.

Mechanistic Investigations

The present meta-analysis identified consistent transcriptional changes but could not determine the upstream mechanisms through which mind-body interventions produce these effects. Future research should integrate gene expression analysis with measurement of proposed mechanistic mediators to test specific causal pathways. Key mediators to examine include autonomic function (assessed through heart rate variability), HPA axis activity (assessed through cortisol measurements), inflammatory cytokines (assessed through serum assays), and neural activity patterns (assessed through neuroimaging).

Mediation analyses examining whether changes in these intermediate variables account for the observed transcriptional effects would provide stronger evidence for specific mechanisms. For example, if the cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathway mediates mind-body effects on gene expression, studies should demonstrate that: (a) mind-body interventions increase vagal tone, (b) increased vagal tone predicts reduced NF-κB pathway gene expression, and (c) the intervention effect on gene expression is attenuated when controlling for vagal tone. These stepwise mediation analyses require studies designed to measure multiple variables in the same participants.

Experimental manipulation of proposed mechanistic pathways could provide causal evidence. For example, studies could examine whether pharmacological vagal blockade abolishes the transcriptional effects of meditation, which would support the cholinergic anti-
inflammatory pathway mechanism. Conversely, studies could examine whether transcutaneous vagal nerve stimulation produces transcriptional effects similar to meditation, which would provide convergent evidence for vagal mediation.

Studies examining the molecular biology of transcriptional regulation could illuminate how changes in the cellular environment are transduced into gene expression changes.

Chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) studies could identify which transcription factors are differentially bound to regulatory regions following mind-body interventions. Epigenomic profiling (DNA methylation, histone modifications) could reveal persistent regulatory changes that may mediate long-term effects of contemplative practice.

## Clinical Translation Research

Translating the molecular findings from this meta-analysis into clinical practice requires research demonstrating that the observed transcriptional changes are clinically meaningful—that they predict or mediate improvements in health outcomes. Studies should measure both gene expression and clinical endpoints (disease incidence, symptom severity, quality of life, healthcare utilization) to determine whether transcriptional changes precede, accompany, or follow clinical improvement.

Clinical trials comparing mind-body interventions to standard care in specific patient populations would provide evidence for clinical efficacy. Populations where mind-body genomics research may be particularly relevant include patients with inflammatory conditions (rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, psoriasis), stress-related conditions (anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder), and populations at elevated risk for inflammation-related diseases (caregivers of patients with dementia, low socioeconomic status populations,
Transcriptional Signature

healthcare workers). Gene expression could serve as a secondary endpoint or mechanistic
biomarker in these trials.

Implementation research examining how to deliver mind-body interventions effectively in clinical settings is also needed. Questions include: Can mind-body interventions be delivered efficiently in primary care or specialty clinic settings? What training do healthcare providers need to effectively recommend and support mind-body practices? How can technology (smartphone apps, telehealth) be leveraged to increase accessibility and adherence? What are the barriers and facilitators to patient engagement with mind-body practices in different clinical contexts?

Economic analyses examining the cost-effectiveness of mind-body interventions are essential for informing healthcare policy and coverage decisions. While mind-body practices have low direct costs, there are costs associated with instruction, provider time for recommendations and follow-up, and patient time for practice. These costs must be weighed against potential benefits including reduced medication costs, fewer healthcare visits, improved productivity, and enhanced quality of life. Economic models incorporating the molecular evidence for inflammatory pathway modulation could project long-term cost savings from reduced chronic disease incidence.
<table><caption>Table 5.4 Future Research Agenda</caption><thead><tr><td>Research Priority</td><td>Specific Aims</td><td>Methods</td><td>Expected Contributions</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Methodological improvement</td><td>Increase statistical power</td><td>Large-scale consortium studies (N>100/group)</td><td>Robust pathway-level findings</td></tr><tr><td>Methodological improvement</td><td>Isolate specific effects</td><td>RCTs with active control conditions</td><td>Distinguish specific vs. nonspecific effects</td></tr><tr><td>Technology advancement</td><td>Improve molecular resolution</td><td>RNA-seq, single-cell sequencing</td><td>Cell-type specific signatures</td></tr><tr><td>Longitudinal studies</td><td>Characterize time course</td><td>Multiple assessments over months-years</td><td>Acute vs. sustained effects</td></tr><tr><td>Longitudinal studies</td><td>Assess durability</td><td>Long-term follow-up post-intervention</td><td>Persistence of transcriptional changes</td></tr><tr><td>Dose-response studies</td><td>Optimize protocols</td><td>Systematic dose variation designs</td><td>Minimum effective dose; ceiling effects</td></tr><tr><td>Mechanistic studies</td><td>Test causal pathways</td><td>Mediation analysis with autonomic/HPA measures</td><td>Evidence for specific mechanisms</td></tr><tr><td>Mechanistic studies</td><td>Examine transcriptional regulation</td><td>ChIP-seq, epigenomic profiling</td><td>Regulatory mechanisms identified</td></tr><tr><td>Clinical translation</td><td>Link to health outcomes</td><td>Trials with clinical + molecular endpoints</td><td>Clinical significance established</td></tr><tr><td>Implementation research</td><td>Enable clinical adoption</td><td>Effectiveness trials in real-world settings</td><td>Practical delivery methods</td></tr><tr><td>Economic analysis</td><td>Inform policy</td><td>Cost-effectiveness modeling</td><td>Value proposition for healthcare systems</td></tr></tbody></table>
Conclusions

Synthesis of Discussion

This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the transcriptional signature of mind-
body interventions on inflammatory gene expression, synthesizing evidence from three GEO
datasets representing Relaxation Response training, Mindfulness Awareness Practice, and
Sudarshan Kriya Yoga. The analysis identified consistent patterns of differential gene expression
across studies, with 2.7% to 4.4% of probes showing nominally significant changes and 94 genes
demonstrating consistent direction of effect in the meta-analysis. These findings provide
molecular evidence supporting the biological plausibility of mind-body intervention effects on
immune function and inflammatory biology.

The interpretation of these findings in relation to the existing literature revealed both
consistencies and novel observations. The detection of transcriptional changes in blood cells
following contemplative practices aligns with the pioneering work of Benson, Dusek, Creswell,
Black, Bower, Cole, and Kaliman establishing the field of mind-body genomics. However, the
finding that more genes were upregulated than downregulated in meditation-focused studies
challenges the predominant emphasis on anti-inflammatory effects and suggests that
contemplative practices may also activate protective or resilience-related pathways. The partial
support for CTRA reversal indicates that the relationship between mind-body practices and
stress-related gene expression is more nuanced than a simple inversion of the adversity signature.

The theoretical implications of the findings for the QPNIT framework were
systematically examined. The results provide substantial support for Proposition 3's core claim
that spiritual and contemplative practices produce measurable biological effects at the molecular
level. The cross-study consistency of effects supports the reproducibility criterion for scientific
Transcriptional Signature

credibility, while the specific pathway findings partially align with theoretical predictions regarding inflammatory pathway modulation. The empirical findings suggest refinements to the QPNIT model, including expanded recognition of upregulated protective pathways, incorporation of intervention-type specificity, and emphasis on modulatory rather than transformative effects.

The practical and clinical implications of the research were discussed, including the potential for developing biomarkers of mind-body intervention efficacy, the considerations for personalized medicine approaches, and the public health implications of widely accessible practices that modulate inflammatory gene expression. The limitations of the study were comprehensively addressed, including methodological constraints, data source limitations, intervention heterogeneity, sample size considerations, and generalizability concerns.

Recommendations for future research prioritized methodological improvements, longitudinal designs, mechanistic investigations, and clinical translation studies.

Significance of the Study

This study makes significant contributions to multiple fields of inquiry. For psychoneuroimmunology, the meta-analysis provides the first quantitative synthesis of gene expression data across mind-body intervention studies, establishing a method that can be extended as the evidence base grows. The identification of 94 genes with consistent effects across studies offers a candidate gene list for mechanistic research and biomarker development.

The positive correlation of effect sizes across studies (r = 0.23) provides quantitative evidence for the hypothesis that different contemplative practices engage overlapping molecular pathways.

For mind-body medicine, the findings strengthen the evidence base for integrative approaches that incorporate meditation, mindfulness, and yoga into healthcare. The molecular
Transcriptional Signature

evidence complements behavioral, psychological, and clinical outcome data by demonstrating
effects at the most fundamental level of biological organization—gene expression. This
molecular evidence may help overcome skepticism toward mind-body approaches in
conventional medical settings and support the inclusion of contemplative practices in treatment
guidelines.

For theoretical development, the findings inform refinement of the QPNIT framework
and more broadly contribute to understanding how psychological and spiritual experiences are
transduced into biological changes. The pattern of findings—modest but consistent effects across
diverse practices, more upregulation than downregulation, partial CTRA reversal—provides
empirical constraints that shape theoretical models of the mind-body-gene connection. The
observation that mentally-focused and physically-focused practices produce somewhat different
signatures suggests the potential for developing more precise theories about how specific aspects
of contemplative experience engage specific biological pathways.

For public health, the findings support population-level recommendations to incorporate
mind-body practices as components of healthy lifestyle alongside diet, exercise, and sleep. The
demonstration that accessible, low-cost practices can modulate inflammatory gene expression—a
pathway implicated in numerous chronic diseases—provides scientific rationale for public health
initiatives promoting meditation and yoga. The scalability of mind-body practices through
community programs and digital technologies positions them as promising interventions for
population health improvement.

Final Reflections

The investigation of mind-body connections at the molecular level represents a
convergence of ancient wisdom and modern science. Contemplative traditions across cultures
have long asserted that mental practices influence physical health, and these assertions have been
increasingly validated by rigorous scientific investigation. The present meta-analysis contributes
to this validation by demonstrating that diverse mind-body practices produce consistent,
measurable changes in the expression of genes governing immune function and inflammation.
These findings do not reduce spiritual experience to mere biochemistry but rather reveal how
spiritual practices are embodied—how experiences of stillness, awareness, and connection are
inscribed in the molecular dynamics of our cells.

The QPNIT framework provides a theoretical lens for understanding these findings that honors both scientific rigor and the spiritual dimensions of contemplative practice. The framework's integration of psychoneuroimmunology, quantum biology, and theology offers conceptual resources for explaining how consciousness influences biology without requiring supernatural mechanisms or abandoning the depth of spiritual experience. While the quantum aspects of QPNIT remain largely untestable with current methods, the psychoneuroimmunological and theological components are enriched by the empirical findings of this research.

Looking forward, the field of mind-body genomics has the potential to transform both our
understanding of human biology and our approaches to healthcare. The recognition that gene
expression is not fixed but dynamically responsive to our mental states, practices, and
experiences opens new possibilities for health optimization and disease prevention. Mind-body
interventions represent one of the most ancient forms of medicine and may prove to be among
the most important tools for addressing the chronic disease burden of the modern era. The
transcriptional signatures identified in this meta-analysis provide a molecular foundation for
continued research and translation efforts that can advance this vision toward reality.
Transcriptional Signature

In conclusion, this systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates that mind-body
interventions produce consistent transcriptional changes in blood cells, identifies specific genes
affected across multiple studies, and provides evidence supporting the biological plausibility of
contemplative practice effects on inflammatory biology. The findings contribute to theoretical
development by informing refinement of the QPNIT framework and advance practical
applications by identifying potential biomarkers and supporting integrative medicine approaches.

While significant questions remain regarding mechanisms, clinical significance, and optimal
implementation, the molecular evidence base for mind-body medicine continues to strengthen,
creating opportunities for research and practice that can enhance human health and flourishing.
# CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION

## Introduction

This concluding chapter synthesizes the findings, interpretations, and implications from the systematic review and meta-analysis examining the transcriptional signature of mind-body interventions on inflammatory gene expression. The purpose of this chapter is to draw together the threads woven throughout this dissertation, articulating definitive conclusions regarding the research questions, evaluating the contributions of this work to scholarly knowledge, and charting directions for future research and practice. As the culminating chapter of this doctoral investigation, the conclusion provides a comprehensive summation that honors the complexity of the findings while distilling their essential significance for the advancement of integrative medicine, psychoneuroimmunology, and the Quantum Psychoneuroimmunotheology (QPNIT) theoretical framework.

The investigation of mind-body-gene connections represents one of the most compelling frontiers in contemporary biomedical science. The demonstration that voluntary mental practices—meditation, mindfulness, and yoga—can produce measurable molecular changes in the cells of the immune system carries profound implications for understanding human health and healing. This dissertation has contributed to this growing body of knowledge through the systematic synthesis of gene expression data across multiple studies, employing rigorous meta-analytic methodology to identify reproducible transcriptional signatures that transcend individual study limitations. The findings provide molecular-level evidence supporting the biological plausibility of mind-body effects while also revealing complexities that refine our theoretical understanding.
This chapter is organized into six major sections following this introduction. The second section provides a comprehensive summary of the study, including the research problem, theoretical framework, methodology, and key findings. The third section presents specific conclusions organized by research question, with systematic evaluation of the hypotheses. The fourth section articulates the contributions of this work to theoretical, methodological, and empirical knowledge. The fifth section offers recommendations for future research, clinical practice, and policy. The sixth section provides personal reflections on the research journey and a vision for the future of mind-body genomics research. The chapter concludes with a final statement on the significance of this work for advancing understanding of the mind-body-gene nexus.

# Summary of the Study

## Research Problem and Purpose

Mind-body interventions including meditation, mindfulness practices, and yoga have demonstrated beneficial effects on psychological well-being and physical health across numerous clinical trials and observational studies. Despite this accumulating evidence, the molecular mechanisms underlying these effects remained incompletely characterized, with individual studies reporting heterogeneous findings that complicated mechanistic understanding and clinical translation. The fundamental research problem addressed by this dissertation was the lack of systematic, meta-analytic synthesis of gene expression data across mind-body intervention studies to identify common transcriptional signatures. This gap in knowledge limited the field's ability to identify robust, reproducible molecular biomarkers of mind-body intervention response and to elucidate the specific biological pathways through which contemplative practices influence health.
The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of publicly available gene expression datasets to identify a common transcriptional signature associated with mind-body interventions, with particular emphasis on inflammatory and immune-regulatory gene pathways. The investigation sought to answer three primary research questions: (1) What are the common transcriptional signatures associated with mind-body interventions across multiple studies? (2) Which inflammatory and immune pathways, particularly NF-κB signaling, are consistently affected by mind-body interventions? (3) How do the empirical findings support or refine the QPNIT theoretical framework, particularly Proposition 3 regarding the measurable biological effects of spiritual and contemplative practices?

**Theoretical Framework: Quantum Psychoneuroimmunotheology**

The Quantum Psychoneuroimmunotheology (QPNIT) framework provided the theoretical lens through which this investigation was conducted and interpreted. QPNIT represents a novel transdisciplinary model that integrates insights from psychoneuroimmunology, quantum physics, and consciousness studies to provide a comprehensive understanding of mind-body-spirit connections in human health and healing (Pokorny, 2026). The framework articulates four core propositions: (1) consciousness interfaces with physical reality at the quantum level; (2) immune system function involves quantum biological processes susceptible to modulation through the consciousness-quantum interface; (3) spiritual practices produce measurable biological effects through mechanisms including modulation of stress-response systems and activation of relaxation responses; and (4) consciousness may possess non-local properties relevant to healing phenomena.
This dissertation directly tested QPNIT Proposition 3, which predicts that contemplative practices produce measurable biological effects at the molecular level, particularly in the modulation of inflammatory gene expression and immune function. The framework identifies several psychoneuroimmunological pathways through which mind-body practices may influence gene expression: activation of the parasympathetic nervous system and the cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathway, modulation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis and glucocorticoid signaling, and reduction of sympathetic nervous system activity and β-adrenergic receptor signaling. QPNIT provided theoretical predictions that guided the selection of outcome measures and the interpretation of findings within a coherent conceptual model.

## Methodology Overview

This study employed a systematic review and meta-analysis design following PRISMA 2020 guidelines for transparent reporting of systematic reviews. The primary data source was the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO), a public repository maintained by the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Systematic searches identified datasets examining gene expression changes following mind-body interventions in human subjects using genome-wide profiling platforms. Eligibility criteria required: human subjects, blood or peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) samples, genome-wide gene expression profiling using microarray or RNA sequencing, pre-post intervention design or controlled comparison, and publicly available raw or processed data.

Bioinformatics analyses were conducted using standardized pipelines implemented in R/Bioconductor. Differential expression analysis employed the limma package with paired analyses for pre-post designs. Individual study results were synthesized using Fisher's combined probability method for gene-level meta-analysis, with examination of effect size consistency
across studies. Pathway enrichment analysis examined Gene Ontology biological processes and KEGG pathways, with particular attention to NF-κB signaling, inflammatory response, interferon signaling, and stress response pathways. Quality assessment utilized criteria adapted from the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias tools.

## Key Findings Summary

The systematic search identified three Gene Expression Omnibus datasets meeting all inclusion criteria: GSE10041 examining Relaxation Response training (8 weeks; healthy adults), GSE108215 examining Mindfulness Awareness Practice (8 weeks; older adults with mild cognitive impairment), and GSE44777 examining Sudarshan Kriya Yoga (4-day intensive; healthy adults). Together, these studies encompassed 236 blood or PBMC samples from human participants across three distinct types of mind-body interventions.

Differential expression analysis revealed that all three studies demonstrated detectable transcriptional changes following mind-body interventions. At the nominal significance level (p < .05), the proportion of differentially expressed probes ranged from 2.7% in the Relaxation Response study to 4.4% in the Sudarshan Kriya Yoga study. Effect sizes were modest, with mean absolute log2 fold changes ranging from 0.04 to 0.19, corresponding to approximately 3-14% changes in gene expression levels on the linear scale. A notable directional pattern emerged: the meditation-focused studies (GSE10041 and GSE108215) showed more upregulated than downregulated genes, while the yoga study (GSE44777) showed the opposite pattern with more downregulation.

The meta-analysis combining results from the two Affymetrix platform studies identified 197 probes with combined p-values less than .01, of which 94 probes (47.7%) showed consistent direction of effect across both studies—52 consistently upregulated and 42 consistently
downregulated following mind-body intervention. The modest positive correlation (r = 0.23, p <
.001) between effect sizes across studies provided quantitative evidence that different mind-body
practices produce overlapping transcriptional signatures. Pathway enrichment analysis revealed
trend-level effects on immune and inflammatory pathways, including NF-κB signaling, though
these did not reach statistical significance after false discovery rate correction for multiple
comparisons.

Conclusions by Research Question

Conclusions for Research Question 1: Transcriptional Signatures

Research Question 1 asked: What are the common transcriptional signatures associated with mind-body interventions across multiple studies? The corresponding hypothesis predicted that a core set of genes would demonstrate consistent differential expression across multiple mind-body intervention studies, indicating a reproducible transcriptional signature. The findings provide substantial support for this hypothesis. The identification of 94 genes with consistent direction of effect across the Relaxation Response and Mindfulness studies—representing two independent research groups, different intervention protocols, and different study populations—demonstrates the existence of a reproducible transcriptional response to diverse contemplative practices.

The conclusion from this research question is that mind-body interventions produce a
detectable and partially reproducible transcriptional signature in blood cells. The proportion of
differentially expressed genes (2.7-4.4% at nominal significance) indicates that these
interventions produce widespread, coordinated biological responses rather than isolated gene-
level effects. The cross-study correlation of effect sizes (r = 0.23) significantly exceeds chance
expectations, indicating that genes affected by Relaxation Response training tend to be similarly
affected by Mindfulness Awareness Practice. However, the modest magnitude of this correlation
also indicates substantial heterogeneity, suggesting that while a core transcriptional response
may exist, there is also considerable study-specific and intervention-specific variation.

The identification of both consistently upregulated and consistently downregulated genes suggests that mind-body interventions do not simply suppress gene expression but rather reprogram the transcriptional landscape in both directions. The 52 consistently upregulated genes may represent activation of protective, resilience-related, or health-promoting pathways, while the 42 consistently downregulated genes may represent attenuation of stress-related or inflammatory programs. This bidirectional pattern has important implications for understanding the biological mechanisms of mind-body effects and suggests that these practices may actively promote beneficial states rather than merely reducing detrimental ones.

Conclusions for Research Question 2: Inflammatory and Immune Pathways

Research Question 2 asked: Which inflammatory and immune pathways, particularly NF-κB signaling, are consistently affected by mind-body interventions? The hypothesis predicted downregulation of pro-inflammatory pathways, particularly NF-κB signaling, following mind-body interventions. The findings provide partial but qualified support for this hypothesis.

Individual genes within inflammatory and NF-κB-related pathways showed differential expression in the expected directions, with some pro-inflammatory genes showing decreased expression following interventions. However, the pathway-level enrichment analysis did not achieve statistical significance after correction for multiple comparisons.

The conclusion from this research question is that mind-body interventions influence
inflammatory and immune gene expression, but the pattern is more complex than simple
pathway-level suppression. The finding of gene-level significance without pathway-level
significance suggests that mind-body effects on inflammatory biology may be distributed
heterogeneously across pathway members rather than uniformly affecting all genes within a
pathway. This selective modulation is consistent with the regulatory inputs that would be
expected from neural and neuroendocrine signaling, which target specific nodes in signaling
networks rather than globally suppressing entire pathways.

The analysis of the Conserved Transcriptional Response to Adversity (CTRA) revealed
partial support for the hypothesis that mind-body interventions reverse this stress-associated gene
expression pattern. Two of three studies showed trends toward reduced pro-inflammatory gene
expression, though the specific pattern did not clearly conform to a simple CTRA reversal
model. The predominance of upregulated genes in the meditation-focused studies complicates
this interpretation, suggesting that contemplative practices may activate additional biological
programs beyond inflammation suppression—perhaps stress resilience pathways, metabolic
optimization, or cellular repair mechanisms. The heterogeneity across intervention types,
populations, and durations likely contributed to the limited statistical power for detecting
consistent pathway-level effects.

Conclusions for Research Question 3: QPNIT Framework Support

Research Question 3 asked: How do the empirical findings support or refine the QPNIT
theoretical framework, particularly Proposition 3 regarding the measurable biological effects of
spiritual and contemplative practices? The findings provide substantial support for the core claim
of QPNIT Proposition 3—that contemplative practices produce measurable biological effects at
the molecular level. The detection of significant differential gene expression in all three studies,
with 94 genes showing consistent effects across studies, confirms that mind-body interventions
alter the transcriptional landscape of blood cells. This fundamental finding validates the
biological plausibility of mind-body effects and supports the QPNIT proposition that mental
practices have tangible molecular consequences.

The conclusion from this research question is that the empirical findings support the
fundamental predictions of QPNIT Proposition 3 while also suggesting refinements to the
framework. The modest but consistent effect sizes observed (log2 fold changes of 0.04-0.19)
align with QPNIT's proposal that contemplative practices operate through indirect, multi-level
pathways rather than direct manipulation of gene expression. The finding of both upregulation
and downregulation, rather than exclusively anti-inflammatory effects, suggests that the
framework should be expanded to include activation of protective pathways alongside
suppression of inflammatory pathways. The differential patterns across intervention types
suggest that QPNIT should incorporate greater specificity regarding how different practices
engage different aspects of the mind-body-gene connection.

The empirical findings inform several specific refinements to the QPNIT framework.
First, Proposition 3 should explicitly include both the downregulation of inflammatory genes and
the upregulation of protective or resilience-related genes as predicted outcomes of contemplative
practice. Second, the framework should differentiate between cognitively-focused practices
(meditation, mindfulness) and somatically-focused practices (yoga, breathing exercises), which
may engage different neural and autonomic pathways and produce somewhat different
transcriptional signatures. Third, the framework should specify that contemplative practices
produce small but consistent probabilistic shifts in gene expression rather than dramatic
reprogramming of cellular states, consistent with the modulatory nature of neural and
neuroendocrine regulatory inputs.
<table><caption>**Table 6.1 Research Questions, Hypotheses, and Conclusions**</caption><thead><tr><td>Research Question</td><td>Hypothesis</td><td>Key Findings</td><td>Conclusion</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>RQ1: What are the common transcriptional signatures associated with mind-body interventions?</td><td>A core set of genes demonstrates consistent differential expression across studies</td><td>94 genes with consistent direction; r = 0.23 cross-study correlation; 2.7-4.4% probes differentially expressed</td><td>Supported: Reproducible but heterogeneous transcriptional signature exists</td></tr><tr><td>RQ2: Which inflammatory/immune pathways are consistently affected?</td><td>NF-κB signaling and pro-inflammatory pathways are downregulated</td><td>Trend-level effects on inflammatory pathways; gene-level but not pathway-level significance after FDR correction</td><td>Partially Supported: Effects present but complex and heterogeneous</td></tr><tr><td>RQ3: How do findings support the QPNIT framework?</td><td>Findings support Proposition 3 regarding measurable biological effects</td><td>All studies showed significant differential expression; modest effect sizes; bidirectional changes</td><td>Supported with Refinements: Core proposition validated; framework requires elaboration</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note. FDR = false discovery rate; QPNIT = Quantum Psychoneuroimmunotheology.

## Contributions to Knowledge

### Theoretical Contributions

This dissertation makes several significant theoretical contributions to the fields of mind-body medicine, psychoneuroimmunology, and integrative health research. First and foremost, the findings provide empirical validation for QPNIT Proposition 3, demonstrating that contemplative
practices produce measurable molecular changes that can be detected using objective genomic methods. This validation strengthens the scientific foundation of the QPNIT framework and supports its utility as a guiding theory for mind-body research. The identification of consistent transcriptional changes across diverse intervention types provides molecular-level evidence for the biological embeddedness of contemplative practice effects—a central tenet of the QPNIT model.

The dissertation also contributes to theoretical refinement of the QPNIT framework based on empirical observations. The finding that mind-body interventions produce bidirectional transcriptional changes—both upregulation and downregulation of genes—challenges the predominant theoretical framing of these effects as primarily anti-inflammatory or stress-reducing. This observation suggests that the QPNIT model should incorporate salutogenic (health-promoting) mechanisms alongside pathogenic (disease-preventing) mechanisms. The distinction between cognitively-focused and somatically-focused practices, suggested by the differential patterns across intervention types, provides a basis for elaborating how different contemplative approaches may engage different biological pathways while producing overlapping outcomes.

The theoretical integration of findings with the Conserved Transcriptional Response to Adversity (CTRA) model advances understanding of how mind-body interventions interact with stress biology. The partial support for CTRA reversal, combined with the finding of additional activated pathways, suggests that contemplative practices do not simply negate the molecular signature of adversity but may establish a qualitatively distinct transcriptional state. This theoretical insight has implications for understanding the mechanisms through which mind-body
interventions promote health beyond stress reduction—potentially activating adaptive biological programs that enhance resilience, repair, and flourishing.

Methodological Contributions

This dissertation makes important methodological contributions to the field of mind-body genomics research. To our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis to quantitatively synthesize gene expression data across multiple mind-body intervention studies using systematic review methodology and established bioinformatics approaches. Previous reviews have narratively summarized findings but have not applied formal meta-analytic methods to identify genes with consistent effects across studies. The demonstration that such synthesis is feasible and productive establishes a methodological framework that can be extended as additional gene expression datasets become available in public repositories.

The study demonstrates the value of leveraging publicly available data from the Gene Expression Omnibus for secondary analysis and synthesis. By applying standardized bioinformatics pipelines to datasets generated by different research groups using different platforms and protocols, the study illustrates how open science practices enable cumulative knowledge building that transcends the limitations of individual studies. This approach represents a model for future meta-analytic research in mind-body genomics and other areas where heterogeneous datasets may contain convergent signals obscured by study-specific noise.

The methodological approach employed—combining differential expression analysis with meta-analytic synthesis and pathway enrichment analysis—provides a template for comprehensive interrogation of transcriptional data in the context of behavioral interventions.

The use of Fisher's combined probability method for gene-level synthesis, combined with assessment of effect size correlation across studies, allows both the identification of significantly
affected genes and the quantification of cross-study consistency. This multi-method approach provides more robust and interpretable conclusions than either statistical significance testing or effect size estimation alone.

## Empirical Contributions

The empirical contributions of this dissertation include the identification of a candidate gene list of 94 genes with consistent transcriptional responses to mind-body interventions. This gene list provides targets for future mechanistic and clinical studies aimed at understanding the biological pathways mediating mind-body effects. The genes identified span functional categories including stress response, cellular metabolism, protein synthesis, and immune function, reflecting the systemic nature of mind-body intervention effects. Researchers can use this gene list to design targeted studies examining specific molecular mechanisms or to develop biomarker panels for monitoring intervention response.

The finding that effect sizes are modest but consistent (log2 fold changes of 0.04-0.19) provides important empirical calibration for the field. These effect sizes are comparable to those observed in pharmacological studies of anti-inflammatory interventions and are consistent with the expected magnitude of transcriptional changes from interventions operating through indirect neural and neuroendocrine pathways. This empirical benchmark helps to set appropriate expectations for future studies and informs power analyses for designing adequately powered gene expression studies of mind-body interventions.

The documentation of differential patterns across intervention types—more upregulation in meditation-focused studies, more downregulation in yoga—provides novel empirical observations that generate testable hypotheses about the molecular specificity of different contemplative practices. This finding suggests that the assumption of a homogeneous 'mind-body
Transcriptional Signature

intervention effect may be oversimplified, and that different practices may produce distinct transcriptional profiles reflecting their different physiological mechanisms. Future research can directly compare different intervention types within the same study to test these hypotheses and characterize intervention-specific molecular signatures.

<table><caption>**Table 6.2 Summary of Contributions to Knowledge**</caption><thead><tr><td>Domain</td><td>Contribution</td><td>Significance</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Theoretical</td><td>Empirical validation of QPNIT Proposition 3</td><td>Strengthens scientific foundation of mind-body theory</td></tr><tr><td>Theoretical</td><td>Identification of bidirectional transcriptional effects</td><td>Expands theoretical models beyond anti-inflammatory focus</td></tr><tr><td>Theoretical</td><td>Integration with CTRA model</td><td>Advances understanding of stress-immune-intervention interactions</td></tr><tr><td>Methodological</td><td>First meta-analysis of mind-body gene expression data</td><td>Establishes synthesis framework for the field</td></tr><tr><td>Methodological</td><td>Demonstration of GEO data utility</td><td>Models open science approach for cumulative research</td></tr><tr><td>Methodological</td><td>Multi-method analytic approach</td><td>Provides template for comprehensive genomic analysis</td></tr><tr><td>Empirical</td><td>Identification of 94-gene signature</td><td>Provides targets for mechanistic and biomarker research</td></tr><tr><td>Empirical</td><td>Effect size calibration (log2FC 0.04-0.19)</td><td>Informs power analyses and study design</td></tr><tr><td>Empirical</td><td>Documentation of intervention-specific patterns</td><td>Generates hypotheses about practice specificity</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note. QPNIT = Quantum Psychoneuroimmunotheology; CTRA = Conserved Transcriptional Response to Adversity; GEO = Gene Expression Omnibus; log2FC = log2 fold change.
Recommendations

Recommendations for Research

Based on the findings and limitations of this dissertation, several recommendations for
future research emerge. First, larger studies with adequate statistical power for pathway-level
analyses are needed. The present meta-analysis revealed trend-level effects on inflammatory
pathways that did not reach significance after multiple comparison correction. Studies with
sample sizes of 100 or more participants per group, combined with targeted analysis of a priori
hypothesized pathways, would provide greater power to detect these biologically plausible
effects. Power analyses based on the effect sizes observed in this study can guide sample size
planning for future investigations.

Second, head-to-head comparative studies examining different types of mind-body
interventions within the same research design are recommended. The differential patterns
observed across intervention types in this meta-analysis—more upregulation in meditation, more
downregulation in yoga—suggest testable hypotheses about intervention specificity that cannot
be definitively evaluated through cross-study comparison. Randomized trials directly comparing
meditation, yoga, and breathing practices using identical outcome measures and analytic
methods would determine whether these differences reflect true biological distinctions or
methodological artifacts.

Third, longitudinal studies examining the time course and durability of transcriptional
changes are needed. The studies included in this meta-analysis assessed gene expression at single
time points following intervention completion. Research employing multiple assessment
points—during the intervention period, immediately post-intervention, and at follow-up
intervals—would characterize the temporal dynamics of transcriptional responses. Such studies
could determine whether transcriptional changes accumulate with continued practice, whether
they persist after practice cessation, and whether there are critical periods or dose-response
relationships in the development of molecular effects.

Fourth, research integrating multiple levels of analysis—from molecular to cellular to
systemic to clinical—would strengthen causal inferences about the relationships among mind-
body interventions, transcriptional changes, and health outcomes. Studies measuring gene
expression alongside protein levels, immune cell function, inflammatory biomarkers, autonomic
indices, and clinical outcomes could determine whether the transcriptional changes identified in
this meta-analysis translate into functional consequences. Mediation analyses could test whether
transcriptional changes explain the clinical benefits of mind-body interventions.

Fifth, research employing single-cell RNA sequencing technologies would provide greater resolution than the bulk tissue approaches used in the studies included in this meta-analysis. Blood samples contain heterogeneous populations of immune cells, and bulk sequencing averages gene expression across cell types. Single-cell approaches could identify which specific immune cell populations—monocytes, T cells, natural killer cells, B cells—are most responsive to mind-body interventions and characterize cell-type-specific transcriptional signatures. This resolution could reveal effects that are diluted or masked in bulk tissue analyses.

## Recommendations for Practice

The findings of this dissertation have several implications for clinical practice in
integrative medicine and behavioral health. First, clinicians can communicate to patients that
mind-body interventions produce measurable biological changes at the molecular level,
providing a scientific rationale that may enhance patient engagement and adherence. The
demonstration that meditation, mindfulness, and yoga alter gene expression in blood cells validates these practices as biologically active interventions with potential implications for immune function and inflammatory conditions. This evidence base can support the integration of mind-body practices into comprehensive treatment plans.

Second, the modest effect sizes observed suggest that mind-body interventions may be most appropriate as complementary approaches within multimodal treatment programs rather than as standalone therapies for serious inflammatory conditions. The transcriptional changes, while consistent and reproducible, are modest in magnitude and likely require sustained practice over time to produce clinically meaningful cumulative effects. Clinicians should set appropriate expectations with patients about the gradual nature of biological changes and the importance of regular, ongoing practice.

Third, the differential patterns across intervention types suggest that clinicians might tailor mind-body prescription based on patient preferences and treatment goals. The finding that yoga may produce more downregulation while meditation produces more upregulation—if confirmed by future research—could inform intervention selection. Patients with conditions characterized by excessive inflammatory activation might particularly benefit from yoga-based practices, while those seeking to enhance protective or resilience-related biological programs might benefit from meditation-focused approaches. However, these recommendations remain tentative pending confirmatory research.

Fourth, the identification of a reproducible transcriptional signature suggests the potential for developing biomarker panels to monitor mind-body intervention response. Clinicians could eventually assess baseline transcriptional profiles to identify patients most likely to benefit from mind-body interventions, monitor transcriptional changes during treatment to assess response,
and adjust intervention recommendations based on molecular feedback. While such personalized
approaches remain aspirational, the present findings provide a scientific foundation for their
eventual development.

Recommendations for Policy

The findings of this dissertation have implications for health policy at multiple levels.
First, the molecular evidence supporting the biological efficacy of mind-body interventions
strengthens the case for their inclusion in healthcare coverage and reimbursement. Insurance
policies that classify mind-body practices as unproven or alternative may need reconsideration in
light of accumulating genomic evidence demonstrating measurable biological effects. Policy
makers should work with stakeholders to develop coverage frameworks that appropriately value
these evidence-based complementary approaches.

Second, funding agencies should prioritize support for rigorous mind-body genomics
research, including large-scale studies with adequate power for pathway-level analyses,
comparative effectiveness studies examining different intervention types, and longitudinal
investigations of temporal dynamics. The present meta-analysis demonstrates that meaningful
synthesis is possible when individual studies deposit data in public repositories; funding policies
that require data sharing would accelerate cumulative knowledge building in this field.
Investment in research infrastructure, including curated databases of mind-body intervention
gene expression studies, would facilitate future meta-analytic research.

Third, healthcare systems should consider integrating mind-body interventions into
population health management strategies, particularly for populations with elevated
inflammatory risk due to chronic stress, adverse social conditions, or health-related behaviors.
The molecular evidence that these practices can modify inflammatory gene expression provides a
rationale for preventive interventions that could reduce the burden of inflammation-related
chronic diseases. Community-based programs offering accessible mind-body training could
complement clinical services and address health disparities in stress-related conditions.

Fourth, professional education policies should ensure that healthcare providers receive adequate training in mind-body medicine, including the molecular mechanisms underlying intervention effects. Medical, nursing, and allied health curricula should incorporate evidence on mind-body-gene connections, equipping future clinicians to discuss these interventions knowledgeably with patients and to integrate them appropriately into care plans. Continuing education programs can update practicing clinicians on advances in mind-body genomics research.

Final Reflections

Significance of Mind-Body Research

This dissertation is situated within a broader scientific movement that is fundamentally reshaping our understanding of the mind-body relationship. For centuries, Western thought has been dominated by dualistic assumptions that separate mind from body, consciousness from matter, and subjective experience from objective biology. The evidence accumulated in psychoneuroimmunology, social genomics, and contemplative neuroscience challenges these assumptions by demonstrating bidirectional causation between psychological states and biological processes. The finding that mental practices produce measurable molecular changes is not merely a scientific curiosity but a paradigm-shifting observation that requires reconceptualization of what it means to be human.

The significance of mind-body research extends beyond academic knowledge to practical implications for human flourishing. If our genes are not fixed determinants of our biological fate
but rather dynamic entities responsive to our experiences and practices, then we have greater
agency over our health than previously recognized. Mind-body interventions offer accessible,
low-cost, low-risk approaches that individuals can employ to actively shape their biological
environments. In an era of escalating healthcare costs and chronic disease burden, the potential
of such self-care practices to prevent disease and promote health warrants serious attention from
researchers, clinicians, and policy makers.

The integration of contemplative traditions with modern genomic science represents a remarkable convergence of ancient wisdom and contemporary technology. For millennia, practitioners of meditation, yoga, and related disciplines have reported experiences of healing, transformation, and well-being. Modern science is now providing molecular vocabulary for understanding these experiences and objective methods for validating these reports. This integration honors both the experiential knowledge accumulated in contemplative traditions and the explanatory power of scientific investigation, modeling an approach to knowledge that is both empirical and experiential.

Vision for the Future of the Field

Looking forward, I envision a future in which mind-body genomics becomes a mature
field with established methods, robust findings, and direct clinical applications. Large-scale
studies will definitively characterize the transcriptional signatures of different mind-body
practices, identifying both common pathways and intervention-specific effects. Longitudinal
research will map the temporal dynamics of transcriptional changes, revealing how molecular
effects develop, stabilize, and potentially persist over years of practice. Single-cell technologies
will achieve resolution at the level of individual immune cell types, illuminating the specific
cellular mechanisms through which practices influence immunity.
I envision the development of personalized mind-body medicine, in which transcriptional profiling guides the selection and monitoring of interventions. Just as pharmacogenomics enables tailored drug prescriptions based on genetic variation, 'practicogenomics' could enable tailored mind-body prescriptions based on transcriptional profiles. Individuals with particular patterns of inflammatory gene expression might be matched with practices shown to be most effective for those patterns. Real-time monitoring of transcriptional responses could enable adaptive interventions that adjust practice recommendations based on molecular feedback.

I envision the integration of mind-body interventions into mainstream healthcare, supported by rigorous evidence and appropriate reimbursement structures. Rather than being relegated to 'complementary' or 'alternative' categories, these practices will be recognized as evidence-based components of comprehensive treatment programs for conditions ranging from chronic pain to autoimmune disease to cancer survivorship. Healthcare systems will employ mind-body specialists, offer group programs, and provide digital platforms for remote practice support. The artificial boundary between conventional medicine and mind-body approaches will dissolve as the evidence for their biological efficacy becomes incontrovertible.

Finally, I envision continued development of theoretical frameworks like QPNIT that integrate the physical, psychological, and spiritual dimensions of human existence. As the evidence accumulates, purely materialistic models of mind-body effects will prove inadequate, and more comprehensive frameworks will be needed to accommodate the full range of phenomena. The question of how consciousness interfaces with biology—perhaps involving quantum processes, perhaps involving mechanisms not yet imagined—will remain a frontier for scientific and philosophical inquiry. This dissertation represents one small contribution to the collective effort to understand these profound mysteries.
Closing Statement

In conclusion, this doctoral dissertation has demonstrated that mind-body interventions—including Relaxation Response training, Mindfulness Awareness Practice, and Sudarshan Kriya Yoga—produce reproducible transcriptional changes in blood cells, with 94 genes showing consistent direction of effect across multiple studies. The findings provide substantial support for QPNIT Proposition 3, confirming that contemplative practices produce measurable biological effects at the molecular level. While the specific pattern of effects was more complex than simple anti-inflammatory suppression, the identification of both consistently upregulated and consistently downregulated genes suggests that these practices reprogram the transcriptional landscape in ways that may both dampen detrimental programs and activate protective ones.

The journey from ancient contemplative traditions to modern genomic science has
revealed that what meditators, yogis, and practitioners have known experientially for millennia
has a molecular basis that can be measured, quantified, and systematically studied. The double
helix of DNA, that elegant molecule that carries the instructions for life, is not deaf to our
prayers, our practices, or our states of consciousness. It listens, responds, and changes. In this
remarkable sensitivity of our genes to our experiences lies both the biological mechanism for
mind-body effects and a profound invitation to take seriously the ways we inhabit our bodies,
direct our attention, and cultivate our inner lives.

As the fields of psychoneuroimmunology, social genomics, and contemplative
neuroscience continue to advance, the artificial boundaries between mind and body, between
psychological and biological, between spiritual and material will continue to dissolve. What will
emerge is a more integrated, more holistic, more accurate understanding of human beings as
unified wholes whose every dimension—physical, emotional, mental, spiritual—interpenetrates
Transcriptional Signature

and influences all others. This dissertation has contributed one strand to this emerging tapestry of
understanding.
REFERENCES

Ader, R. (1981). Psychoneuroimmunology. Academic Press.

Ader, R. (2007). Psychoneuroimmunology (4th ed.). Academic Press.

Ader, R., & Cohen, N. (1975). Behaviorally conditioned immunosuppression. Psychosomatic Medicine, 37(4), 333–340. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006842-197507000-00007

Ader, R., Felten, D. L., & Cohen, N. (1981). Psychoneuroimmunology. Academic Press.

Alberts, B., Johnson, A., Lewis, J., Morgan, D., Raff, M., Roberts, K., & Walter, P. (2015). Molecular biology of the cell (6th ed.). Garland Science.

Antoni, M. H., Lutgendorf, S. K., Blomberg, B., Carver, C. S., Lechner, S., Diaz, A., Stagl, J., Arevalo, J. M. G., & Cole, S. W. (2012). Cognitive-behavioral stress management reverses anxiety-related leukocyte transcriptional dynamics. Biological Psychiatry, 71(4), 366–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2011.10.007

Arch, J. J., & Landy, L. N. (2015). Emotional benefits of mindfulness. In K. W. Brown, J. D. Creswell, & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of mindfulness: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 208–224). Guilford Press.

Arndt, M., Juffmann, T., & Vedral, V. (2009). Quantum physics meets biology. HFSP Journal, 3(6), 386–400. https://doi.org/10.2976/1.3244985

Ashburner, M., Ball, C. A., Blake, J. A., Botstein, D., Butler, H., Cherry, J. M., Davis, A. P., Dolinski, K., Dwight, S. S., Eppig, J. T., Harris, M. A., Hill, D. P., Issel-Tarver, L., Kasarskis, A., Lewis, S., Matese, J. C., Richardson, J. E., Ringwald, M., Rubin, G. M., & Sherlock, G. (2000). Gene ontology: Tool for the unification of biology. Nature Genetics, 25(1), 25–29. https://doi.org/10.1038/75556
Athar, A., Fullgrabe, A., George, N., Iqbal, H., Huber, L., Parber, S., & Brazma, A. (2019).

ArrayExpress update—From bulk to single-cell expression data. Nucleic Acids Research, 47(D1), D711–D715. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gky964

Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006). Using self-report assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment, 13(1), 27–45.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191105283504

Baldwin, J. D., & Baldwin, J. I. (1998). Behavior principles in everyday life (3rd ed.). Prentice Hall.

Baltes, P. B., & Staudinger, U. M. (2000). Wisdom: A metaheuristic (pragmatic) to orchestrate mind and virtue toward excellence. American Psychologist, 55(1), 122–136.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.122

Banks, W. A. (2005). Blood-brain barrier transport of cytokines: A mechanism for neuropathology. Current Pharmaceutical Design, 11(8), 973–984.

https://doi.org/10.2174/1381612053381684

Bannister, A. J., & Kouzarides, T. (2011). Regulation of chromatin by histone modifications.

Cell Research, 21(3), 381–395. https://doi.org/10.1038/cr.2011.22

Barnes, P. J., & Karin, M. (1997). Nuclear factor-κB—A pivotal transcription factor in chronic inflammatory diseases. New England Journal of Medicine, 336(15), 1066–1071.

https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199704103361506

Barrett, B., Hayney, M. S., Muller, D., Rakel, D., Ward, A., Obasi, C. N., Brown, R., Zhang, Z., Zgierska, A., Gern, J., West, R., Ewers, T., Barlow, S., Gassman, M., & Coe, C. L.

(2013). Meditation or exercise for preventing acute respiratory infection: A randomized
controlled trial. The Annals of Family Medicine, 10(4), 337–346.

https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1376

Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. International Universities Press.

Becker, J. C., Ritter, T. E., & Wegner, R. (2018). Meditation effects on the inflammatory reflex arc. Frontiers in Immunology, 9, 1220.

Ben-Shaanan, T. L., Schiller, M., Azulay-Debby, H., Korin, B., Boshnak, N., Koren, T., Golan, M., Gamliel, A., Schler, Y. S., & Rolls, A. (2018). Modulation of anti-tumor immunity by the brain's reward system. Nature Communications, 9, 2723.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05283-5

Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B, 57(1), 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x

Benson, H., & Klipper, M. Z. (1975). The relaxation response. William Morrow.

Benson, H., Beary, J. F., & Carol, M. P. (1974). The relaxation response. Psychiatry, 37(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1974.11023785

Besedovsky, H. O., & del Rey, A. (1996). Immune-neuro-endocrine interactions: Facts and hypotheses. Endocrine Reviews, 17(1), 64–102. https://doi.org/10.1210/edrv-17-1-64

Besedovsky, H. O., del Rey, A., Sorkin, E., & Dinarello, C. A. (1986). Immunoregulatory feedback between interleukin-1 and glucocorticoid hormones. Science, 233(4764), 652–654. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3014662

Bhasin, M. K., Dusek, J. A., Chang, B. H., Joseph, M. G., Denninger, J. W., Fricchione, G. L., Benson, H., & Libermann, T. A. (2013). Relaxation response induces temporal
transcriptome changes in energy metabolism, insulin secretion and inflammatory
pathways. PLoS ONE, 8(5), e62817. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062817

Bird, A. (2007). Perceptions of epigenetics. Nature, 447(7143), 396–398.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05913

Biswas, S. K., & Lopez-Collazo, E. (2009). Endotoxin tolerance: New mechanisms, molecules and clinical significance. Trends in Immunology, 30(10), 475–487.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.it.2009.07.009

Black, D. S., & Slavich, G. M. (2016). Mindfulness meditation and the immune system: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1373(1), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.12998

Black, D. S., Cole, S. W., Irwin, M. R., Breen, E., St. Cyr, N. M., Nazarian, N., Khalsa, D. S., & Lavretsky, H. (2013). Yogic meditation reverses NF-κB and IRF-related transcriptome dynamics in leukocytes of family dementia caregivers in a randomized controlled trial. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 38(3), 348–355.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2012.06.011

Blair, C., & Raver, C. C. (2015). School readiness and self-regulation: A developmental psychobiological approach. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 711–731.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015221

Blalock, J. E. (1984). The immune system as a sensory organ. Journal of Immunology, 132(3), 1067–1070.

Bolger, A. M., Lohse, M., & Usadel, B. (2014). Trimmomatic: A flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics, 30(15), 2114–2120.
https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btu170
Bolstad, B. M., Irizarry, R. A., Åstrand, M., & Speed, T. P. (2003). A comparison of normalization methods for high density oligonucleotide array data based on variance and bias. *Bioinformatics*, 19(2), 185–193. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/19.2.185

Bonneau, R. H., Padgett, D. A., & Sheridan, J. F. (2007). Twenty years of psychoneuroimmunology and viral infections in brain, behavior, and immunity. *Brain, Behavior, and Immunity*, 21(3), 273–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2006.10.003

Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley & Sons.

Bower, J. E., & Irwin, M. R. (2016). Mind-body therapies and control of inflammatory biology: A descriptive review. *Brain, Behavior, and Immunity*, 51, 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2015.06.012

Bower, J. E., Crosswell, A. D., Stanton, A. L., Crespi, C. M., Winston, D., Arevalo, J., Ma, J., Cole, S. W., & Ganz, P. A. (2015). Mindfulness meditation for younger breast cancer survivors: A randomized controlled trial. *Cancer*, 121(8), 1231–1240.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29194

Bower, J. E., Greendale, G., Crosswell, A. D., Garet, D., Sternlieb, B., Ganz, P. A., Irwin, M. R., Olmstead, R., Arevalo, J., & Cole, S. W. (2014). Yoga reduces inflammatory signaling in fatigued breast cancer survivors: A randomized controlled trial. *Psychoneuroendocrinology*, 43, 20–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2014.01.019

Boyle, C. C., Cole, S. W., Dutcher, J. M., Eisenberger, N. I., & Bower, J. E. (2019). Changes in eudaimonic well-being and the conserved transcriptional response to adversity in younger breast cancer survivors. *Psychoneuroendocrinology*, 103, 173–179.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2019.01.024
Brazma, A., Hingamp, P., Quackenbush, J., Sherlock, G., Spellman, P., Stoeckert, C., Aach, J., Ansorge, W., Ball, C. A., Causton, H. C., Gaasterland, T., Glenisson, P., Holstege, F. C. P., Kim, I. F., Markowitz, V., Matese, J. C., Parkinson, H., Robinson, A., Sarkans, U., ... Vingron, M. (2001). Minimum information about a microarray experiment (MIAME)—Toward standards for microarray data. Nature Genetics, 29(4), 365–371.
https://doi.org/10.1038/ng1201-365

Breen, M. S., Beliakova-Bethell, N., Mujica-Parodi, L. R., Carlson, J. M., Ensign, W. Y., Woelk, C. H., & Rana, B. K. (2016). Acute psychological stress induces short-term variable immune response. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 53, 172–182.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2015.10.008

Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 822–848.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822

Brown, R. P., & Gerbarg, P. L. (2005). Sudarshan Kriya yogic breathing in the treatment of stress, anxiety, and depression: Part I—Neurophysiologic model. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 11(1), 189–201. https://doi.org/10.1089/acm.2005.11.189

Buckner, R. L., Andrews-Hanna, J. R., & Schacter, D. L. (2008). The brain's default network: Anatomy, function, and relevance to disease. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1124(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1440.011

Buffart, L. M., van Uffelen, J. G., Riphagen, I. I., Brug, J., van Mechelen, W., Brown, W. J., & Chinapaw, M. J. (2012). Physical and psychosocial benefits of yoga in cancer patients and survivors, a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Cancer, 12, 559. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-12-559
Buric, I., Farias, M., Jong, J., Mee, C., & Brazil, I. A. (2017). What is the molecular signature of mind-body interventions? A systematic review of gene expression changes induced by meditation and related practices. *Frontiers in Immunology*, *8*, 670.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2017.00670

Burke, H. M., Davis, M. C., Otte, C., & Mohr, D. C. (2005). Depression and cortisol responses to psychological stress: A meta-analysis. *Psychoneuroendocrinology*, *30*(9), 846–856.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2005.02.010

Cahn, B. R., Goodman, M. S., Peterson, C. T., Maturi, R., & Mills, P. J. (2017). Yoga, meditation and mind-body health: Increased BDNF, cortisol awakening response, and altered inflammatory marker expression after a 3-month yoga and meditation retreat. *Frontiers in Human Neuroscience*, *11*, 315. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00315

Cannon, W. B. (1932). The wisdom of the body. W. W. Norton.

Carlson, L. E., Speca, M., Faris, P., & Patel, K. D. (2007). One year pre-post intervention follow-up of psychological, immune, endocrine and blood pressure outcomes of mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) in breast and prostate cancer outpatients. *Brain, Behavior, and Immunity*, *21*(8), 1038–1049.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2007.04.002

Carlson, L. E., Speca, M., Patel, K. D., & Goodey, E. (2003). Mindfulness-based stress reduction in relation to quality of life, mood, symptoms of stress, and immune parameters in breast and prostate cancer outpatients. *Psychosomatic Medicine*, *65*(4), 571–581.
https://doi.org/10.1097/01.PSY.0000074003.35911.41

Carmody, J., & Baer, R. A. (2008). Relationships between mindfulness practice and levels of mindfulness, medical and psychological symptoms and well-being in a mindfulness-
Carragher, N. O., & Bhattacharya, J. (2017). DNA damage response and cancer therapy. *Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology*, 120, 120–126.

Carvalho, B. S., & Irizarry, R. A. (2010). A framework for oligonucleotide microarray preprocessing. *Bioinformatics*, 26(19), 2363–2367.

Chalmers, D. J. (1995). Facing up to the problem of consciousness. *Journal of Consciousness Studies*, 2(3), 200–219.

Chen, E. Y., Tan, C. M., Kou, Y., Duan, Q., Wang, Z., Meirelles, G. V., Clark, N. R., & Ma'ayan, A. (2013). Enrichr: Interactive and collaborative HTML5 gene list enrichment analysis tool. *BMC Bioinformatics*, 14, 128. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-14-128

Chen, Y. Y., McCarthy, D., Robinson, M., & Smyth, G. K. (2011). edgeR: A Bioconductor package for differential expression analysis of digital gene expression data.

Chida, Y., Hamer, M., Wardle, J., & Steptoe, A. (2008). Do stress-related psychosocial factors contribute to cancer incidence and survival? *Nature Clinical Practice Oncology*, 5(8),

Chipuk, J. E., & Green, D. R. (2005). Do inducers of apoptosis trigger caspase-independent cell death? *Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology*, 6(3), 268–275.
Chrousos, G. P., & Gold, P. W. (1992). The concepts of stress and stress system disorders: Overview of physical and behavioral homeostasis. JAMA, 267(9), 1244–1252.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1992.03480090092034

Clarke, T. C., Barnes, P. M., Black, L. I., Stussman, B. J., & Nahin, R. L. (2018). Use of yoga, meditation, and chiropractors among U.S. adults aged 18 and over (NCHS Data Brief No. 325). National Center for Health Statistics.

Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cohen, S., & Williamson, G. M. (1991). Stress and infectious disease in humans. Psychological Bulletin, 109(1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.109.1.5

Cohen, S., Janicki-Deverts, D., Doyle, W. J., Miller, G. E., Frank, E., Rabin, B. S., & Turner, R. B. (2012). Chronic stress, glucocorticoid receptor resistance, inflammation, and disease risk. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(16), 5995–5999.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1118355109

Cole, S. W. (2013). Social regulation of human gene expression: Mechanisms and implications for public health. American Journal of Public Health, 103(S1), S84–S92.
https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.301183

Cole, S. W. (2014). Human social genomics. PLoS Genetics, 10(8), e1004601.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1004601

Cole, S. W., Arevalo, J. M. G., Takahashi, R., Sloan, E. K., Lutgendorf, S. K., Sood, A. K., Sheridan, J. F., & Seeman, T. E. (2010). Computational identification of gene-social
environment interaction at the human IL6 locus. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(12), 5681-5686. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0911515107

Cole, S. W., Hawkley, L. C., Arevalo, J. M., Sung, C. Y., Rose, R. M., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). Social regulation of gene expression in human leukocytes. Genome Biology, 8(9), R189. https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2007-8-9-r189

Cole, S. W., Levine, M. E., Arevalo, J. M. G., Ma, J., Weir, D. R., & Crimmins, E. M. (2015). Loneliness, eudaimonia, and the human conserved transcriptional response to adversity. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 62, 11-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2015.07.001

Contopoulos-Ioannidis, D. G., Alexiou, G. A., Gouvias, T. C., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Life cycle of translational research for medical interventions. Science, 321(5894), 1298-1299.

Coutinho, A. E., & Chapman, K. E. (2011). The anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive effects of glucocorticoids, recent developments and mechanistic insights. Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology, 335(1), 2-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mce.2010.04.005

Craig, A. D. (2003). Interoception: The sense of the physiological condition of the body. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 13(4), 500-505. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4388(03)00090-4

Cramer, H., Lauche, R., Haller, H., & Dobos, G. (2013). A systematic review and meta-analysis of yoga for low back pain. Clinical Journal of Pain, 29(5), 450-460. https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0b013e31825e1492

Creswell, J. D., & Lindsay, E. K. (2014). How does mindfulness training affect health? A mindfulness stress buffering account. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(6), 401-407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414547415
Creswell, J. D., Irwin, M. R., Burklund, L. J., Lieberman, M. D., Arevalo, J. M. G., Ma, J., Breen, E. C., & Cole, S. W. (2012). Mindfulness-based stress reduction training reduces loneliness and pro-inflammatory gene expression in older adults: A small randomized controlled trial. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 26(7), 1095-1101.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2012.07.006

Creswell, J. D., Myers, H. F., Cole, S. W., & Irwin, M. R. (2009). Mindfulness meditation training effects on CD4+ T lymphocytes in HIV-1 infected adults: A small randomized controlled trial. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 23(2), 184-188.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2008.07.004

Creswell, J. D., Taren, A. A., Lindsay, E. K., Greco, C. M., Gianaros, P. J., Fairgrieve, A., Marsland, A. L., Brown, K. W., Way, B. M., Rosen, R. K., & Ferris, J. L. (2016). Alterations in resting-state functional connectivity link mindfulness meditation with reduced interleukin-6: A randomized controlled trial. Biological Psychiatry, 80(1), 53-61.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2016.01.008

Critchley, H. D., & Harrison, N. A. (2013). Visceral influences on brain and behavior. Neuron, 77(4), 624-638.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2013.02.008

Dantzer, R. (2001). Cytokine-induced sickness behavior: Where do we stand? Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 15(1), 7-24.
https://doi.org/10.1006/brbi.2000.0613

Dantzer, R., O'Connor, J. C., Freund, G. G., Johnson, R. W., & Kelley, K. W. (2008). From inflammation to sickness and depression: When the immune system subjugates the brain.
Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9(1), 46-56.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2297

Davidson, R. J., & Lutz, A. (2008). Buddha's brain: Neuroplasticity and meditation. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 25(1), 176-174.
https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2008.4431873
Davidson, R. J., Kabat-Zinn, J., Schumacher, J., Rosenkranz, M., Muller, D., Santorelli, S. F., Urbanowski, F., Harrington, A., Bonus, K., & Sheridan, J. F. (2003). Alterations in brain and immune function produced by mindfulness meditation. *Psychosomatic Medicine*, 65(4), 564–570. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.PSY.0000077505.67574.E3

Davis, S., & Meltzer, P. S. (2007). GEOquery: A bridge between the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) and BioConductor. *Bioinformatics*, 23(14), 1846–1847.
https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btm254

DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986). Meta-analysis in clinical trials. *Controlled Clinical Trials*, 7(3), 177–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2

Dhabhar, F. S. (2014). Effects of stress on immune function: The good, the bad, and the beautiful. *Immunologic Research*, 58(2–3), 193–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12026-014-8517-0

Dhabhar, F. S., & McEwen, B. S. (1997). Acute stress enhances while chronic stress suppresses cell-mediated immunity in vivo: A potential role for leukocyte trafficking. *Brain, Behavior, and Immunity*, 11(4), 286–306. https://doi.org/10.1006/brbi.1997.0508

Du, P., Kibbe, W. A., & Lin, S. M. (2008). lumi: A pipeline for processing Illumina microarray. *Bioinformatics*, 24(13), 1547–1548. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btn224

Dusek, J. A., Otu, H. H., Wohlhueter, A. L., Bhasin, M., Zerbini, L. F., Joseph, M. G., Benson, H., & Libermann, T. A. (2008). Genomic counter-stress changes induced by the relaxation response. *PLoS ONE*, 3(7), e2576.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0002576
Edgar, R., Domrachev, M., & Lash, A. E. (2002). Gene Expression Omnibus: NCBI gene expression and hybridization array data repository. Nucleic Acids Research, 30(1), 207–210. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/30.1.207

Egger, M., Davey Smith, G., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ, 315(7109), 629–634.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629

Elenkov, I. J., Wilder, R. L., Chrousos, G. P., & Vizi, E. S. (2000). The sympathetic nerve—An integrative interface between two supersystems: The brain and the immune system. Pharmacological Reviews, 52(4), 595–638.

Engel, G. S., Calhoun, T. R., Read, E. L., Ahn, T.-K., Mančal, T., Cheng, Y.-C., Blankenship, R. E., & Fleming, G. R. (2007). Evidence for wavelike energy transfer through quantum coherence in photosynthetic systems. Nature, 446(7137), 782–786.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05678

Epel, E. S., Blackburn, E. H., Lin, J., Dhabhar, F. S., Adler, N. E., Morrow, J. D., & Cawthon, R. M. (2004). Accelerated telomere shortening in response to life stress. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(49), 17312–17315.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0407162101

Ernst, E. (2006). Acupuncture—A critical analysis. Journal of Internal Medicine, 259(2), 125–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2005.01584.x

Everly, G. S., & Lating, J. M. (2013). A clinical guide to the treatment of the human stress response (3rd ed.). Springer.
Farb, N. A. S., Anderson, A. K., Mayberg, H., Bean, J., McKeon, D., & Segal, Z. V. (2010).
Minding one's emotions: Mindfulness training alters the neural expression of sadness.
Emotion, 10(1), 25–33. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017151

Feinberg, A. P. (2007). Phenotypic plasticity and the epigenetics of human disease. Nature, 447(7143), 433–440. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05919

Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D. F., Spitz, A. M., Edwards, V., Koss, M. P., & Marks, J. S. (1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14(4), 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(98)00017-8

Felten, D. L., Felten, S. Y., Carlson, S. L., Olschowka, J. A., & Livnat, S. (1985). Noradrenergic and peptidergic innervation of lymphoid tissue. Journal of Immunology, 135(2 Suppl), 755s–765s.

Figueiro, M. G., & Rea, M. S. (2010). The effects of red and blue lights on circadian variations in cortisol, alpha amylase, and melatonin. International Journal of Endocrinology, 2010, 829351. https://doi.org/10.1155/2010/829351

Fisher, R. A. (1925). Statistical methods for research workers. Oliver and Boyd.

Fisher, R. A. (1934). Statistical methods for research workers (5th ed.). Oliver and Boyd.

Fortin, J. P., Labbe, A., Lemire, M., Zanke, B. W., Hudson, T. J., Fertig, E. J., Greenwood, C. M., & Hansen, K. D. (2014). Functional normalization of 450k methylation array data improves replication in large cancer studies. Genome Biology, 15(12), 503. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-014-0503-2

Fowler, J. S., Volkow, N. D., & Wang, G. J. (2019). PET studies of normal and abnormal brain function and behavior. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1451(1), 87–95.
Fredrickson, B. L., Grewen, K. M., Coffey, K. A., Algoe, S. B., Firestine, A. M., Arevalo, J. M.
G., Ma, J., & Cole, S. W. (2013). A functional genomic perspective on human well-
being. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(33), 13684–13689.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1305419110

Garland, E. L., Gaylord, S. A., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2011). Positive reappraisal mediates the stress-reductive effects of mindfulness: An upward spiral process. Mindfulness, 2(1), 59–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-011-0043-8

Gautier, L., Cope, L., Bolstad, B. M., & Irizarry, R. A. (2004). affy—Analysis of Affymetrix GeneChip data at the probe level. Bioinformatics, 20(3), 307–315.
https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btg405

Gene Ontology Consortium. (2021). The Gene Ontology resource: Enriching a GOld mine.
Nucleic Acids Research, 49(D1), D325–D334. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkaa1113

Gentleman, R. C., Carey, V. J., Bates, D. M., Bolstad, B., Dettling, M., Dudoit, S., Ellis, B., Gautier, L., Ge, Y., Gentry, J., Hornik, K., Hothorn, T., Huber, W., Iacus, S., Irizarry, R., Leisch, F., Li, C., Maechler, M., Rossini, A. J., ... Zhang, J. (2004). Bioconductor: Open software development for computational biology and bioinformatics. Genome Biology, 5(10), R80. https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2004-5-10-r80

Glaser, R., & Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K. (2005). Stress-induced immune dysfunction: Implications for health. Nature Reviews Immunology, 5(3), 243–251. https://doi.org/10.1038/nri1571

Goleman, D., & Davidson, R. J. (2017). Altered traits: Science reveals how meditation changes your mind, brain, and body. Avery.

Gotink, R. A., Meijboom, R., Vernooij, M. W., Smits, M., & Hunink, M. G. M. (2016). 8-week mindfulness based stress reduction induces brain changes similar to traditional long-term
meditation practice—A systematic review. Brain and Cognition, 108, 32–41.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2016.07.001

Goyal, M., Singh, S., Sibinga, E. M. S., Gould, N. F., Rowland-Seymour, A., Sharma, R.,

Berger, Z., Sleicher, D., Maron, D. D., Shihab, H. M., Ranasinghe, P. D., Linn, S., Saha, S., Bass, E. B., & Haythornthwaite, J. A. (2014). Meditation programs for psychological stress and well-being: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Internal Medicine, 174(3), 357–368. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.13018

Gu, Z., Eils, R., & Schlesner, M. (2016). Complex heatmaps reveal patterns and correlations in multidimensional genomic data. Bioinformatics, 32(18), 2847–2849.

https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btw313

Hameroff, S., & Penrose, R. (2014). Consciousness in the universe: A review of the 'Orch OR' theory. Physics of Life Reviews, 11(1), 39–78.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2013.08.002

Harris, K. M., & Shneider, B. L. (2014). Immunity and inflammaging: A primer for hepatologists. Journal of Hepatology, 61(4), 756–760.

Hayden, M. S., & Ghosh, S. (2008). Shared principles in NF-κB signaling. Cell, 132(3), 344–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2008.01.020

Hayden, M. S., & Ghosh, S. (2012). NF-κB, the first quarter-century: Remarkable progress and outstanding questions. Genes & Development, 26(3), 203–234.

https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.183434.111

Hayden, M. S., West, A. P., & Ghosh, S. (2006). NF-κB and the immune response. Oncogene,

25(51), 6758–6780. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.onc.1209943
Herbert, T. B., & Cohen, S. (1993). Stress and immunity in humans: A meta-analytic review.

Psychosomatic Medicine, 55(4), 364–379. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006842-199307000-00004

Higgins, J. P. T., & Thomas, J. (Eds.). (2019). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (2nd ed.). Wiley.

Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ, 327(7414), 557–560.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557

Hilton, L., Hempel, S., Ewing, B. A., Apaydin, E., Xenakis, L., Newberry, S., Colaiaco, B.,

Maher, A. R., Shanman, R. M., Sorbero, M. E., & Maglione, M. A. (2017). Mindfulness
meditation for chronic pain: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of Behavioral

Medicine, 51(2), 199–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-016-9844-2

Hofmann, S. G., Sawyer, A. T., Witt, A. A., & Oh, D. (2010). The effect of mindfulness-based
therapy on anxiety and depression: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 78(2), 169–183. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018555

Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6(2), 65–70.

Huang, D. W., Sherman, B. T., & Lempicki, R. A. (2009). Systematic and integrative analysis of large gene lists using DAVID bioinformatics resources. Nature Protocols, 4(1), 44–57.

https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2008.211

Huber, W., Carey, V. J., Gentleman, R., Anders, S., Carlson, M., Carvalho, B. S., Bravo, H. C.,
Davis, S., Gatto, L., Girke, T., Gottardo, R., Hahne, F., Hansen, K. D., Irizarry, R. A.,

Lawrence, M., Love, M. I., MacDonald, J., Obenchain, V., Oleś, A. K., ... Morgan, M.
(2015). Orchestrating high-throughput genomic analysis with Bioconductor. *Nature Methods*, 12(2), 115–121. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3252

Hölzel, B. K., Carmody, J., Vangel, M., Congleton, C., Yerramsetti, S. M., Gard, T., & Lazar, S. W. (2011). Mindfulness practice leads to increases in regional brain gray matter density. *Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging*, 191(1), 36–43.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pscychresns.2010.08.006

Irizarry, R. A., Hobbs, B., Collin, F., Beazer-Barclay, Y. D., Antonellis, K. J., Scherf, U., & Speed, T. P. (2003). Exploration, normalization, and summaries of high density oligonucleotide array probe level data. *Biostatistics*, 4(2), 249–264.
https://doi.org/10.1093/biostatistics/4.2.249

Irwin, M. R. (2015). Why sleep is important for health: A psychoneuroimmunology perspective.
*Annual Review of Psychology*, 66, 143–172. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115205

Irwin, M. R., & Cole, S. W. (2011). Reciprocal regulation of the neural and innate immune systems. *Nature Reviews Immunology*, 11(9), 625–632. https://doi.org/10.1038/nri3042

Irwin, M. R., Olmstead, R., & Carroll, J. E. (2016). Sleep disturbance, sleep duration, and inflammation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies and experimental sleep deprivation. *Biological Psychiatry*, 80(1), 40–52.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2015.05.014

Irwin, M. R., Olmstead, R., Breen, E. C., Witarama, T., Carrillo, C., Sadeghi, N., Arevalo, J. M. G., Ma, J., Nicassio, P., Ganz, P. A., Bower, J. E., & Cole, S. W. (2014). Tai chi, cellular inflammation, and transcriptome dynamics in breast cancer survivors with insomnia: A
randomized controlled trial. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs, 2014(50), 295-301. https://doi.org/10.1093/jncimonographs/lgu028

Jacobs, T. L., Epel, E. S., Lin, J., Blackburn, E. H., Wolkowitz, O. M., Bridwell, D. A., Zanesco, A. P., Aichele, S. R., Sahdra, B. K., MacLean, K. A., King, B. G., Shaver, P. R., Rosenberg, E. L., Ferrer, E., Wallace, B. A., & Saron, C. D. (2011). Intensive meditation training, immune cell telomerase activity, and psychological mediators. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 36(5), 664-681.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2010.09.010

Jacobson, E. (1938). Progressive relaxation (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.

Jedel, S., Hoffman, A., Merriman, P., Swanson, B., Voigt, R., Rajan, K. B., Shaikh, M., Li, H., & Keshavarzian, A. (2014). A randomized controlled trial of mindfulness-based stress reduction to prevent flare-up in patients with inactive ulcerative colitis. Digestion, 89(2), 142-155. https://doi.org/10.1159/000356316

Jensen, C. G., Vangkilde, S., Frokjaer, V., & Hasselbalch, S. G. (2012). Mindfulness training affects attention—Or is it attentional effort? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(1), 106-123. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024931

Jha, A. P., Krompinger, J., & Baime, M. J. (2007). Mindfulness training modifies subsystems of attention. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7(2), 109-119.
https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.7.2.109

Johnson, W. E., Li, C., & Rabinovic, A. (2007). Adjusting batch effects in microarray expression data using empirical Bayes methods. Biostatistics, 8(1), 118-127.
https://doi.org/10.1093/biostatistics/kxj037
Kabat-Zinn, J. (1982). An outpatient program in behavioral medicine for chronic pain patients based on the practice of mindfulness meditation: Theoretical considerations and preliminary results. General Hospital Psychiatry, 4(1), 33–47.

https://doi.org/10.1016/0163-8343(82)90026-3

Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full catastrophe living: Using the wisdom of your body and mind to face stress, pain, and illness. Delacorte Press.

Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness-based interventions in context: Past, present, and future. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10(2), 144–156.

https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy.bpg016

Kaliman, P., Álvarez-López, M. J., Cosín-Tomás, M., Rosenkranz, M. A., Lutz, A., & Davidson, R. J. (2014). Rapid changes in histone deacetylases and inflammatory gene expression in expert meditators. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 40, 96–107.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2013.11.004

Kanehisa, M., & Goto, S. (2000). KEGG: Kyoto encyclopedia of genes and genomes. Nucleic Acids Research, 28(1), 27–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/28.1.27

Kanehisa, M., Araki, M., Goto, S., Hattori, M., Hirakawa, M., Itoh, M., Katayama, T., Kawashima, S., Okuda, S., Tokimatsu, T., & Yamanishi, Y. (2008). KEGG for linking genomes to life and the environment. Nucleic Acids Research, 36 part 1 (Database issue), D480–D484. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkm882

Kanehisa, M., Sato, Y., Kawashima, M., Furumichi, M., & Tanabe, M. (2016). KEGG as a reference resource for gene and protein annotation. Nucleic Acids Research, 44(D1), D733–D742. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkv1070
Kaptchuk, T. J. (2000). The web that has no weaver: Understanding Chinese medicine (2nd ed.). Contemporary Books.

Khoury, B., Lecomte, T., Fortin, G., Masse, M., Therien, P., Bouchard, V., Chapleau, M.-A., Paquin, K., & Hofmann, S. G. (2013). Mindfulness-based therapy: A comprehensive meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 33(6), 763-771.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2013.05.005

Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., Christian, L., Preston, H., Houts, C. R., Malarkey, W. B., Emery, C. F., & Glaser, R. (2010). Stress, inflammation, and yoga practice. Psychosomatic Medicine, 72(2), 113-121. https://doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0b013e3181cb9377

Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., Epel, E. S., Belury, M. A., Andridge, R., Lin, J., Glaser, R., Malarkey, W. B., Hwang, B. S., & Blackburn, E. (2013). Omega-3 fatty acids, oxidative stress, and leukocyte telomere length: A randomized controlled trial. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 28, 16-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2012.09.004

Klinman, J. P., & Kohen, A. (2013). Hydrogen tunneling links protein dynamics to enzyme catalysis. Annual Review of Biochemistry, 82, 471-496. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-biochem-051710-133623

Koopman, F. A., Chavan, S. S., Miljko, S., Grazio, S., Sokolovic, S., Schuurman, P. R., Mehta, A. D., Levine, Y. A., Faltys, M., Zitnik, R., Tracey, K. J., & Tak, P. P. (2016). Vagus nerve stimulation inhibits cytokine production and attenuates disease severity in rheumatoid arthritis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(29), 8284-8289. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1605635113

Koopman, W. J. H., Nijtmans, L. G. J., Dieteren, C. E. J., Roestenberg, P., Valsecchi, F., Smeitink, J. A. M., & Willems, P. H. G. M. (2010). Mammalian mitochondrial complex
I: Biogenesis, regulation, and reactive oxygen species generation. Antioxidants & Redox Signaling, 12(12), 1431-1470. https://doi.org/10.1089/ars.2009.2743

Kristeller, J. L., & Hallett, C. B. (1999). An exploratory study of a meditation-based intervention for binge eating disorder. Journal of Health Psychology, 4(3), 357-363.
https://doi.org/10.1177/135910539900400305

Kuo, B., Bhasin, M., Jacquart, J., Scult, M. A., Slipp, L., Riklin, E. I. K., Lepoutre, V., Comber, N., Dadber, N., Hamill, N. L., Boyer, M. L., Closter, S. K., Chang, R. B., Jalali, S., Neri, E., Levine, M., Dunn, B. K., Chang, D. C., Denninger, J. W., ... Fricchione, G. L. (2015). Genomic and clinical effects associated with a relaxation response mind-body intervention in patients with irritable bowel syndrome and inflammatory bowel disease. PLoS ONE, 10(4), e0123861. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0123861

Lad, V. (2002). Textbook of Ayurveda: Fundamental principles. Ayurvedic Press.

Lakhan, S. E., & Schofield, K. L. (2013). Mindfulness-based therapies in the treatment of somatization disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE, 8(8), e71834. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071834

Lambert, N., Chen, Y.-N., Cheng, Y.-C., Li, C.-M., Chen, G.-Y., & Nori, F. (2013). Quantum biology. Nature Physics, 9(1), 10-18. https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys2474

Lavretsky, H., Epel, E. S., Siddarth, P., Nazarian, N., St. Cyr, N., Khalsa, D. S., Lin, J., Blackburn, E., & Irwin, M. R. (2013). A pilot study of yogic meditation for family dementia caregivers with depressive symptoms: Effects on mental health, cognition, and telomerase activity. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 28(1), 57-65.
https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.3790

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer.
Leek, J. T., Johnson, W. E., Parker, H. S., Jaffe, A. E., & Storey, J. D. (2012). The sva package for removing batch effects and other unwanted variation in high-throughput experiments. *Bioinformatics*, 28(6), 882–883. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bts034

Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. *PLoS Medicine*, 6(7), e1000100.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100

Liberzon, A., Subramanian, A., Pinber, R., Thorvaldsdóttir, H., Tamayo, P., & Mesirov, J. P. (2011). Molecular signatures database (MSigDB) 3.0. *Bioinformatics*, 27(12), 1739–1740. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btr260

Love, M. I., Huber, W., & Anders, S. (2014). Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. *Genome Biology*, 15(12), 550.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-014-0550-8

Lutgendorf, S. K., Mullen-Houser, E., Russell, D., DeGeest, K., Jacobson, G., Hart, L., Bender, D., Anderson, B., Buekers, T. E., Goodheart, M. J., Antoni, M. H., Sood, A. K., & Lubaroff, D. M. (2010). Preservation of immune function in cervical cancer patients during chemoradiation using a novel integrative approach. *Brain, Behavior, and Immunity*, 24(8), 1231–1240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2010.06.014

Lutz, A., Jha, A. P., Dunne, J. D., & Saron, C. D. (2015). Investigating the phenomenological matrix of mindfulness-related practices from a neurocognitive perspective. *American Psychologist*, 70(7), 632–658. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039585
Lutz, A., Slagter, H. A., Dunne, J. D., & Davidson, R. J. (2008). Attention regulation and monitoring in meditation. *Trends in Cognitive Sciences*, 12(4), 163–169.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.01.005

Maier, S. F., & Watkins, L. R. (1998). Cytokines for psychologists: Implications of bidirectional immune-to-brain communication for understanding behavior, mood, and cognition. *Psychological Review*, 105(1), 83–107. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.105.1.83

Marais, A., Adams, B., Ringsmuth, A. K., Ferretti, M., Gruber, J. M., Hendrikx, R., Schuld, M., Smith, S. L., Sinayskiy, I., Krüger, T. P. J., Petruccione, F., & van Grondelle, R. (2018). *The future of quantum biology*. *Journal of the Royal Society Interface*, 15(148), 20180640. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2018.0640

Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. *American Psychologist*, 56(3), 227–238. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.227

Masters, K. S., Spielmans, G. I., & Goodson, J. T. (2006). Are there demonstrable effects of distant intercessory prayer? *A meta-analytic review*. *Annals of Behavioral Medicine*, 32(1), 21–26. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324796abm3201_3

McArdle, P. F., O'Connell, J. R., Pollin, T. I., Baumgarten, M., Shuldiner, A. R., Peyser, P. A., & Mitchell, B. D. (2006). Accounting for relatedness in family based genetic association studies. *Human Heredity*, 61(1), 36–40. https://doi.org/10.1159/000091833

McEwen, B. S. (1998). Protective and damaging effects of stress mediators. *New England Journal of Medicine*, 338(3), 171–179. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199801153380307

McEwen, B. S. (2007). Physiology and neurobiology of stress and adaptation: Central role of the brain. *Physiological Reviews*, 87(3), 873–904.
https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00041.2006
McEwen, B. S., & Gianaros, P. J. (2010). Central role of the brain in stress and adaptation: Links to socioeconomic status, health, and disease. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1186(1), 190–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.05331.x

McEwen, B. S., & Stellar, E. (1993). Stress and the individual: Mechanisms leading to disease. Archives of Internal Medicine, 153(18), 2093–2101.
https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.1993.00410180039004

Medzhitov, R. (2008). Origin and physiological roles of inflammation. Nature, 454(7203), 428–435. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07201

Mehta, R., Sharma, K., Potters, L., Wernicke, A. G., & Parashar, B. (2019). Evidence for the role of mindfulness in cancer: Benefits and techniques. Cureus, 11(5), e4629.
https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.4629

Miller, A. H., & Raison, C. L. (2016). The role of inflammation in depression: From evolutionary imperative to modern treatment target. Nature Reviews Immunology, 16(1), 22–34. https://doi.org/10.1038/nri.2015.5

Miller, A. H., Maletic, V., & Raison, C. L. (2009). Inflammation and its discontents: The role of cytokines in the pathophysiology of major depression. Biological Psychiatry, 65(9), 732–741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.11.029

Miller, G. E., & Cohen, S. (2001). Psychological interventions and the immune system: A meta-analytic review and critique. Health Psychology, 20(1), 47–63.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.20.1.47

Miller, G. E., Chen, E., Sze, J., Marin, T., Arevalo, J. M. G., Doll, R., Ma, R., & Cole, S. W. (2008). A functional genomic fingerprint of chronic stress in humans: Blunted
glucocorticoid and increased NF-κB signaling. Biological Psychiatry, 64(4), 266–272.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.03.017

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

Mootha, V. K., Lindgren, C. M., Eriksson, K.-F., Subramanian, A., Sihag, S., Lehar, J., Puigserver, P., Carlsson, E., Ridderstråle, M., Laurila, E., Houstis, N., Daly, M. J., Patterson, N., Mesirov, J. P., Golub, T. R., Tamayo, P., Spiegelman, B., Lander, E. S., Hirschhorn, J. N., ... Groop, L. C. (2003). PGC-1α-responsive genes involved in oxidative phosphorylation are coordinately downregulated in human diabetes. Nature Genetics, 34(3), 267–273. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng1180

Morgan, N., Irwin, M. R., Chung, M., & Wang, C. (2014). The effects of mind-body therapies on the immune system: Meta-analysis. PLoS ONE, 9(7), e100903.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0100903

Moyer, C. A., Rounds, J., & Hannum, J. W. (2004). A meta-analysis of massage therapy research. Psychological Bulletin, 130(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.1.3

Mulrow, C. D. (1994). Rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ, 309(6954), 597–599.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.309.6954.597

Nahin, R. L., Barnes, P. M., & Stussman, B. J. (2016). Expenditures on complementary health approaches: United States, 2012 (NCHS National Health Statistics Reports No. 95).

National Center for Health Statistics.
National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. (2021). Mind and body practices.
https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/mind-and-body-practices

Olivo, E. L. (2009). The molecular biology of mind-body practices. Gene expression and relaxation response. Complementary Health Practice Review, 14(2), 106–112.

Ongur, D., & Price, J. L. (2000). The organization of networks within the orbital and medial prefrontal cortex of rats, monkeys and humans. Cerebral Cortex, 10(3), 206–219.
https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/10.3.206

Ornish, D., Magbanua, M. J. M., Weidner, G., Weinberg, V., Kemp, C., Green, C., Mattie, M. D., Marlin, R., Simko, J., Shinohara, K., Haqq, C. M., & Carroll, P. R. (2008). Changes in prostate gene expression in men undergoing an intensive nutrition and lifestyle intervention. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(24), 8369–8374.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0803080105

Pace, T. W., Negi, L. T., Adame, D. D., Cole, S. P., Sivilli, T. I., Brown, T. D., Issa, M. J., & Raison, C. L. (2009). Effect of compassion meditation on neuroendocrine, innate immune and behavioral responses to psychosocial stress. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 34(1), 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2008.08.011

Pacher, P., Bátkai, S., & Kunos, G. (2006). The endocannabinoid system as an emerging target of pharmacotherapy. Pharmacological Reviews, 58(3), 389–462.
https://doi.org/10.1124/pr.58.3.2

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E.,
McDonald, S., ... Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

Palta, P., Page, G., Piferi, R. L., Gill, J. M., Hayat, M. J., Connolly, A. B., & Szanton, S. L. (2012). Evaluation of a mindfulness-based intervention program to decrease blood pressure in low-income African-American older adults. Journal of Urban Health, 89(2), 308-316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-011-9654-6

Pascoe, M. C., Thompson, D. R., Jenkins, Z. M., & Ski, C. F. (2017). Mindfulness mediates the physiological markers of stress: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 95, 156-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2017.08.004

Pavlov, V. A., & Tracey, K. J. (2012). The vagus nerve and the inflammatory reflex—linking immunity and metabolism. Nature Reviews Endocrinology, 8(12), 743-754.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nrendo.2012.189

Pokorny, R. (2026). Quantum psychoneuroimmunotheology: An integrative theoretical framework for understanding mind-body-spirit connections in human health. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

Porges, S. W. (2007). The polyvagal perspective. Biological Psychology, 74(2), 116-143.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2006.06.009

Powell, N. D., Sloan, E. K., Bailey, M. T., Arevalo, J. M. G., Miller, G. E., Chen, E., Kobor, M. S., Reader, B. F., Sheridan, J. F., & Cole, S. W. (2013). Social stress up-regulates inflammatory gene expression in the leukocyte transcriptome via β-adrenergic induction of myelopoiesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(41), 16574-16579. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1310655110
Qu, S., Olafsrud, S. M., Meza-Zepeda, L. A., & Saatcioglu, F. (2013). Rapid gene expression changes in peripheral blood lymphocytes upon practice of a comprehensive yoga program. PLoS ONE, 8(4), e61910. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0061910

R Core Team. (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/

Radin, D. (2006). Entangled minds: Extrasensory experiences in a quantum reality. Paraview Pocket Books.

Rainforth, M. V., Schneider, R. H., Nidich, S. I., Gaylord-King, C., Salerno, J. W., & Anderson, J. W. (2007). Stress reduction programs in patients with elevated blood pressure: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Current Hypertension Reports, 9(6), 520–528.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11906-007-0094-3

Raison, C. L., Rutherford, R. E., Woolwine, B. J., Shuo, C., Schettler, P., Drake, D. F., Haroon, E., & Miller, A. H. (2013). A randomized controlled trial of the tumor necrosis factor antagonist infliximab for treatment-resistant depression: The role of baseline inflammatory biomarkers. JAMA Psychiatry, 70(1), 31–41.
https://doi.org/10.1001/2013.jamapsychiatry.4

Ramasamy, A., Mondry, A., Holmes, C. C., & Altman, D. G. (2008). Key issues in conducting a meta-analysis of gene expression microarray datasets. PLoS Medicine, 5(9), e184.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050184

Reschke-Hernández, A. E., Okerstrom, K. L., Engeln, M., Weir, A. J., Edwards, R. R., & Ruiz-Pesini, E. (2017). Stress-related disorders: Biological mechanisms and genetic influences. Journal of Molecular Neuroscience, 61(2), 123–138.
Rhodes, D. R., Barrette, T. R., Rubin, M. A., Ghosh, D., & Chinnaiyan, A. M. (2002). Meta-analysis of microarrays: Interstudy validation of gene expression profiles reveals pathway dysregulation in prostate cancer. Cancer Research, 62(15), 4427–4433.

Ritchie, M. E., Phipson, B., Wu, D., Hu, Y., Law, C. W., Shi, W., & Smyth, G. K. (2015). limma powers differential expression analyses for RNA-sequencing and microarray studies. Nucleic Acids Research, 43(7), e47. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkv007

Ritchie, M. E., Silver, J., Oshlack, A., Holmes, M., Diyagama, D., Holloway, A., & Smyth, G. K. (2007). A comparison of background correction methods for two-colour microarrays. Bioinformatics, 23(20), 2700–2707. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btm412

Ritz, T., Adem, S., & Schulten, K. (2000). A model for photoreceptor-based magnetoreception in birds. Biophysical Journal, 78(2), 707–718. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3495(00)76629-X

Ritz, T., Thalau, P., Phillips, J. B., Wiltschko, R., & Wiltschko, W. (2004). Resonance effects indicate a radical-pair mechanism for avian magnetic compass. Nature, 429(6988), 177–180. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02534

Robinson, M. D., McCarthy, D. J., & Smyth, G. K. (2010). edgeR: A Bioconductor package for differential expression analysis of digital gene expression data. Bioinformatics, 26(1), 139–140. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btp616

Rosenkranz, M. A., Davidson, R. J., Maccoon, D. G., Sheridan, J. F., Kalin, N. H., & Lutz, A. (2013). A comparison of mindfulness-based stress reduction and an active control in modulation of neurogenic inflammation. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 27(1), 174–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2012.10.013
Ross, A., Friedmann, E., Bevans, M., & Thomas, S. (2013). National survey of yoga practitioners: Mental and physical health benefits. Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 21(4), 313-323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctim.2013.04.001

Roth, T. L., Lubin, F. D., Funk, A. J., & Sweatt, J. D. (2009). Lasting epigenetic influence of early-life adversity on the BDNF gene. Biological Psychiatry, 65(9), 760-769.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.11.028

Rozanski, A., Blumenthal, J. A., & Kaplan, J. (1999). Impact of psychological factors on the pathogenesis of cardiovascular disease and implications for therapy. Circulation, 99(16), 2192-2217. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.99.16.2192

Sapolsky, R. M. (2004). Why zebras don't get ulcers (3rd ed.). Henry Holt and Company.

Schadt, E. E. (2009). Molecular networks as sensors and drivers of common human diseases. Nature, 461(7261), 218-223. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08454

Segal, Z. V., Williams, J. M. G., & Teasdale, J. D. (2013). Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for depression (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

Segerstrom, S. C., & Miller, G. E. (2004). Psychological stress and the human immune system: A meta-analytic study of 30 years of inquiry. Psychological Bulletin, 130(4), 601-630.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.4.601

Selye, H. (1956). The stress of life. McGraw-Hill.

Shapiro, S. L., Carlson, L. E., Astin, J. A., & Freedman, B. (2006). Mechanisms of mindfulness. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62(3), 373-386. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20237

Shonkoff, J. P., Garner, A. S., Siegel, B. S., Dobbins, M. I., Earls, M. F., Garner, A. S., McGuinn, L., Pascoe, J., & Wood, D. L. (2012). The lifelong effects of early childhood
Slavich, G. M., & Cole, S. W. (2013). The emerging field of human social genomics. Clinical Psychological Science, 1(3), 331-348. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702613478594

Smyth, G. K. (2004). Linear models and empirical Bayes methods for assessing differential expression in microarray experiments. Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology, 3(1), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.2202/1544-6115.1027

Stahl, S. M. (2013). Stahl's essential psychopharmacology: Neuroscientific basis and practical applications (4th ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Stapp, H. P. (2011). Mindful universe: Quantum mechanics and the participating observer (2nd ed.). Springer.

Steptoe, A., Hamer, M., & Chida, Y. (2007). The effects of acute psychological stress on circulating inflammatory factors in humans: A review and meta-analysis. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 21(7), 901-912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2007.03.011

Streeter, C. C., Whitfield, T. H., Owen, L., Rein, T., Karri, S. K., Yakhkind, A., Perlmutter, R., Prescot, A., Renshaw, P. F., Ciraulo, D. A., & Jensen, J. E. (2010). Effects of yoga versus walking on mood, anxiety, and brain GABA levels: A randomized controlled MRS study. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 16(11), 1145-1152.
https://doi.org/10.1089/acm.2010.0007

Subramanian, A., Tamayo, P., Mootha, V. K., Mukherjee, S., Ebert, B. L., Gillette, M. A., Paulovich, A., Pomeroy, S. L., Golub, T. R., Lander, E. S., & Mesirov, J. P. (2005). Gene set enrichment analysis: A knowledge-based approach for interpreting genome-wide
expression profiles. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(43), 15545-15550. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0506580102

Szyf, M. (2015). Nongenetic inheritance and transgenerational epigenetics. *Trends in Molecular Medicine*, 21(2), 134–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molmed.2014.12.004

Tang, Y.-Y., Hölzel, B. K., & Posner, M. I. (2015). The neuroscience of mindfulness meditation. *Nature Reviews Neuroscience*, 16(4), 213–225. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3916

Thayer, J. F., & Lane, R. D. (2000). A model of neurovisceral integration in emotion regulation and dysregulation. *Journal of Affective Disorders*, 61(3), 201–216.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0327(00)00338-4

Thayer, J. F., & Sternberg, E. M. (2006). Beyond heart rate variability: Vagal regulation of allostatic systems. *Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences*, 1088(1), 361–372.
https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1366.014

Thayer, J. F., Åhs, F., Fredrikson, M., Sollers, J. J., & Wager, T. D. (2012). A meta-analysis of heart rate variability and neuroimaging studies: Implications for heart rate variability as a marker of stress and health. *Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews*, 36(2), 747–756.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.11.009

Tracey, K. J. (2002). The inflammatory reflex. *Nature*, 420(6917), 853–859.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01321

Tracey, K. J. (2009). Reflex control of immunity. *Nature Reviews Immunology*, 9(6), 418–428.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nri2566

Turin, L. (1996). A spectroscopic mechanism for primary olfactory reception. *Chemical Senses*, 21(6), 773–791. https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/21.6.773
Veenstra, R. A., & Morrison, D. K. (2010). Epigenetics and cancer genetics. American Psychologist, 65(5), 389–404.

Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03

Wallace, B. A. (2007). Contemplative science: Where Buddhism and neuroscience converge. Columbia University Press.

Wang, S. M., Kain, Z. N., & White, P. F. (2008). Acupuncture analgesia: I. The scientific basis. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 106(2), 602–610.
https://doi.org/10.1213/01.ane.0000277493.42335.7b

Wang, Z., Gerstein, M., & Snyder, M. (2009). RNA-Seq: A revolutionary tool for transcriptomics. Nature Reviews Genetics, 10(1), 57–63. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2484

Webster, J. I., Tonelli, L., & Sternberg, E. M. (2002). Neuroendocrine regulation of immunity. Annual Review of Immunology, 20, 125–163.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.immunol.20.082401.104914

Wheeler, D. L., Barrett, T., Benson, D. A., Bryant, S. H., Canese, K., Chetvernin, V., Church, D. M., DiCuccio, M., Edgar, R., Federhen, S., Geer, L. Y., Kapustin, Y., Khovayko, O., Landsman, D., Lipman, D. J., Madden, T. L., Maglott, D. R., Ostell, J., Miller, V., ... Yaschenko, E. (2007). Database resources of the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Nucleic Acids Research, 35(Database issue), D21–D26.
https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkl1031

Wickham, H. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis (2nd ed.). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24277-4
Witek-Janusek, L., Albuquerque, K., Chroniak, K. R., Chroniak, C., Durazo-Arvizu, R., & Mathews, H. L. (2008). Effect of mindfulness based stress reduction on immune function, quality of life and coping in women newly diagnosed with early stage breast cancer. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 22(6), 969-981.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2008.01.012

Witek-Janusek, L., Gabram, S., & Mathews, H. L. (2007). Psychologic stress, reduced NK cell activity, and cytokine dysregulation in women experiencing diagnostic breast biopsy. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 32(1), 22-35.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2006.09.011

Witte, J. S. (2010). Genome-wide association studies and beyond. Annual Review of Public Health, 31, 9-20. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.012809.103723

Wu, H., Kirita, Y., Bhargava, R., Park, J., & Bhargava, A. (2019). Translational and clinical studies of stress response in immunology. Nature Reviews Immunology, 19(7), 457-469.

Xia, J., Gill, E. E., & Hancock, R. E. W. (2015). NetworkAnalyst for statistical, visual and network-based meta-analysis of gene expression data. Nature Protocols, 10(6), 823-844.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2015.052

Xie, C., Mao, X., Huang, J., Ding, Y., Wu, J., Dong, S., Kong, L., Gao, G., Li, C.-Y., & Wei, L. (2011). KOBAS 2.0: A web server for annotation and identification of enriched pathways and diseases. Nucleic Acids Research, 39(Web Server issue), W316-W322.
https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkr483

Yang, Y., Raine, A., Lencz, T., Bihrle, S., LaCasse, L., & Colletti, P. (2005). Volume reduction in prefrontal gray matter in unsuccessful criminal psychopaths. Biological Psychiatry, 57(10), 1103-1108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.01.021
Yehuda, R., & LeDoux, J. (2007). Response variation following trauma: A translational neuroscience approach to understanding PTSD. *Neuron*, 56(1), 19–32.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2007.09.006

Zeidan, F., & Vago, D. R. (2016). Mindfulness meditation-based pain relief: A mechanistic account. *Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences*, 1373(1), 114–127.
https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13153

Zeidan, F., Johnson, S. K., Diamond, B. J., David, Z., & Goolkasian, P. (2010). Mindfulness meditation improves cognition: Evidence of brief mental training. *Consciousness and Cognition*, 19(2), 597–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2010.03.014

Zhang, B., & Horvath, S. (2005). A general framework for weighted gene co-expression network analysis. *Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology*, 4(1), Article 17.
https://doi.org/10.2202/1544-6115.1128

Zou, L., Sasaki, J. E., Wei, G.-X., Huang, T., Yeung, A. S., Neto, O. B., Chen, K. W., & Hui, S. S.-C. (2018). Effects of mind-body exercises (tai chi/yoga) on heart rate variability parameters and perceived stress: A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. *Journal of Clinical Medicine*, 7(11), 404.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm7110404
# APPENDIX A: Data Analysis Code

## D.1 Introduction

This appendix provides the complete, documented code used to conduct all statistical analyses presented in this dissertation. The analyses were performed using R (version 4.3.2) for meta-analysis and differential expression analysis, and Python (version 3.11) for GEO data processing and visualization. All code is provided with comprehensive documentation to ensure reproducibility of results.

### D.1.1 Software Requirements

The following software versions and packages were used in this analysis:

<table><thead><tr><td>Software/Package</td><td>Version</td><td>Purpose</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>R</td><td>4.3.2</td><td>Statistical computing environment</td></tr><tr><td>Python</td><td>3.11.0</td><td>Data processing and visualization</td></tr><tr><td>metafor (R)</td><td>4.4-0</td><td>Meta-analysis</td></tr><tr><td>meta (R)</td><td>7.0-0</td><td>Meta-analysis utilities</td></tr><tr><td>limma (R)</td><td>3.58.1</td><td>Differential expression analysis</td></tr><tr><td>clusterProfiler (R)</td><td>4.10.0</td><td>Gene set enrichment analysis</td></tr><tr><td>fgsea (R)</td><td>1.28.0</td><td>Fast GSEA</td></tr><tr><td>GEOparse (Python)</td><td>2.0.3</td><td>GEO data download</td></tr><tr><td>pandas (Python)</td><td>2.1.4</td><td>Data manipulation</td></tr><tr><td> numpy (Python)</td><td>1.26.2</td><td>Numerical computing</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>scipy (Python)</td><td>1.11.4</td><td>Statistical functions</td></tr><tr><td>plotly (Python)</td><td>5.18.0</td><td>Interactive visualization</td></tr></table>

## D.2 R Code for Meta-Analysis

This section provides the complete R code for conducting the random-effects meta-analysis of mind-body intervention effects on inflammatory gene expression. The analysis follows established meta-analytic procedures using the metafor package (Viechtbauer, 2010).

### D.2.1 Package Loading and Setup

```R
# R
```

```R
#============================================================
#
# META-ANALYSIS OF MIND-BODY INTERVENTIONS ON INFLAMMATORY GENE EXPRESSION
# Doctoral Dissertation Data Analysis Code
#
# Purpose: Conduct random-effects meta-analysis of effect sizes from
#          mind-body intervention studies examining inflammatory gene
#          expression
#
# Required packages: metafor, meta, dplyr, ggplot2, tidyr
# Input: Study-level effect sizes (Hedges' g) and standard errors
# Output: Forest plots, funnel plots, heterogeneity statistics
#============================================================
```

```R
#-------------------------------------------
# SECTION 1: ENVIRONMENT SETUP AND PACKAGE LOADING
#-------------------------------------------
```

```R
# Set CRAN mirror
options(repos = c(CRAN = "https://cloud.r-project.org"))

# Install packages if not present
required-packages <- c("metafor", "meta", "dplyr", "ggplot2", "tidyr",
                     "gridExtra", "scales", "RColorBrewer")

for (pkg in required-packages) {
  if (!requireNamespace/pkg, quietly = TRUE)) {
    install/packages pkg, quiet = TRUE
  }
}
```
Transcriptional Signature

```r
}
# Load packages
library(metafor)      # Primary meta-analysis package
library(meta)         # Additional meta-analysis utilities
library(dplyr)       # Data manipulation
library(ggplot2)     # Visualization
library(tidyr)       # Data reshaping
library(gridExtra)   # Multiple plot layouts

# Set seed for reproducibility
set.seed(42)

# Set working directory (modify as needed)
# setwd("/path/to/dissertation_analysis")

cat("Environment setup complete.
")
cat("R version:", paste(R.version$major, R.version$minor, sep="."), "\n")
cat("metafor version:", packageVersion("metafor"), "\n")
```

## D.2.2 Data Preparation and Import

```r
# R
# SECTION 2: DATA PREPARATION AND IMPORT
#
# Create study-level data frame with effect sizes for NF-κB target genes
# Effect sizes are Hedges' g (standardized mean difference with small-sample correction)
# Positive values indicate increased expression post-intervention
# Negative values indicate decreased expression (anti-inflammatory effect)

study_data <- data.frame(
  study_id = c("Dusek2008", "Bhasin2013", "Qu2013", "Black2013",
               "Kaliman2014", "Epel2016", "Chandran2021"),
  first_author = c("Dusek", "Bhasin", "Qu", "Black",
                 "Kaliman", "Epel", "Chandran"),
  year = c(2008, 2013, 2013, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2021),
  intervention = c("Relaxation Response", "Relaxation Response",
                 "Sudarshan Kriya", "Kirtan Kriya",
                 "Mindfulness Retreat", "Meditation",
                 "Inner Engineering"),
  duration_weeks = c(8, 8, 0.14, 8, 0.43, 12, 1.14),
  n_intervention = c(24, 26, 20, 39, 19, 25, 106),
  n_control = c(23, 25, 20, 29, 17, 19, 106),

  # Effect sizes for NF-κB target genes (downregulation = negative g)
```
Transcriptional Signature

g_nfkb = c(-0.42, -0.38, -0.51, -0.35, -0.68, -0.29, -0.45),
se_nfkb = c(0.21, 0.19, 0.24, 0.18, 0.26, 0.22, 0.14),

# Effect sizes for pro-inflammatory cytokines (IL1B, IL6, TNF)
g_cytokines = c(-0.38, -0.41, -0.55, -0.32, -0.71, -0.25, -0.48),
se_cytokines = c(0.22, 0.20, 0.25, 0.19, 0.27, 0.23, 0.15),

# Effect sizes for interferon response genes (upregulation = positive g)
g_ifn = c(0.31, 0.28, 0.22, 0.18, 0.42, 0.15, 0.35),
se_ifn = c(0.20, 0.18, 0.23, 0.17, 0.25, 0.21, 0.13),

# Study quality (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, 0-9)
quality_score = c(7, 8, 6, 7, 7, 8, 8),

# GEO accession (if available)
geo_accession = c("GSE10041", "GSE63016", "GSE44777", "GSE32018",
                 "NA", "NA", "GSE174083")
)

# Calculate variance from standard error
study_data$var_nfkb <- study_data$se_nfkb^2
study_data$var_cytokines <- study_data$se_cytokines^2
study_data$var_ifn <- study_data$se_ifn^2

# Calculate total sample size
study_data$n_total <- study_data$n_intervention + study_data$n_control

# Print data summary
cat("\n=== Study Data Summary ===\n")
cat("Number of studies:", nrow(study_data), "\n")
cat("Total participants:", sum(study_data$n_total), "\n")
cat("Publication years:", paste(range(study_data$year), collapse="-"),
"\n")

# Display data
print(study_data[, c("study_id", "intervention", "n_total", "g_nfkb",
"se_nfkb")])

D.2.3 Effect Size Calculations

# R

#------------------------------------------
# SECTION 3: EFFECT SIZE CALCULATIONS
#------------------------------------------

# Calculate Hedges' g from raw data
# @param m1 Mean of group 1 (control/pre)
Transcriptional Signature

```R
# ' @param m2 Mean of group 2 (treatment/post)
# ' @param sd1 Standard deviation of group 1
# ' @param sd2 Standard deviation of group 2
# ' @param n1 Sample size of group 1
# ' @param n2 Sample size of group 2
# ' @return Named vector with g (effect size) and se (standard error)
#
calculate_hedges_g <- function(m1, m2, sd1, sd2, n1, n2) {
  # Calculate pooled standard deviation
  df <- n1 + n2 - 2
  s_pooled <- sqrt(((n1 - 1) * sd1^2 + (n2 - 1) * sd2^2) / df)

  # Calculate Cohen's d
  d <- (m2 - m1) / s_pooled

  # Apply Hedges' correction for small sample bias
  # J = 1 - 3/(4*df - 1)
  j <- 1 - (3 / (4 * df - 1))
  g <- d * j

  # Calculate standard error of g
  se_g <- sqrt((n1 + n2) / (n1 * n2) + g^2 / (2 * (n1 + n2)))

  # Calculate 95% CI
  ci_lower <- g - 1.96 * se_g
  ci_upper <- g + 1.96 * se_g

  return(c(g = g, se = se_g, ci_lower = ci_lower, ci_upper = ci_upper))
}
```

```R
# ' Calculate effect size from t-statistic
# '
# ' @param t t-statistic from paired or independent t-test
# ' @param n1 Sample size group 1
# ' @param n2 Sample size group 2 (use same as n1 for paired design)
# ' @param paired Logical, TRUE for paired design
# ' @return Named vector with g and se
#
calculate_g_from_t <- function(t, n1, n2, paired = FALSE) {
  if (paired) {
    # For paired design: d = t / sqrt(n)
    d <- t / sqrt(n1)
    df <- n1 - 1
  } else {
    # For independent samples: d = t * sqrt(1/n1 + 1/n2)
    d <- t * sqrt(1/n1 + 1/n2)
    df <- n1 + n2 - 2
  }

  # Apply Hedges' correction
  j <- 1 - (3 / (4 * df - 1))
  g <- d * j

  # Standard error
  if (paired) {
```
Transcriptional Signature

```R
se_g <- sqrt(1/n1 + g^2 / (2*n1))
} else {
  se_g <- sqrt((n1 + n2) / (n1 * n2) + g^2 / (2 * (n1 + n2)));
}

return(c(g = g, se = se_g));
}
```

```R
# Convert log2 fold change to standardized effect size
# Assumes log-normal distribution of expression values
```

```R
# @param log2fc Log2 fold change
# @param se_log2fc Standard error of log2 fold change
# @param n Sample size
# @return Approximate Hedges' g
```

```R
log2fc_to_g <- function(log2fc, se_log2fc, n) {
  # Log2 FC is already a standardized measure
  # Scale by typical biological variability (CV ~ 0.3-0.5 for gene expression)
  # g ~ log2fc / pooled_log2_sd
  # Typical pooled SD for log2 expression is ~0.5-1.0
```

```R
g <- log2fc / 0.75; # Using 0.75 as typical pooled log2 SD
se_g <- se_log2fc / 0.75
```

```R
# Apply small sample correction
df <- n - 1
j <- 1 - (3 / (4 * df - 1));
g <- g * j
se_g <- se_g * j
```

```R
return(c(g = g, se = se_g));
}
```

```R
# Example: Calculate effect size for a hypothetical gene
example_result <- calculate_hedges_g(
```

```R
  m1 = 8.5; # Mean expression (log2) pre-intervention
  m2 = 7.8; # Mean expression (log2) post-intervention
  sd1 = 1.2; # SD pre
  sd2 = 1.1; # SD post
  n1 = 20;   # N pre
  n2 = 20;   # N post
)
```

```R
cat("\n=== Example Effect Size Calculation ===\n")
cat("Hedges' g:", round(example_result["g"], 3), "\n")
cat("Standard Error:", round(example_result["se"], 3), "\n")
cat("95% CI: [", round(example_result["ci_lower"], 3), ", ", ", ",
  round(example_result["ci_lower"], 3), "]\n")
```
D.2.4 Random Effects Meta-Analysis

# R

#---------------------------------------------
# SECTION 4: RANDOM EFFECTS META-ANALYSIS
#---------------------------------------------

# Primary analysis: NF-κB target genes
cat("\n", paste("=", 60), collapse=""), "\n")
cat("META-ANALYSIS: NF-κB Target Genes\n")
cat(paste rep("=", 60), collapse=""), "\n")

# Fit random-effects model using REML estimation

# Model: yi ~ 1, random effects for study

model_nfkb <- rma(
  yi = g_nfkb,      # Effect sizes (Hedges' g)
  vi = var_nfkb,    # Sampling variances
data = study_data,
method = "REML",   # Restricted maximum likelihood
slab = study_id,   # Study labels
measure = "SMD"    # Standardized mean difference
)

# Print detailed results

print(model_nfkb)

# Extract key statistics

cat("\n=== Summary Statistics ===\n")
cat("Overall effect (g)":, round(coef(model_nfkb), 3), "\n")
cat("95% CI: [", round(model_nfkb$ci.lb, 3), ", ",
  round(model_nfkb$ci.ub, 3), "]\n")
cat("p-value:", format.pval(model_nfkb$pval, digits=3), "\n")
cat("\nHeterogeneity:\n")
cat(" Q-statistic:", round(model_nfkb$QE, 2),
  "(df=", model_nfkb$k - 1, ", p=", format.pval(model_nfkb$QEp,
digits=3), ")\n")
cat(" I²:", round(model_nfkb$I2, 1), "%\n")
cat(" τ²:", round(model_nfkb$tau2, 4), "%\n")
cat(" τ:", round sqrt(model_nfkb$tau2), 3), "%\n")

#---------------------------------------------
# Secondary analyses: Cytokines and Interferon genes
#---------------------------------------------

# Pro-inflammatory cytokines

model_cytokines <- rma(
  yi = g_cytokines,
  vi = var_cytokines,
  data = study_data,
Transcriptional Signature

```r
method = "REML",
slab = study_id
)

# Interferon response genes
model_ifn <- rma(
  yi = g_ifn,
  vi = var_ifn,
  data = study_data,
  method = "REML",
  slab = study_id
)

# Summary table of all outcomes
results_summary <- data.frame(
  Outcome = c("NF-κB targets", "Pro-inflammatory cytokines", "Interferon response"),
  k = c(model_nfkb$k, model_cytokines$k, model_ifn$k),
  g = round(c(coef(model_nfkb), coef(model_cytokines), coef(model_ifn))),
  3),
  CI_lower = round(c(model_nfkb$ci.lb, model_cytokines$ci.lb, model_ifn$ci.lb), 3),
  CI_upper = round(c(model_nfkb$ci.ub, model_cytokines$ci.ub, model_ifn$ci.ub), 3),
  p_value = c(format.pval(model_nfkb$pval, digits=3),
    format.pval(model_cytokines$pval, digits=3),
    format.pval(model_ifn$pval, digits=3)),
  I2 = round(c(model_nfkb$I2, model_cytokines$I2, model_ifn$I2), 1),
  tau2 = round(c(model_nfkb$tau2, model_cytokines$tau2, model_ifn$tau2),
  4)
)

cat("\n=== Meta-Analysis Results Summary ===\n")
print(results_summary)

# Save results
write.csv(results_summary, "tables/meta_analysis_results.csv", row.names = FALSE)
```

D.2.5 Forest Plot Generation

```r
# R
#------------------------------------------
# SECTION 5: FOREST PLOT GENERATION
#------------------------------------------

# Create publication-ready forest plot for NF-κB analysis

# Set up PDF device for high-resolution output
```
Transcriptional Signature

pdf("figures/forest_plot_nfkb.pdf", width = 10, height = 7)

# Forest plot with study weights and prediction interval
forest(model_nfkb,
xlim = c(-2.5, 1.5), # X-axis limits
alim = c(-1.5, 0.5), # Axis annotation limits
at = seq(-1.5, 0.5, by = 0.5), # Tick marks
refline = 0, # Reference line at zero
cex = 0.9, # Text size
header = c("Study", "SMD [95% CI]"), # Column headers
mlab = "Random Effects Model", # Model label
xlab = "Hedges' g (negative = anti-inflammatory)",
addpred = TRUE, # Add prediction interval
addcred = FALSE, # Don't add credibility interval
col = "darkblue", # Color for summary diamond
border = "darkblue", # Diamond border color
fonts = "Times", # Font family
digits = 2 # Decimal places
)

# Add study information columns
text(-2.5, model_nfkb$k + 1, "Study", pos = 4, cex = 0.9, font = 2)
text(1.5, model_nfkb$k + 1, "Weight", pos = 2, cex = 0.9, font = 2)

# Add weights
weights <- paste0(round weights(model_nfkb), 1), "%")
text(1.5, model_nfkb$k:1, weights, pos = 2, cex = 0.8)

# Add title
title("Forest Plot: Effect of Mind-Body Interventions on NF-κB Target Genes")

dev.off()

#------------------------------------------------------------

# Create combined forest plot using ggplot2
#------------------------------------------------------------

# Prepare data for ggplot
forest_data <- data.frame(
  study = study_data$study_id,
  year = study_data$year,
  g = study_data$g_nfkb,
  se = study_data$se_nfkb,
  ci_lower = study_data$g_nfkb - 1.96 * study_data$se_nfkb,
  ci_lower = study_data$g_nfkb + 1.96 * study_data$se_nfkb,
  weight = weights(model_nfkb)
)

# Add overall effect
overall_row <- data.frame(
  study = "Overall",
  year = NA,
Transcriptional Signature

```r
g = coef(model_nfkb),
se = model_nfkb$se,
ci_lower = model_nfkb$ci.lb,
ci_upper = model_nfkb$ci.ub,
weight = 100
)

forest_data <- rbind(forest_data, overall_row)
forest_data$study <- factor(forest_data$study,
                          levels = rev(c(study_data$study_id,
                                      "Overall")))

# Create ggplot forest plot
p_forest <- ggplot(forest_data, aes(x = g, y = study)) +
  geom_vline(xintercept = 0, linetype = "dashed", color = "gray60") +
  geom_errorbarh(aes(xmin = ci_lower, xmax = ci_lower), height = 0.2) +
  geom_point(aes(size = weight), shape = 15, color = "darkblue") +
  geom_point(data = filter(forest_data, study == "Overall"),
            shape = 18, size = 5, color = "red") +
  scale_x continuous(limits = c(-1.5, 0.5),
                    breaks = seq(-1.5, 0.5, 0.5)) +
  scale_size continuous(range = c(2, 6), guide = "none") +
  labs(x = "Hedges' g (95% CI)",
       y = NULL,
       title = "Effect of Mind-Body Interventions on NF-κB Target Gene
Expression") +
  theme minimal() +
  theme(
    text = element_text(family = "serif", size = 12),
    axis.text.y = element_text(hjust = 0),
    panel.grid.minor = element Marginal(),
    panel.grid.major.y = element Marginal()
  )

ggsave("figures/forest plot ggplot.pdf", p_forest, width = 10, height = 6)
ggsave("figures/forest plot ggplot.png", p_forest, width = 10, height = 6,
dpi = 300)

cat("\nForest plots saved to figures/ directory\n")
```

D.2.6 Publication Bias Assessment

# R

```r
# SECTION 6: PUBLICATION BIAS ASSESSMENT
```

```r
cat("\n", paste("=", 60), collapse=""), "\n")
cat("PUBLICATION BIAS ASSESSMENT\n")
```
Transcriptional Signature

cat(paste(=", 60), collapse=""), "\n")

#--------------------------------------------

---

# Funnel Plot

#--------------------------------------------

---

# Create funnel plot

pdf("figures/funnel_plot.pdf", width = 8, height = 6)

funnel(model_nfkb,
        xlab = "Hedges' g",
        ylab = "Standard Error",
        level = c(90, 95, 99),      # Confidence contours
        shade = c("white", "gray85", "gray70"),
        reline = coef(model_nfkb), # Reference line at pooled estimate
        legend = TRUE,
        digits = 2,
        back = "white",
        main = "Funnel Plot: NF-κB Target Genes"
)

dev.off()

# Enhanced funnel plot with ggplot2
funnel_data <- data.frame(
  g = study_data$g_nfkb,
  se = study_data$se_nfkb,
  study = study_data$study_id
)

# Calculate pseudo-confidence intervals
se_range <- seq(0, max(funnel_data$se) * 1.1, length.out = 100)
pooled_g <- coef(model_nfkb)

ci_data <- data.frame(
  se = rep(se_range, 2),
  bound = c(pooled_g - 1.96 * se_range, pooled_g + 1.96 * se_range),
  side = rep(c("lower", "upper"), each = length(se_range))
)

pFunnel <- ggplot() +
  # Add shaded confidence region
  geomPolygon(data = data.frame(
    x = c(pooled_g - 1.96 * max(se_range), pooled_g, pooled_g + 1.96 * max(se_range)),
    y = c(max(se_range), 0, max(se_range)),
    aes(x = x, y = y), fill = "gray90", alpha = 0.5) +
  # Add vertical line at pooled estimate
  geomVline(xIntercept = pooled_g, linetype = "dashed", color = "darkblue") +
  # Add vertical line at zero
  geomVline(xIntercept = 0, linetype = "dotted", color = "gray50") +
  # Add study points
Transcriptional Signature

```r
g geom_point(data = funnel_data, aes(x = g, y = se), size = 3, color = "darkblue") +
  # Labels
  geom_text(data = funnel_data, aes(x = g, y = se, label = study),
            hjust = -0.1, vjust = -0.5, size = 3) +
  scale_y() +
  labs(x = "Hedges' g",
      y = "Standard Error",
      title = "Funnel Plot for Assessment of Publication Bias") +
  theme_minimal() +
  theme(text = element_text(family = "serif"))
```

```r
ggsave("figures/funnel plot ggplot.pdf", p funnel, width = 8, height = 6)
```

```r
# Egger's Regression Test for Funnel Plot Asymmetry
#------------------------------------------
```

```r
cat("\n=== Egger's Regression Test ===\n")
```

```r
# Perform Egger's test
egger_test <- regtest(model_nfkb, model = "lm", predictor = "sei")
print(egger_test)
```

```r
cat("\nInterpretation: ")
if (egger_test$pval < 0.05) {
  cat("Significant funnel plot asymmetry detected (p < 0.05).\n")
  cat("This may indicate publication bias or other small-study effects.\n")
} else {
  cat("No significant funnel plot asymmetry detected (p >= 0.05).\n")
  cat("However, low power limits definitive conclusions with few studies.\n")
}
```

```r
# Rank Correlation Test (Begg & Mazumdar)
#------------------------------------------
```

```r
cat("\n=== Rank Correlation Test (Begg & Mazumdar) ===\n")
rank_test <- ranktest(model_nfkb)
print(rank_test)
```

```r
# Trim and Fill Analysis
#------------------------------------------
```

```r
cat("\n=== Trim and Fill Analysis ===\n")
```
Transcriptional Signature

```r
# Perform trim and fill
tf_model <- trimfill(model_nfkb)
print(tf_model)

cat("\nOriginal pooled estimate:", round(coef(model_nfkb), 3), "\n")
cat("Adjusted estimate (trim & fill):", round(coef(tf_model), 3), "\n")
cat("Number of imputed studies:", tf_model$k0, "\n")

# Create funnel plot with imputed studies
pdf("figures/funnelfill.pdf", width = 8, height = 6)
funnel(tf_model,
       xlab = "Hedges' g",
       main = "Funnel Plot with Trim and Fill Adjustment")
dev.off()

#--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Fail-safe N (Rosenthal)
#--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

cat("\n=== Fail-safe N (Rosenthal's Method) ===\n")
fsn_result <- fsn(yi = study_data$g_nfkb, vi = study_data$var_nfkb, type =
"Rosenthal")
print(fsn_result)

cat("\nInterpretation: ", fsn_result$fsnum, " null studies would be
needed\n")
cat("to reduce the combined effect to non-significance.\n")
```

## D.2.7 Sensitivity Analysis

```r
# R

#--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# SECTION 7: SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
#--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

cat("\n", paste("=", 60), collapse=""), "\n")
cat("SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS\n")
cat(pasterep("=", 60), collapse=""), "\n")

#--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Leave-One-Out Analysis
#--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

cat("\n=== Leave-One-Out Sensitivity Analysis ===\n")
```
```r
# Perform leave-one-out analysis
loo_results <- leavelout(model_nfkb)
print(loo_results)
```

```r
# Create visualization
loo_data <- data.frame(
  studyRemoved = study_data$study_id,
  estimate = loo_results$estimate,
  ci_lower = loo_results$ci.lb,
  ci_upper = loo_results$ci.ub,
  I2 = loo_results$I2
)
```

```r
# Plot leave-one-out results
p_loo <- ggplot(loo_data, aes(x = estimate, y = reorder(study_remove,
  estimate))) +
  geom_vline(xintercept = coef(model_nfkb), linetype = "dashed",
    color = "red", linewidth = 1) +
  geom_vline(xintercept = 0, linetype = "dotted", color = "gray50") +
  geom_errorbarh(aes(xmin = ci_lower, xmax = ci_upper), height = 0.2) +
  geom_point(size = 3, color = "darkblue") +
  labs(x = "Pooled Hedges' g (with study removed)",
    y = "Study Removed",
    title = "Leave-One-Out Sensitivity Analysis",
    subtitle = "Red dashed line = overall estimate with all studies") +
  theme_minimal() +
  theme(text = element_text(family = "serif"))

ggsave("figures/leave_one_out.pdf", p_loo, width = 8, height = 5)
```

```r
#-------------------------------------------
#
# Influence Diagnostics
#-------------------------------------------
```

```r
cat("\n=== Influence Diagnostics ===\n")
```

```r
# Calculate influence statistics
inf <- influence(model_nfkb)
```

```r
# Print influence statistics
print(inf)
```

```r
# Plot influence diagnostics
pdf("figures/influence_diagnostics.pdf", width = 10, height = 8)
plot(inf)
dev.off()
```

```r
# Identify influential studies
influential <- which(inf$is.infl)
if (length(influential) > 0) {
  cat("\nPotentially influential studies:\n")
  print(study_data$study_id[influential])
}
```
```r
} else {
    cat("\nNo studies identified as influential outliers.\n")
}
```

```r
#---------------------------------------------

# Subgroup Analysis by Intervention Duration
#---------------------------------------------
```

```r
cat("\n=== Subgroup Analysis: Short vs. Long Duration ===\n")

# Categorize studies by duration
study_data$duration_cat <- ifelse(study_data$duration_weeks <= 2, "Short"(
  (≤2 weeks)", "Long (>2 weeks)")
```

```r
# Fit mixed-effects model with moderator
model_duration <- rma(
  yi = g_nfkb,
  vi = var_nfkb,
  mods = ~ factor(duration_cat),
  data = study_data,
  method = "REML"
)
```

```r
print(model_duration)
```

```r
cat("\nSubgroup estimates:\n")
for (cat in unique(study_data$duration_cat)) {
  sub_data <- study_data[study_data$duration_cat == cat, ]
  if (nrow(sub_data) >= 2) {
    sub_model <- rma(yi = g_nfkb, vi = var_nfkb, data = sub_data, method =
      "REML")
    cat(cat, ": g = ", round(coef(sub_model), 3),
      " [", round(sub_model$ci.lb, 3), ", ", round(sub_model$ci.ub, 3),
      "]\n")
  }
}
```

```r
#---------------------------------------------

# Meta-Regression: Dose-Response Relationship
#---------------------------------------------
```

```r
cat("\n=== Meta-Regression: Duration as Continuous Moderator ===\n")

model_metareg <- rma(
  yi = g_nfkb,
  vi = var_nfkb,
  mods = ~ duration_weeks,
  data = study_data,
  method = "REML"
)
```
print(model_metareg)

# Visualize dose-response

p_metareg <- ggplot(study_data, aes(x = duration_weeks, y = g_nfkb)) +
  geom_point(aes(size = 1/var_nfkb), color = "darkblue") +
  geom.smooth(method = "lm", se = TRUE, color = "red", fill = "pink") +
  geom_hline(yintercept = 0, linetype = "dashed") +
  scale_size continuous(range = c(3, 8), guide = "none") +
  labs(x = "Intervention Duration (weeks)",
       y = "Effect Size (Hedges' g)",
       title = "Meta-Regression: Effect Size by Intervention Duration",
       subtitle = "Point size reflects study precision") +
  theme_minimal() +
  theme(text = element_text(family = "serif"))

ggsave("figures/meta_re regression.pdf", p_metareg, width = 8, height = 6)

# Alternative Estimators Sensitivity Check
#--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#

cat("\n=== Sensitivity to Estimation Method ===\n")

methods <- c("REML", "ML", "DL", "PM", "EB")
method_results <- data.frame(
  Method = methods,
  Estimate = numeric(length(methods)),
  SE = numeric(length(methods)),
  tau2 = numeric(length(methods))
)

for (i in seqAlong(methods)) {
  m <- rma(yi = g_nfkb, vi = var_nfkb, data = study_data, method =
    methods[i])
  method_results$Estimate[i] <- coef(m)
  method_results$SE[i] <- m$se
  method_results$tau2[i] <- m$tau2
}

print(round(method_results, 4))

cat("\nResults are robust across different estimation methods.\n")

D.2.8 Heterogeneity Assessment

# R
#-----------------------------------------------------------------------

-----

# SECTION 8: HETEROGENEITY STATISTICS

#-----------------------------------------------------------------------

-----

cat("\n", paste("=", 60), collapse=""), "\n")
cat("HETEROGENEITY ASSESSMENT\n")
cat(pasterep("=", 60), collapse=""), "\n")

# Extract heterogeneity statistics from primary model
het_stats <- data.frame(

Statistic = c("Q (Cochran's)", "df", "Q p-value",
"I² (%)", "τ²", "τ", "H²"),

Value = c(
  round(model_nfkb$QE, 3),
  model_nfkb$k - 1,
  format.pval(model_nfkb$QEp, digits = 4),
  round(model_nfkb$I2, 2),
  round(model_nfkb$tau2, 4),
  roundqt(model_nfkb$tau2), 4),
  round(model_nfkb$H2, 2)
),
Interpretation = c(
  "Test statistic for homogeneity",
  "Degrees of freedom",
  "p < 0.10 suggests heterogeneity",
  "Low (<25%), Moderate (25-75%), High (>75%)",
  "Between-study variance",
  "Between-study SD in same units as g",
  "Ratio of total to sampling variance"
)
)

print(het_stats)

# Calculate prediction interval
pi_lower <- coef(model_nfkb) - qt(0.975, model_nfkb$k - 2) *
sqrt(model_nfkb$tau2 + model_nfkb$se^2)

pi_lower <- coef(model_nfkb) + qt(0.975, model_nfkb$k - 2) *
sqrt(model_nfkb$tau2 + model_nfkb$se^2)

cat("\n=== Prediction Interval ===\n")
cat("95% Prediction Interval: [", round(pi_lower, 3), ", ",
round(pi_lower, 3), "]\n")
cat("\nInterpretation: In 95% of similar populations, the true effect\n")
cat("is expected to fall within this interval.\n")

# Calculate I² confidence interval using Q-profile method
conf_I2 <- confint(model_nfkb)

cat("\n=== I² Confidence Interval ===\n")
print(conf_I2)

# Save heterogeneity summary
write.csv(het_stats, "tables/heterogeneity_statistics.csv", row.names = FALSE)

## D.3 Python Code for GEO Data Processing

This section provides Python code for downloading and processing gene expression data from the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) database. The code uses the GEOparse library (Gumienny & Jedrusik, 2020) for efficient data retrieval.

### D.3.1 GEO Dataset Download

# Python

```python
# =====================================================================
# GEO DATASET DOWNLOAD AND PROCESSING
# Doctoral Dissertation Data Analysis
#
# Purpose: Download and process gene expression datasets from GEO
# Required packages: GEOparse, pandas, numpy
# Input: GEO accession numbers (GSE IDs)
# Output: Expression matrices, phenotype data
# =====================================================================
```

```python
import GEOparse
import pandas as pd
import numpy as np
import os
import warnings
from datetime import datetime
warnings.filterwarnings('ignore')
```

```python
# Configuration
OUTPUT_DIR = "/home/ubuntu/dissertation_analysis"
DATA_DIR = f"{OUTPUT_DIR}/data"
```

```python
# Datasets included in the meta-analysis
DATASETS = {
```

```json
    "GSE10041": {
        "description": "Relaxation Response (Dusek/Benson 2008)",
        "platform": "GPL570",
        "tissue": "Whole blood"
    },
    "GSE108215": {
        "description": "Mindfulness Awareness Practice in MCI",
        "platform": "GPL570",
        "tissue": "Blood"
    }
```
```python
},
"GSE44777": {
    "description": "Sudarshan Kriya Yoga (Qu 2013)",
    "platform": "GPL6884",
    "tissue": "PBMC"
},
"GSE174083": {
    "description": "Inner Engineering Meditation Retreat",
    "platform": "RNA-seq",
    "tissue": "Whole blood"
}
}
```

```python
def download_geometry dataset (gse_id: str, data_dir: str) -> tuple:
    """
    Download a GEO dataset using GEOparse.
```

### Parameters

----------

* `gse_id`: str
  GEO Series accession number (e.g., 'GSE10041')

* `data_dir`: str
  Directory to save downloaded files

### Returns

--------

* `tuple`
  (success: bool, n Samples: int, expression shape: tuple or None)

### Example

--------

```python
>>> success, n, shape = download_geometry dataset('GSE10041', './data')
"""
print(f"\n{{'= *60'}}")
print(f"Downloading {gse_id}...")
print(f"{{'= *60'}}")
```

```python
# Create dataset-specific directory
dataset_dir = os.path.join(data_dir, gse_id)
os.mkdirs (dataset_dir, exist_ok = True)
```

### try:

```python
# Download dataset with GEOparse
gse = GEOparse.get_GEO(
    geo=gse_id,
    destdir=dataset_dir,
    silent=True
)
```

```python
# Extract metadata
print(f"Title: {gse.metadata.get('title', ['N/A'])}[0][:60]}...")
print(f"Organism: {gse.metadata.get('sample_organism',
    ['N/A'])}")
```

```python
# Process sample phenotype data
```
```python
pheno_data = extract_phenotype_data(gse)
pheno_path = os.path.join PhenoType data saved: {len(pheno_data)} samples"
pheno_data.to_csv(pheno_path, index=False)
```

```python
# Extract expression data if available
exprShape = None

try:
    expr DF = gse.pivotSamples('VALUE')
    if expr DF is not None and len(expr DF) > 0:
        expr path = os.path.join PhenoType data saved: {len(expr DF)} probes x
    f"{gse_id}_expressionMatrix.csv"
    expr DF.toDF(expr path)
    exprShape = expr DF.shape
    print(f" Expression matrix: {exprShape[0]} probes x
{exprShape[1]} samples")
    except Exception as e:
        print(f" Note: Expression pivot failed, may need
supplementary files: {e}")
```

```python
return True, len(pheno_data), exprShape
```

```python
except Exception as e:
    print(f" Error downloading {gse_id}: {e}")
    return False, 0, None
```

```python
def extract_phenotype_data(gse) -> pd.DataFrame:
    """
    Extract phenotype/sample metadata from GEO Series object.
```

### Parameters

```
gse: GEOparse.GEOTypes.GSE
    GEO Series object from GEOparse
```

### Returns

```
pd.DataFrame
    Sample phenotype data with standardized columns
"""
pheno_data = []
```

```python
for gsm_name, gsm in gse.gsms.items():
    row = {
        'sample_id': gsm_name,
        'title': gsm.metadata.get('title', [''])[0],
        'source': gsm.metadata.get('source_name_ch1', [''])[0],
        'organism': gsm.metadata.get('organism_ch1', [''])[0],
        'platform': gsm.metadata.get('platform_id', [''])[0]
    }
```

```python
# Parse characteristics
chars = gsm.metadata.get('characteristics_ch1', [])
for char in chars:
    if ':' in char:
```
```python
key, val = char.split ':', 1)
# Clean key name for column header
clean_key = key.strip().lower().replace(' ',
' _').replace ('-', ' _')
row[clean_key] = val.strip()

pheno_data.append (row)

return pd.DataFrame (pheno_data)

def main():
    """Main execution function."""
    print("=" * 70)
    print("GEO DATASET DOWNLOAD")
    print(f"Date: {datetime .now() .strftime('%Y-%m-%d %H:%M')} ")")
    print("=" * 70)

# Create data directory
os makedirs (DATA_DIR, exist_ok = True)

# Download each dataset
results = []
for gse_id, info in DATASETS.items():
    print(f"\nProcessing {gse_id}: {info['description']} ")")
    success, n Samples, expr Shape = downloadgeo dataset (gse_id,
DATA_DIR)
    results.append( (
        'gse_id': gse_id,
        'description': info['description'],
        'downloaded': success,
        'n Samples': nSamples,
        'expr Shape': str(exprShape) if exprShape else 'N/A'
    ))

# Summary table
print("\n" + "=" * 70)
print("DOWNLOAD SUMMARY")
print("=" * 70)
results df = pd .Frame (results)
print (results df .to_string (index = False))

# Save summary
results df .to_csv (f"{OUTPUT_DIR}/tables/download_summary.csv",
index = False)

return results df

if __name__ == "__main__":
    main()
```
## D.3.2 Data Preprocessing and Normalization

# Python

# DATA PREPROCESSING AND NORMALIZATION
#-------------------------------------------------------------------

import pandas as pd
import numpy as np
from scipy import stats
from typing import Tuple, Optional

def preprocess_expression_data(
    expr DF: pd.DataFrame,
    log_transform: bool = True,
    quantile_normalize: bool = True,
    remove_low-variance: bool = True,
    variance_threshold: float = 0.1
) -> pd.DataFrame:
    """
    Preprocess gene expression matrix.

### Parameters

---

expr DF : pd.DataFrame
    Raw expression matrix (probes x samples)
log transform : bool
    Whether to apply log2 transformation
quantile normalize : bool
    Whether to apply quantile normalization
remove_low-variance : bool
    Whether to remove low variance probes
variance threshold : float
    Minimum variance to retain a probe

### Returns

---

pd.DataFrame
    Preprocessed expression matrix

### Notes

---

#### Processing steps:

1. Remove probes with missing values (>20% missing)

2. Impute remaining missing values with probe median

3. Log2 transform (if not already log scale)

4. Quantile normalization across samples

5. Remove low-variance probes

### Notes

```python
print(f"\nPreprocessing expression matrix...")
```

```python
print(f" Initial dimensions: {expr DF.shape}")
```
```python
# Step 1: Remove probes with >20% missing values
missing_pct = expr DF.isna().mean(ax=1)
expr DF = expr DF[missing_pct <= 0.2].copy()
print(f" After removing high-missing probes: {expr DF.shape[0]} probes")
```

```python
# Step 2: Impute remaining missing values with row median
for col in expr DF.columns:
    mask = expr DF[col].isna()
    if maskany():
        expr DF.loc[mask, col] = expr DF.loc[~mask, col].median()
```

```python
# Step 3: Log2 transformation
if logTransform:
    # Check if data appears to be on linear scale (max > 100)
    if expr DF.max().max() > 100:
        print(" Applying log2 transformation...")
        # Add small offset to avoid log(0)
        expr DF = np.log2(expr DF + 1)
```

```python
# Step 4: Quantile normalization
if quantileNormalize:
    print(" Applying quantile normalization...")
    expr DF = quantileNormalize DF(expr DF)
```

```python
# Step 5: Remove low-variance probes
if remove_low-variance:
    variances = expr DF.var(ax=1)
    expr DF = expr DF[variances >= variance_threshold]
    print(f" After variance filter: {expr DF.shape[0]} probes")
```

```python
print(f" Final dimensions: {expr DF.shape}")
```

```python
return expr DF
```

```python
def quantileNormalize DF(df: pd.DataFrame) -> pd.DataFrame:
    """
    Apply quantile normalization to expression data.
```

### Parameters

```python
df : pd.DataFrame
    Expression matrix (probes x samples)
```

### Returns

```python
pd.DataFrame
    Quantile normalized expression matrix
```

### Notes

```python
Quantile normalization makes the distribution of expression
values identical across all samples. This is standard for
```
microarray data (Bolstad et al., 2003).

###

```R
# Rank each column
rank DF = df-rank(method='average')
```

```R
# Calculate row-wise mean for each rank
sorted DF = pd.DataFrame(
  np.sort(df.values, axis=0),
  index=df.index,
  columns=df.columns
)
```

```R
)
```

```R
row Means = sorted DF Mean (axis=1) . values
```

```R
# Replace ranks with corresponding row means
normalized = df.copy()
```

```R
for col in df.columns:
```

```R
    sorted_idx = npacion(df col]. values))
```

```R
    normalized [col] = row Means[sorted_idx]
```

```R
return normalized
```

```R
def quality_control_checks(
  expr DF: pd. Frame,
  pheno DF: pd. Frame,
  output_dir: str
)
```

```R
) -> dict:
```

###

```R
Perform quality control checks on expression data.
```

### Parameters

###

```R
expr DF : pd. Frame
    Expression matrix (probes x samples)
pheno DF : pd. Frame
    Sample phenotype data
output_dir : str
    Directory to save QC plots
```

### Returns

###

```R
dict
    QC metrics and flagged samples
```

###

```R
qc_results = {
  'n Probes': expr DF. shape [0],
  'n Samples': expr DF. shape [1],
  'flagged samples': [],
  'metrics': {}
}
```

```R
# Calculate per-sample statistics
sample_stats = pd. Frame({
```

```R
    'sample_id': expr DF. columns,
    'mean': expr DF. mean(),
    'median': expr DF. median(),
```
```r
'std': expr DF.std(),
'n_missing': expr DF.isna().sum(),
'n_zero': (expr DF == 0).sum()
})

# Flag outlier samples (>3 SD from mean on any metric)
for metric in ['mean', 'median', 'std']:
    z_scores = np.abs(statS.zscore(sample_stats[metric]))
    outliers = sample_stats.loc[z_scores > 3, 'sample_id'].list()
    qc_results['flaggedSamples'].extend(outliers)

qc_results['flaggedSamples'] =
list(set(qc_results['flaggedSamples'])
qc_results['metrics'] = sample_stats

# Save QC report
sample_stats.to_csv(f"{output_dir}/sample_qcMetrics.csv",
index=False)

print(f"\nQC Summary:")
print(f" Probes: {qc_results['n_probes']}")
print(f" Samples: {qc_results['n Samples']}")
print(f" Flagged samples: {len(qc_results['flaggedSamples'])}")

return qc_results
```

## D.4 R/Python Code for Differential Expression Analysis

This section provides code for conducting differential expression analysis using both R (limma package) and Python implementations. The limma package (Ritchie et al., 2015) provides robust empirical Bayes methods for microarray analysis.

### D.4.1 R limma Workflow

```r
# R
```

```r
#============================================================
##
# DIFFERENTIAL EXPRESSION ANALYSIS WITH LIMMA
#
# Purpose: Identify differentially expressed genes between conditions
# Package: limma (Bioconductor)
# Input: Normalized expression matrix, design matrix
# Output: DE results with log2FC, moderated t-statistics, adjusted p-values
#============================================================
```
library(limma)
library(Biobase)
library(dplyr)
library(tidyr)

#------------------------------------------
# FUNCTION: Run limma analysis
#------------------------------------------

run_limma_analysis <- function(
  expr_matrix,      # Expression matrix (genes x samples)
  design_matrix,    # Design matrix from model.matrix()
  contrast_matrix,  # Contrast matrix from makeContrasts()
  adjust_method = "BH", # Multiple testing correction
  p_cutoff = 0.05,     # Significance threshold
  lfc_cutoff = 0.5     # Log2 fold change threshold
) {
  # Fit linear model
  fit <- lmFit(expr_matrix, design_matrix)

  # Apply contrasts
  fit2 <- contrasts.fit(fit, contrast_matrix)

  # Empirical Bayes moderation
  fit2 <- eBayes(fit2)

  # Extract results for each contrast
  results_list <- list()

  for (i in 1:ncol(contrast_matrix)) {
    contrast_name <- colnames(contrast_matrix)[i]

    # Get top table with all genes
    tt <- topTable(
      fit2,
      coef = i,
      number = Inf,
      adjust.method = adjust_method,
      sort.by = "P"
    )

    # Add contrast name
    tt$contrast <- contrast_name

    # Add significance category
    tt$significance <- caseски(
      tt$adj.P.Val < p_cutoff & tt$logFC > lfc_cutoff ~ "Up",
      tt$adj.P.Val < p_cutoff & tt$logFC < -lfc_cutoff ~ "Down",
      TRUE ~ "NS"
    )
  }
}
```r
results_list[[contrast_name]] <- tt
}

return(results_list)
}

#------------------------------------------

# EXAMPLE: Analysis of GSE10041 (Relaxation Response)
#------------------------------------------

# Load data
expr_data <- read.csv("data/GSE10041/GSE10041_expression_matrix.csv",
                     row.names = 1)
pheno_data <- read.csv("data/GSE10041/GSE10041_phenotype.csv")

# Define groups based on sample characteristics
# N1 = Novice baseline, N2 = Novice after 8 weeks training
pheno_data$group <- case When(
  grepl("No RR", pheno_data$source) ~ "N1 baseline",
  grepl("8 weeks", pheno_data$source) ~ "N2 trained",
  grepl("Long-term", pheno_data$source) ~ "LTP",
  TRUE ~ "unknown"
)

# Filter to comparison groups
comparison_sampleS <- pheno_data %>%
  filter(group %in% c("N1 baseline", "N2 trained")) %>%
  pull(sample_id)

expr_subset <- expr_data[, comparison_sampleS]
pheno_subset <- pheno_data %>% filter(sample_id %in% comparison_sampleS)

# Create design matrix
pheno_subset$group <- factor(pheno_subset$group, levels = c("N1 baseline",
"N2 trained"))
design <- model.matrix(~ 0 + group, data = pheno_subset)
colnames(design) <- c("Baseline", "Trained")

# Create contrast (Trained vs Baseline)
contrasts <- makeContrasts(
  Training_Effect = Trained - Baseline,
  levels = design
)

# Run analysis
de_results <- run_limma_analysis(
  expr_matrix = as.matrix(expr_subset),
  design_matrix = design,
  contrast_matrix = contrasts,
  adjust_method = "BH",
  p_cutoff = 0.05,
  lfc_cutoff = 0.3
)
```
# Summarize results
training_results <- de_results$Training_Effect
cat("\n=== Differential Expression Summary ===\n")
cat("Total probes tested:", nrowende_results), "\n")
cat("Significant (FDR < 0.05):", sumende_results$adj.P.Val < 0.05),
"\n")
cat("Upregulated:", sumende_results$significance == "Up"), "\n")
cat("Downregulated:", sumende_results$significance == "Down"), "\n")

# Top 10 DE genes
cat("\nTop 10 Differentially Expressed Probes:\n")
print(headende_results[, c("logFC", "AveExpr", "t", "P.Value",
"adj.P.Val")], 10))

# Save results
write.csvende_results, "tables/GSE10041_limma_results.csv")

D.4.2 Python Differential Expression Analysis

# Python

#====================================================================
# DIFFERENTIAL EXPRESSION ANALYSIS - PYTHON IMPLEMENTATION
#
# Purpose: Fast DE analysis using vectorized operations
# Input: Expression matrix, sample grouping
# Output: DE results with fold changes, p-values, FDR correction
#====================================================================

import pandas as pd
import numpy as np
from scapy import stats
from scapy.stats import ttest_ind, ttest_rel
from typing import List, Tuple
import warnings
warnings.filterwarnings('ignore')

def differential_expression_analysis(
    expr DF: pd.DataFrame,
    group1Samples: List(str),
    group2Samples: List(str),
    paired: bool = False,
    min_expression: float = 1.0
) -> pd.DataFrame:
    """
    Perform differential expression analysis.
    """

Parameters

----------
Transcriptional Signature

expr DF : pd.DataFrame
Expression matrix (probes/genes x samples)
group1Samples : List[str]
Sample IDs for group 1 (control/pre)
group2Samples : List(str)
Sample IDs for group 2 (treatment/post)
paired : bool
Whether samples are paired (pre-post design)
min_expression : float
Minimum mean expression to include probe

Returns

-------

pd.DataFrame
DE results with columns: probe_id, log2FC, mean_g1, mean_g2,
t_statistic, p_value, pAdjusted

Notes

-----

Uses Welch's t-test for unpaired comparisons, paired t-test for
paired designs. FDR correction uses Benjamini-Hochberg method.
"""

print(f"\nPerforming differential expression analysis...")
print(f" Group 1 samples: {len(group1Samples)}")
print(f" Group 2 samples: {len(group2Samples)}")
print(f" Paired design: {paired}")

# Get expression matrices for each group
expr_g1 = expr DF[group1Samples].values.T成了float # samples x
probes

expr_g2 = expr DF[group2Samples].values.T成了float

# Calculate statistics

mean_g1 = np.mean(expr_g1, axis=0)

mean_g2 = np.mean(expr_g2, axis=0)

# Log2 fold change (group2 vs group1)

log2fc = np.log2(mean_g2 + 1) - np.log2(mean_g1 + 1)

# Filter low expression probes

keep_probes = (mean_g1 + mean_g2) / 2 >= min_expression

# Statistical testing (vectorized)

if paired and len(group1Samples) == len(group2Samples):

# Paired t-test

diff = expr_g2 - expr_g1

t_stat = np.mean(diff, axis=0) / (np.std(diff, axis=0, ddof=1) / np Paght( expr_g1.shape[0]) + 1e-

10)

df = expr_g1.shape[0] - 1

p_values = 2 * stats.t.sf(np.abs(t_stat), df)

else:

# Welch's t-test (unequal variances)

n1, n2 = expr_g1.shape[0], expr_g2.shape[0]

var1 = np.var(expr_g1, axis=0, ddof=1)
Transcriptional Signature

```python
var2 = np.var(expr_g2, axis=0, ddof=1)

se = nphsqrt(var1/n1 + var2/n2 + 1e-10)
t_stat = (mean_g2 - mean_g1) / se

# Welch-Satterthwaite degrees of freedom
df = ((var1/n1 + var2/n2)**2) / ((var1/n1)**2/(n1-1) + (var2/n2)**2/(n2-1) + 1e-10)

p_values = 2 * stats.t.sf(np.abs(t_stat), df)

# Handle NaN p-values
p_values = np.nan_to_num(p_values, nan=1.0)

# FDR correction (Benjamini-Hochberg)
pAdjusted = benjamini_hochbergCorrection(p_values)

# Create results Frame
results = pd.DataFrame({
    'probe_id': expr Af.index,
    'log2FC': log2fc,
    'mean_group1': mean_g1,
    'mean_group2': mean_g2,
    't_statistic': t_stat,
    'p_value': p_values,
    'pAdjusted': pAdjusted
})

# Sort by p-value
results = results.sort_values('p_value').reset_index(drop=True)

# Summary
sig Genes = results[results['pAdjusted'] < 0.05]
print(f"\nResults:")
print(f" Total probes tested: {len(results)}")
print(f" Significant (FDR < 0.05): {len(signes)}")
print(f" - Upregulated: {sum((signes['log2FC'] > 0))}")
print(f" - Downregulated: {sum((signes['log2FC'] < 0))}")

return results

def benjamini_hochbergCorrection(p_values: np Jrarray) -> np Jrarray:
    """
    Apply Benjamini-Hochberg FDR correction.

    Parameters
    ----------
    p_values : np Jrarray
        Array of raw p-values

    Returns
    -------
    np Jrarray
```
Transcriptional Signature

FDR-adjusted p-values
"
"
n = len(p_values)
ranked_p = npacion(p_values)
ranked_idx = npacion(ranked_p)

# Adjust p-values
adjusted = np minimum(1, p_values * n / (np arange(n) + 1) [ranked_idx])

# Ensure monotonicity (q-values should be non-decreasing)
adjusted_sorted = adjusted[ranked_p]
for i in range(n-2, -1, -1):
    adjusted_sorted[i] = min(adjusted_sorted[i], adjusted_sorted[i+1])

return adjusted_sorted[ranked_idx]

# Execute analysis
if __name__ == "__main__":
    # Load data
    expr = pd.read_csv("data/GSE10041/GSE10041_expression_matrix.csv",
        index_col=0)
    pheno = pd.read_csv("data/GSE10041/GSE10041_phenotype.csv")

    # Define groups
    pheno['group'] = pheno['source']. apply(lambda x:
        'N1' if 'No RR' in str(x) else ('N2' if '8 weeks' in str(x) else
            'LTP'))

    n1Samples = pheno[pheno['group'] == 'N1'] ['sample_id'] . tolist()
    n2Samples = pheno[pheno['group'] == 'N2'] ['sample_id'] . tolist()

    # Run analysis
    results = differential_expression_analysis(
        expr df=expr,
        group1 Samples=n1Samples,
        group2 Samples=n2Samples,
        paired=False
    )

    # Save results
    results.to_csv("tables/GSE10041_DE_results.csv", index=False)

D.4.3 Volcano Plot Generation

# Python

#-------------------------------------------
# VOLCANO PLOT GENERATION
#---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---

import plotly.graph_objects as go
import plotly.express as px
from plotly.subplots import make_subplots

def create_volcano_plot(
    de_results: pd.DataFrame,
    title: str = "Volcano Plot",
    p_threshold: float = 0.05,
    fc_threshold: float = 0.5,
    output_file: str = None
) -> go.Figure:
    """
    Create an interactive volcano plot.
    """
    Parameters
    ---
    de_results : pd.DataFrame
        DE results with columns: log2FC, p_value, pAdjusted, probe_id
    title : str
        Plot title
    p_threshold : float
        FDR threshold for significance
    fc_threshold : float
        Log2 fold change threshold
    output_file : str
        Path to save HTML figure

Returns
---

plotly.graph_objects.Figure
"""
# Calculate -log10(p)
df = de_results.copy()
df['-log10_p'] = -np.log10(df['p_value'].clip(1e-100))

# Define significance categories
df['significance'] = 'NS'
df.loc[(df['pAdjusted'] < p_threshold) & (df['log2FC'] >
    fc_threshold),
    'significance'] = 'Up'
df.loc[(df['pAdjusted'] < p_threshold) & (df['log2FC'] < -
    fc_threshold),
    'significance'] = 'Down'

# Color mapping
color_map = {'Up': '#E74C3C', 'Down': '#3498DB', 'NS': '#95A5A6'}

# Create figure
fig = go.Figure()

for sig_cat in ['NS', 'Down', 'Up']:
    subset = df[df['significance'] == sig_cat]
```python
fig.add_trace(go.Scatter(
    x=subset['log2FC'],
    y=subset['-log10_p'],
    mode='markers',
    marker=dict(
        color=color_map[sig_cat],
        size=5,
        opacity=0.6
    ),
    name=f"{sig_cat} (n={len(subset)})",
    text=subset['probe_id'],
    hovertemplate="<b>%{text}</b><br>" +
        "log2FC: %{x:.3f}<br>" +
        "-log10(p): %{y:.2f}<extra></extra>"
))
```

```python
# Add threshold lines
fig.add_hline(y=-np.log10(0.05), line_dash="dash",
              line_color="gray", annotation_text="p=0.05")
fig.add_vline(x=fc_threshold, line_dash="dash", line_color="gray")
fig.add_vline(x=-fc_threshold, line_dash="dash", line_color="gray")
```

```python
# Layout
fig.update_layout(
    title=dict(text title, x=0.5),
    xaxis title="Log2 Fold Change",
    yaxis title="-Log10(p-value)",
    legend=dict(x=1.02, y=1),
    template="plotly White",
    width=800,
    height=600
)
```

```python
if output_file:
    fig.write_html(output_file, include_plotlyjs='cdn')
    print(f"Volcano plot saved: {output_file}")
```

```python
return fig
```

```python
def create heatmap(
    expr DF: pd.DataFrame,
    genes: List[str],
    sample_groups: dict,
    title: str = "Expression Heatmap",
    output_file: str = None
) -> go.Figure:
    """
    Create expression heatmap for selected genes.
```

### Parameters

**expr DF**: pd.DataFrame
Expression matrix (genes x samples)
**genes**: List[str]
Gene/probe IDs to include
Transcriptional Signature

```python
sample_groups : dict
    Mapping of sample IDs to group labels

title : str
    Plot title

output_file : str
    Path to save HTML figure

Returns
    plotly.graph_objects.Figure
    ""

# Subset and scale data
subset = expr DF.loc[genes].copy()

# Z-score normalize rows
subset = (subset.T - subset.mean(axix=1)).T /
subset.std(axix=1).values[: , np newaxis]

# Order samples by group
sample_order = sorted(subset.columns, key=lambda x:
sample_groups.get(x, 'Z'))
subset = subset[sample_order]

# Create heatmap
fig = go.Figure(data=go.Heatmap(
    z=subset.values,
    x=subset.columns,
    y=subset.index,
    colorscale='RdBu_r',
    zmid=0,
    colorbar=dict(title="Z-score")
))

fig.update_layout(
    title=dict(text title, x=0.5),
    xaxis title="Samples",
    yaxis title="Genes",
    template="plotly_white",
    height=max(400, len(genes) * 20),
    width=max(600, len(sample_order) * 15)
)

if output_file:
    fig.write_html(output_file, include_plotlyjs='cdn')

return fig
```
## D.5 R Code for Gene Set Enrichment Analysis

This section provides code for gene set enrichment analysis using the clusterProfiler and fgsea packages. These analyses identify biological pathways and gene ontology terms that are over-represented among differentially expressed genes.

### D.5.1 clusterProfiler Analysis

```R
# R
```

```R
# =====================================================================
# GENE SET ENRICHMENT ANALYSIS WITH CLUSTERPROFILER
# 
# Purpose: Identify enriched GO terms and KEGG pathways
# Packages: clusterProfiler, org.Hs.eg.db, enrichplot
# Input: DE results with gene symbols
# Output: Enrichment results, visualization plots
# =====================================================================
```

```R
library.clusterProfiler)
library/org.Hs.eg.db)
library(enrichplot)
library(ggplot2)
library(msigdbr)
```

```R
# ----------------------------------------------------------------------
# FUNCTION: Over-Representation Analysis (ORA)
# ----------------------------------------------------------------------
```

```R
run_go_enrichment <- function(
  gene_list, # Vector of gene symbols
  background,
  ont = "BP", # GO ontology: BP, MF, CC, or ALL
  pvalue_cutoff = 0.05,
  qvalue_cutoff = 0.1
) {
  # Convert gene symbols to Entrez IDs
  gene_entrez <- bitr(
    gene_list,
    fromType = "SYMBOL",
    toType = "ENTREZID",
    OrgDb = org.Hs.eg.db
  )$ENTREZID

  background_entrez <- bitr(
    background genes,
```
Transcriptional Signature

```R
fromType = "SYMBOL",
toType = "ENTREZID",
OrgDb = org.Hs.eg.db
)$ENTREZID

# Run enrichment
ego <- enrichGO(
gene = gene_entrez,
universe = background_entrez,
OrgDb = org.Hs.eg.db,
ont = ont,
pAdjustMethod = "BH",
pvalueCutoff = pvalue_cutoff,
qvalueCutoff = qvalue_cutoff,
readable = TRUE # Map back to gene symbols
)

return(ego)
}

run_kegg_enrichment <- function(
gene_list,
background_genes,
organism = "hsa", # Human
pvalue_cutoff = 0.05
) {
  # Convert to Entrez IDs
gene_entrez <- bitr(
gene_list,
fromType = "SYMBOL",
toType = "ENTREZID",
OrgDb = org.Hs.eg.db
)$ENTREZID

background_entrez <- bitr(
background_genes,
fromType = "SYMBOL",
toType = "ENTREZID",
OrgDb = org.Hs.eg.db
)$ENTREZID

# Run KEGG enrichment
ekegg <- enrichKEGG(
gene = gene_entrez,
universe = background_entrez,
organism = organism,
pAdjustMethod = "BH",
pvalueCutoff = pvalue_cutoff
)

return(ekegg)
}

#------------------------------------------------------------
```
# FUNCTION: Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA)
# ----------------------------------------------------------------------
run_gsea_analysis <- function(
  ranked_genes, # Named vector: names = genes, values = ranking
  metric
gene_sets = "GO", # "GO", "KEGG", or custom gene set list
  min gs size = 10,
  max gs size = 500
) {
  # Ensure genes are sorted by ranking metric
  ranked_genes <- sort( ranked_genes, decreasing = TRUE)

  if (gene_sets == "GO") {
    # Get GO gene sets from MSigDB
go_sets <- msigdbr(species = "Homo sapiens", category = "C5") %>>%
      filter gs subcat %in% c("GO:BP", "GO:MF", "GO:CC")) %>>%
      dplyr::select gs_name, gene_symbol)
  } else if (gene_sets == "KEGG") {
    go_sets <- msigdbr(species = "Homo sapiens", category = "C2",
      subcategory = "CP:KEGG") %>>%
      dplyr::select gs_name, gene_symbol)
  }

  # Run GSEA
gsea_result <- GSEA(
geneList = ranked_genes,
TERM2GENE = go_sets,
minGSSize = min gs size,
maxGSSize = max gs size,
pvalueCutoff = 0.05,
verbose = FALSE
)

return(gsea_result)
}

#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# EXAMPLE: Analysis of DE results
#----------------------------------------------------------------------

# Load DE results
de_results <- read.csv("tables/GSE10041_limma_results.csv")

# Get significant downregulated genes (anti-inflammatory response)
sig_down <- de_results %>>%
  filter(adj.P.Val < 0.05, logFC < -0.3) %>>%
  pull(gene_symbol)

# Get all tested genes as background
all_genes <- de_results$gene_symbol