Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Brain, Behavior, & Immunity - Health logoLink to Brain, Behavior, & Immunity - Health
. 2020 Jun 30;7:100103. doi: 10.1016/j.bbih.2020.100103

Isolation, social stress, low socioeconomic status and its relationship to immune response in Covid-19 pandemic context

Rodrigo Mattos dos Santos 1,1
PMCID: PMC7326413  PMID: 32835298

Abstract

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak was first reported December 2019, in Wuhan, China, and has since spread worldwide. Social distancing or isolation measures were taken to mitigate the pandemic. Furthermore, stress and low socioeconomic status in humans confer increased vulnerability to morbidity and mortality, what can be biologically observed. This condition tends to remain during the Covid-19 pandemic. Social disruption stress (SDR) raises important questions regarding the functioning of the immune system, and the release of several stress hormones. A molecular pattern, conserved transcriptional response to adversity (CTRA), is thought to have evolved to defend against physical injury during periods of heightened risk. Chronic CTRA activation could leave an organism vulnerable to viral infections, leading to increased pro-inflammatory gene expression and a suppression of anti-viral gene expression. The activation of such transcriptional status is related to conditions of social stress through either hostile human contact, or increased predatory vulnerability due to separation from the social group and also low socioeconomic status. This review aims to point out questions for government officials, researchers and health professionals to better target their actions during a pandemic and encourage studies for a better understanding of these characteristics.

Keywords: Covid-19, Conserved transcriptional response to adversity (CTRA), Sociogenomics, Social disruption stress, Stress hormones, Immune response

Highlights

  • •

    The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak has spread worldwide.

  • •

    Community mitigation guidelines, such as social distancing were taken.

  • •

    Social disruption stress leads to immune response alterations, and stress hormones.

  • •

    CTRA activation may lead to vulnerable to viral infection and systemic inflammation.

  • •

    CTRA may be activated due to social isolation and socioeconomic status.

1. Covid-19 pandemic and mitigation guidelines

The coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) outbreak caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 was first reported December 2019, in Wuhan, China, and has since spread worldwide, causing thousands of deaths (WHO, 2020 - 1). The high infectivity of its etiological agent combined with the absence of previous immunity in the human population and the absence of a vaccine, makes the number of cases grow exponentially, if measures are not taken to stop its transmission (Kucharski et al., 2020). This situation led to a global public health campaign to slow the spread of the vírus, with recommendations for increasing hand washing, reducing face touching, wearing masks in public and physical distancing. There is a recommendation for restriction or prohibition on the functioning of schools, universities, places of community interaction, public transport, in addition to other places where people are crowded (Garcia and Duarte, 2020).

Such community mitigation guidelines, when adopted at the beginning of an epidemic period, are very important to preventing transmission, decreasing the spread of the disease, and consequently contribute to flatten the epidemic curve (Qualls et al., 2017). Notably, the process of social isolation can affect people’s lives (World Health Organization (2), 2020). The application of social distancing or isolation measures in mitigating pandemic consists an important tool. However, it, in addition to stress situations, may influence the immune system in both humans and animals (Takahashi et al., 2018).

As the pandemic expands worldwide, following the restriction guidelines are a greater challenge. Specifically for vulnerable populations, such as residents of urban and peri-urban informal settlements. Space constraints, violence, and overcrowding in slums make physical distancing and self-quarantine impractical, and the rapid spread of an infection highly likely (Corburn et al., 2020). In particular, in these populations, which are the most economically vulnerable groups, there is a high rate of stress, which raises the need for special attention (Tadvi and Bandi, 2017; Lui et al., 2017; Chen and Miller, 2013).

The objective of this review is to point out questions about the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic in conditions such as isolation and low socioeconomic status, that is, how it relates to stress. With that, provide subsidies for discussions about attention and study of these effects, especially in this pandemic period. These data are of great importance for government officials, researchers and health professionals to better target their actions during a pandemic and a possible second wave and expand the research in the area.

2. Social disruption stress and immune system

It’s well known that the immune system is influenced by neuronal interactions via feedback mechanisms and complex connections and interactions between immune cells and the central nervous system. This allows the immune system to engage the rest of the body in the fight against infection from pathogenic microorganisms and permit the nervous system to regulate immune functioning (Webster Marketon and Glaser, 2008; Dantzer, 2018). Particularly, the respiratory tract contains rich vasculature and autonomic nervous system innervation, specifically within the lung (Hoyle et al., 1998; Abelson et al., 2010).

Thus, in this context of a Covid-19 pandemic, social disruption stress (SDR) raises important questions regarding the correct functioning of the immune system. A stressor is defined as a threat or perceived threat against the body’s homeostasis. The body reacts to stressors by activating conserved behavioral and physiological stress responses in an attempt to re-establish homeostasis. Some classical stressor examples are physiological difficulties such as injury or nutrient deficiency, perceived threats such as public speaking, and psychosocial burdens like social subordination or loneliness (Avitsur et al., 2006). Social stress is defined as feelings of discomfort or anxiety that individuals may experience in social situations, and the associated tendency to avoid potentially stressful social situations (Wadman et al., 2011). Cruces et al. (2014) showed in a review that the disruption of social bonds in social species constitutes a potent emotional stress. Social isolation is considered a risk factor for morbidity and mortality, and the response to isolation or loneliness can exert a significant influence on the three regulatory systems throughout the lifespan of the organism, which include characteristics of the stressor itself (e.g., duration), as well as those of the organism (e.g., biological age), in addition to external factors (e.g., environmental events).

It has been reported that SDR leads to several immune response alterations in both humans and animals. Using a rhesus monkey model, Capitanio and Cole (2015) demonstrated that social instability adversely impacted metabolites of epinephrine and norepinephrine, and expression of immune response genes, as well as behavior. Additionally, the authors used sympathomimetic drugs to challenge the sympathetic nervous system. It was demonstrated that the responses in lymph nodes tracked the social, and not the drug, condition: social instability upregulated the density of sympathetic nervous system fibres in lymph nodes and downregulated Type I interferon gene expression, which is related to induce protection against viruses. This demonstrates the sympathetic nervous system is extremely sensitive to social conditions, altering the expression of this gene.

Human studies shows that individuals with high aggression traits display heightened inflammatory cytokine levels and dysregulated immune responses such as slower wound healing. Psychological stress can trigger cytokine release, and growing evidence has shown an important role for the immune system in regulating negative emotional states as well as personality (Takahashi et al., 2018). For example, hostile marital relationships are associated with slower wound healing and dysregulated cytokine production at wound sites. Proinflammatory cytokines, such as interleukin-6 (IL-6), tumor necrosis factor (TNF-a) and C-reactive protein (CRP) are positively related to behavioral aspects of aggression traits and acute episodes of anger (Kiecolt-Glaser et al., 2003).

In addition to aggression, depression, which is associated with social isolation, both in the elderly and in young people (Domènech-Abella et al., 2017; Ge et al., 2017) can alter levels of key cytokines in the inflammatory process. Increased circulating IL-6 has been observed in humans suffering from major depression (Maes et al., 1997; Kiecolt-Glaser et al., 2003; Hodes et al., 2014; Kiraly et al., 2017).

Stress is also known to cause the release of several stress hormones - primarily glucocorticoids through activation of the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis and catecholamines through the sympathetic nervous system (Marketon and Glaser, 2008). It has been shown that social disruption stress increases plasma corticosterone (Padgett et al., 1998).

Loneliness, also termed Perceived Social Isolation (PSI), has become of worldwide concern, impacting on health, and affecting all groups from adolescents to especially the elderly. Self-isolation and social distancing are necessary and a recommendation during the Covid-19 pandemic, but may increase the loneliness levels, what may have a negative impact on health (Baker and Clark, 2020; Berg-Weger and Morley, 2020; Holt-Lunstand et al., 2015). It has been demonstrated in different animal models. Plasma corticosterone levels correlated significantly with plasma ACTH and with adrenal corticosterone levels in socially isolated (caged) rats (Prelló et al., 2006). In a zebrafish model, neurochemical analyses showed that serotonin levels increased when fish were exposed to social stimulus after acute isolation, but its metabolite 5HIAA decreased in response to social stimulus following both acute and chronic isolation. Dopamine levels were also reduced in fish exposed to social stimulus after acute and chronic isolation (Shams et al., 2017).

Moreover, stress and low socioeconomic status in humans confer increased vulnerability to morbidity and mortality, what can be biologically observed. Lower socioeconomic status individuals have restricted autonomy and opportunities that could lead to more stress and consequently increase in stress hormones, such as cortisol, catecholamines, glucagon and growth hormone (Volaco et al., 2018). Socioeconomic disadvantage was also associated with greater accumulation of cortisol in hair in both parents and children, and that both perceived and biological markers of stress in a study with socioeconomically diverse samples of 35 parents and 26 children (Ursache et al., 2017). Another study evaluated 108 men and 94 women. Low socioeconomic status was associated with heightened ambulatory blood pressure and cortisol output over the working day, which may reflect stress-related activation of biological pathways (Steptoe et al., 2003).

Additionally, worldwide, disadvantaged socioeconomic position (SEP) is widely associated with disease and mortality, what tends to remain during the Covid-19 pandemic (Khalatbari-Soltani et al., 2020). Taken together, this data raises concern to vulnerable populations in this pandemic scenario.

3. Transcriptional profile related to adversity and its impact on immune response

A field of research, related to the established field of behavioral genetics, seeks to identify the genes that influence social behavior, to understand the influence of these genes on the underlying neural and endocrine mechanisms and to explore the effects of the environment, especially the social environment, in the action of genes. Social genomics research field has been demonstrating that humans and other vertebrates activate a conserved pattern of gene transcriptional responses when they experience extended periods of threat or uncertainty (Cole et al., 2015a, Cole et al., 2015b; Slavich and Cole, 2013). A molecular pattern was observed, the conserved transcriptional response to adversity (CTRA), which is mediated by the sympathetic nervous system “fight-or-flight” response and is thought to have evolved to defend against physical injury during periods of heightened risk. The CTRA pattern involves up-regulated transcription of genes related to pro-inflammatory responses (such as IL1B, IL8, and IL6), which play a key role in immune responses to wounding injuries and related bacterial infections. It also involves a complementary down-regulation of antiviral genes (e.g., IFI- and ISG-family genes) and genes involved in antibody synthesis (e.g., IGJ). The CTRA supposedly evolved to fight against physical threats. However, among humans, it may also be triggered by non-physical threats, including threats to the symbolic self, such as social isolation (Cole et al., 2007; Slavich and Cole, 2013).

These transcriptional changes indicate a down-regulation of antiviral defenses and a corresponding up-regulation of proinflammatory wound-healing and antibacterial defenses (Irwin and Cole, 2011; Cole, 2013). CTRA facilitates an adaptive response to acute threats that could result in injury. However, chronic CTRA activation could leave an organism vulnerable to viral infection and subject to collateral damage from systemic inflammation, ultimately leading to disease, disability, and death (Belsky and Snyder-Mackler, 2017). Studies in animal and cell culture systems have also shown that activation of fight-or-flight signaling pathways in the sympathetic nervous system (SNS) plays a major role in evoking CTRA gene expression profiles, whose activation is mediated by receptors that stimulates transcription factors such as NF-κB, GATA, and cAMP response element-binding protein to selectively up-regulate transcription of proinflammatory genes (e.g., IL6) (Cole et al., 2010) while simultaneously inhibiting the activity of transcription factors, such as the interferon response facstor family, that control transcription of Type I interferon genes (e.g., IFNB) (Collado-Hidalgo et al., 2006). This increased pro-inflammatory gene expression and a suppression of anti-viral gene expression would happen because in conditions of social stress, the up-regulation of pro-inflammatory gene expression prepares the body to better deal with bodily injury and bacterial infection which is more likely under conditions of social stress either through hostile human contact, or increased predatory vulnerability due to separation from the social group. However it contributes to a paradoxical increase in inflammation-related diseases (cardiovascular disease and depression, caused by excessive proinflammatory immune response gene expression), and vulnerability to viral infections such as the common cold, caused by insufficient antiviral immune response gene expression, as shown in Fig. 1. Thus, what evolutionarily served to respond to an imminent physical threat, today seems to be activated by social threats, whether real or imagined (Cole et al., 2007; Miller et al., 2008; Miller et al., 2009; Slavich and Cole, 2013; Cole, 2014).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Chronic CTRA stimulation (due to isolation, social stress or low socioeconomic status i.e.) may lead to stimulation of pro-inflammatory profile (such as IL1B, IL6, or IL8 gene expression) and inhibition of antiviral genes, such as Interferon inducible (IFI) and Interferon stimulated (ISG) gene families. This may leave organisms more vulnerable to viral infections due to insufficient antiviral immune response gene expression.

Interestingly, a transcriptome representation analysis showed relative expansion of the immature proinflammatory monocyte transcriptome in peripheral blood mononuclear cells from people subject to chronic social stress (low socioeconomic status) and non-human (mice) subject to repeated social defeat. Mouse cell transcriptome confirmed these results, and promoter-based bioinformatic analyses indicated increased activity of transcription factors involved in early myeloid lineage differentiation and proinflammatory effector function (notably PU.1, NF-κB, EGR1, MZF1, NRF2). Myeloid lineage immune cells and their innate effector molecules, such as proinflammatory cytokines and type I interferons, are regulated by β-adrenergic signaling and adverse socioenvironmental conditions. The authors suggest that sympathetic nervous system-induced up-regulation of myelopoiesis mediates the proinflammatory component of the leukocyte CTRA dynamic and may contribute to the increased risk of inflammation-related disease associated with adverse social conditions (Powell et al., 2013).

This transcriptional profile has also been related to socioeconomic status. In a study, 53 CTRA candidate genes were evaluated. Both down-regulation in response to stress (antiviral-response genes) and up-regulation in response to stress (proinflammatory genes) were related to low socioeconomic status participants compared to higher status individuals. In the same work, the authors conducted a hypothesis-free genome-wide screening of the roughly 35,000 transcripts assayed for association with socioeconomic status. They observed a group of 141 unique genes as being differentially expressed in the low-versus higher-socioeconomic status groups. Of these genes, enriched for binding sites of 3 transcription factors implicated in CTRA gene regulation, including the proinflammatory NF-κB family of transcription factors, which is a key regulator of the biological response to stress (Levine et al., 2017).

As the epidemics grow exponentially, the health-care systems may become overloaded. In China, non-pharmaceutical interventions, including social distancing have substantially reduced transmissibility of Covid-19 across the country. However, a second wave of Covid-19 transmission is possible because of viral reintroduction, which has been exponentially increasing since March 2020. There are potential consequences of premature relaxation of interventions to mitigate the epidemic, which may lead to a second wave of the disease (Leung et al., 2020). Given that, governments should act and prepare immediately to ensure that the health-care system has adequate labour, resources, and facilities to minimise the mortality risk of Covid-19 (Xu and Li, 2020).

Particularly, in this pandemic period, a fact that draws our attention is that some of the stress-generating factors related to the activation of CTRA are social isolation and socioeconomic status, as well as mourning and chronic stress (Cole et al., 2007; Levine et al., 2017; O’Connor et al., 2014; Slavich and Cole, 2013; Uchida et al., 2018). Recent research has begun to identify the CNS processes that regulate peripheral CTRA activity, define its implications for disease, and explore the role of positive psychosocial factors in buffering such effects (Cole, 2019). The reduced activity of threat-related gene expression programs may contribute to the health effects associated with optimism.

In this sense, dispositional optimism has been linked to better physical health (Carver et al., 2010; Tindle et al., 2009) and has impacts on health at the biological level. For example, reduced activity of threat-related gene expression programs may contribute to the health effects associated with optimism. Positive psychological factors contribute to reduced CTRA activity (Fredrickson et al., 2013; Kitayama et al., 2016; Kohrt et al., 2016; Nelson-Coffey et al., 2017). Uchida et al. (2018) observed a group of 114 male Japanese workers. Dispositional optimism was accessed with a 6-item Life Orientation Test–Revised (Scheier et al., 1994). The authors showed that optimism was inversely linked to CTRA after controlling for age, BMI, and indices of well-being.

It has been demonstrated that purpose in life (eudaimonic well-being) is successful against the adverse effects of loneliness in predicting leukocyte gene expression profiles. For example, the relationship between eudaimonia (a well-being status that includes happiness, virtue, morality, and a meaningful life) (Baumeister et al., 2013), and a social perceptual dynamics underlying loneliness, may play a key role in engaging the biological signaling pathways that regulate CTRA gene expression in immune cells (Cole, 2014; Cole et al., 2015a, Cole et al., 2015b). Together, this is useful to provide a rationale for the development of new intervention strategies to mitigate the health risks associated with loneliness not by directly targeting social interaction per se, but rather by promoting social well-being indirectly via the development of pro-social eudaimonic well-being. And also raises the possibility that psychological resilience factors can, at least in some circumstances, outweigh the effects of a well-established and quantitatively robust psychological risk factor such as perceived social isolation (Cole et al., 2015a, Cole et al., 2015b).

Powell et al. (2013) suggests specific molecular strategies (e.g., β-blockade) and cellular biomarkers (e.g., CD16− monocytes) that could potentially be harnessed in future studies to develop health-protective interventions. Other alternatives could be considered with potential for application in clinical and health settings, such as meditation, yoga, praying, or tai-chi (Holmes et al., 2019; Boyle et al., 2019; Mañas et al., 2010).

4. Conclusion

The Covid-19 pandemic and interventions to mitigate the transmission of the virus bring public health issues related to social isolation, stress and vulnerable and low socioeconomic status groups. The possible change in the pattern of immune responses related to stress, as well as the gene expression profile, the CTRA, resulting from these situations are of concern, especially with regard to the immune response to viruses. Understanding the mechanisms through which social disadvantage, isolation and stress becomes biologically embedded and understanding this embedding may address social gradients in health, and allow better strategies to understand and deal with these issues. Thus, the present review aims to raise questions related to the effects of these conditions in patients infected or susceptible to contamination by Covid-19 to provide support to government officials, health agents and researchers so that they can consider these facts and direct their actions during the pandemic, as well as encourage studies to better understand these characteristics.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the The Medical School (FMB) of Sao Paulo State University (Unesp), Botucatu Campus and to UNIPEX. The author would also like to thank Clara Fumes Arruda, from the Multiprofessional Specialization Course in Adult Health, Hospital das Cínicas, Medical School, Sao Paulo State University, for her contribution to the elaboration of the figure in this article.

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

  1. Abelson J.L., Khan S., Giardino N. HPA axis, respiration and the airways in stress--a review in search of intersections. Biol. Psychol. 2010;84(1):57–65. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2010.01.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Avitsur R., Padgett D.A., Sheridan J.F. Social interactions, stress, and immunity. Neurol. Clin. 2006;24(3):483–491. doi: 10.1016/j.ncl.2006.03.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Baker E., Clark L.L. Biopsychopharmacosocial approach to assess impact of social distancing and isolation on mental health in older adults. Br. J. Community Nurs. 2020;25(5):231–238. doi: 10.12968/bjcn.2020.25.5.231. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Baumeister R.F., Vohs K.D., Aaker J.L., Garbinsky E.N. Some key differences between a happy life and a meaningful life. J. Posit. Psychol. 2013;8(6):505–516. doi: 10.1080/17439760.2013.830764. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Belsky D.W., Snyder-Mackler N. Invited commentary: integrating genomics and social epidemiology-analysis of late-life low socioeconomic status and the conserved transcriptional response to adversity. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2017;186(5):510–513. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwx145. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Berg-Weger M., Morley J.E. Editorial: loneliness and social isolation in older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic: implications for gerontological social work. J. Nutr. Health Aging. 2020;24(5):456–458. doi: 10.1007/s12603-020-1366-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Boyle C.C., Cole S.W., Dutcher J.M., Eisenberger N.I., Bower J.E. Changes in eudaimonic well-being and the conserved transcriptional response to adversity in younger breast cancer survivors. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2019;103:173–179. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2019.01.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Capitanio J.P., Cole S.W. Social instability and immunity in rhesus monkeys: the role of the sympathetic nervous system. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2015;370(1669) doi: 10.1098/rstb.2014.0104. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Carver C.S., Scheier M.F., Segerstrom S.C. Optimism. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 2010;30(7):879–889. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2010.01.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Chen E., Miller G.E. Socioeconomic status and health: mediating and moderating factors. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 2013;9:723–749. doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185634. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Cole S.W. Social regulation of human gene expression: mechanisms and implications for public health. Am. J. Publ. Health. 2013;103:S84–S92. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2012.301183. Suppl 1(Suppl 1) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Cole S.W. Human social genomics. PLoS Genet. 2014;10(8) doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1004601. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Cole S.W. The conserved transcriptional response to adversity. Curr. Opinion Behav. Sci. 2019;28:31–37. doi: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2019.01.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Cole S.W., Arevalo J.M., Takahashi R., Sloan E.K., Lutgendorf S.K., Sood A.K., Sheridan J.F., Seeman T.E. Computational identification of gene-social environment interaction at the human IL6 locus. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2010;107(12):5681–5686. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0911515107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Cole S.W., Capitanio J.P., Chun K., Arevalo J.M., Ma J., Cacioppo J.T. Myeloid differentiation architecture of leukocyte transcriptome dynamics in perceived social isolation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2015;112(49):15142–15147. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1514249112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Cole S.W., Hawkley L.C., Arevalo J.M., Sung C.Y., Rose R.M., Cacioppo J.T. Social regulation of gene expression in human leukocytes. Genome Biol. 2007;8(9):R189. doi: 10.1186/gb-2007-8-9-r189. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Cole S.W., Levine M.E., Arevalo J.M., Ma J., Weir D.R., Crimmins E.M. Loneliness, eudaimonia, and the human conserved transcriptional response to adversity. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2015;62:11–17. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2015.07.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Collado-Hidalgo A., Sung C., Cole S. Adrenergic inhibition of innate anti-viral response: PKA blockade of Type I interferon gene transcription mediates catecholamine support for HIV-1 replication. Brain Behav. Immun. 2006;20(6):552–563. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2006.01.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Corburn J., Vlahov D., Mberu B., Riley L., Caiaffa W.T., Rashid S.F., Ko A., Patel S., Jukur S., Martínez-Herrera E., Jayasinghe S., Agarwal S., Nguendo-Yongsi B., Weru J., Ouma S., Edmundo K., Oni T., Ayad H. vols. 1–10. Advance online publication; 2020. Slum health: arresting COVID-19 and improving well-being in urban informal settlements. (Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Cruces J., Venero C., Pereda-Pérez I., De la Fuente M. The effect of psychological stress and social isolation on neuroimmunoendocrine communication. Curr. Pharmaceut. Des. 2014;20(29):4608–4628. doi: 10.2174/1381612820666140130205822. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Dantzer R. Neuroimmune interactions: from the brain to the immune system and vice versa. Physiol. Rev. 2018;98(1):477–504. doi: 10.1152/physrev.00039.2016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Domènech-Abella Joan, Mundó Jordi, Lara Elvira, Moneta Maria Victoria, Haro Josep Maria, Olaya Beatriz. The role of socio-economic status and neighborhood social capital on loneliness among older adults: evidence from the Sant Boi Aging Study. Social Psychiatry and PsychiatryEpidemiology. 2017 doi: 10.1007/s00127-017-1406-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Franco C., Mañas I., Cangas A.J., Moreno E., Gallego J. Reducing teachers’ psychological distress through a mindfulness training program. Spanish J. Psychol. 2010;13(2):655–666. doi: 10.1017/s1138741600002328. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Fredrickson B.L., Grewen K.M., Coffey K.A., Algoe S.B., Firestine A.M., Arevalo J.M., Ma J., Cole S.W. A functional genomic perspective on human well-being. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2013;110(33):13684–13689. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1305419110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Garcia L.P., Duarte E. Nonpharmaceutical interventions for tackling the COVID-19 epidemic in Brazil. Intervenções não farmacológicas para o enfrentamento à epidemia da COVID-19 no Brasil. Epidemiologia e servicos de saude : revista do Sistema Unico de Saude do Brasil. 2020;29(2) doi: 10.5123/S1679-49742020000200009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Ge L., Yap C.W., Ong R., Heng B.H. Social isolation, loneliness and their relationships with depressive symptoms: a population-based study. PloS One. 2017;12(8) doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0182145. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Hodes G.E., Pfau M.L., Leboeuf M., Golden S.A., Christoffel D.J., Bregman D., Rebusi N., Heshmati M., Aleyasin H., Warren B.L., Lebonté B., Horn S., Lapidus K.A., Stelzhammer V., Wong E.H., Bahn S., Krishnan V., Bolaños-Guzman C.A., Murrough J.W., Merad M. Individual differences in the peripheral immune system promote resilience versus susceptibility to social stress. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2014;111(45):16136–16141. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1415191111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Holmes L., Chinaka C., Elmi H., Deepika K., Pelaez L., Enwere M., Akinola O.T., Dabney K.W. Implication of spiritual network support system in epigenomic modulation and health trajectory. Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health. 2019;16(21):4123. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16214123. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Holt-Lunstad J., Smith T.B., Baker M., Harris T., Stephenson D. Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: a meta-analytic review. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. : J. Assoc. Psychol. Sci. 2015;10(2):227–237. doi: 10.1177/1745691614568352. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Hoyle G.W., Graham R.M., Finkelstein J.B., Nguyen K.P., Gozal D., Friedman M. Hyperinnervation of the airways in transgenic mice overexpressing nerve growth factor. Am. J. Respir. Cell Mol. Biol. 1998;18(2):149–157. doi: 10.1165/ajrcmb.18.2.2803m. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Irwin M.R., Cole S.W. Reciprocal regulation of the neural and innate immune systems. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2011;11(9):625–632. doi: 10.1038/nri3042. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Khalatbari-Soltani S., Cumming R.G., Delpierre C., Kelly-Irving M. Importance of collecting data on socioeconomic determinants from the early stage of the COVID-19 outbreak onwards. J. Epidemiol. and Commun. Health. 2020 doi: 10.1136/jech-2020-214297. jech-2020-214297. Advance online publication. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Kiecolt-Glaser J.K., Preacher K.J., MacCallum R.C., Atkinson C., Malarkey W.B., Glaser R. Chronic stress and age-related increases in the proinflammatory cytokine IL-6. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2003;100(15):9090–9095. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1531903100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Kiraly D.D., Horn S.R., Van Dam N.T., Costi S., Schwartz J., Kim-Schulze S., Patel M., Hodes G.E., Russo S.J., Merad M., Iosifescu D.V., Charney D.S., Murrough J.W. Altered peripheral immune profiles in treatment-resistant depression: response to ketamine and prediction of treatment outcome. Transl. Psychiatry. 2017;7(3) doi: 10.1038/tp.2017.31. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Kitayama S., Akutsu S., Uchida Y., Cole S.W. Work, meaning, and gene regulation: findings from a Japanese information technology firm. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2016;72:175–181. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2016.07.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Kohrt B.A., Worthman C.M., Adhikari R.P., Luitel N.P., Arevalo J.M., Ma J., McCreath H., Seeman T.E., Crimmins E.M., Cole S.W. Psychological resilience and the gene regulatory impact of posttraumatic stress in Nepali child soldiers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2016;113(29):8156–8161. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1601301113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Kucharski A.J., Russell T.W., Diamond C., Liu Y., Edmunds J., Funk S., Eggo R.M., Centre for Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases COVID-19 working group Early dynamics of transmission and control of COVID-19: a mathematical modelling study. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2020;20(5):553–558. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30144-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Leung K., Wu J.T., Liu D., Leung G.M. First-wave COVID-19 transmissibility and severity in China outside Hubei after control measures, and second-wave scenario planning: a modelling impact assessment. Lancet. 2020;395(10233):1382–1393. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30746-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Levine M.E., Crimmins E.M., Weir D.R., Cole S.W. Contemporaneous social environment and the architecture of late-life gene expression profiles. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2017;186(5):503–509. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwx147. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Liu C.H., Fink G., Brentani H., Brentani A. An assessment of hair cortisol among postpartum Brazilian mothers and infants from a high-risk community in São Paulo: intra-individual stability and association in mother-infant dyads. Dev. Psychobiol. 2017;59(7):916–926. doi: 10.1002/dev.21557. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Maes M., Bosmans E., De Jongh R., Kenis G., Vandoolaeghe E., Neels H. Increased serum IL-6 and IL-1 receptor antagonist concentrations in major depression and treatment resistant depression. Cytokine. 1997;9(11):853–858. doi: 10.1006/cyto.1997.0238. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Miller G.E., Chen E., Sze J., Marin T., Arevalo J.M., Doll R., Ma R., Cole S.W. A functional genomic fingerprint of chronic stress in humans: blunted glucocorticoid and increased NF-kappaB signaling. Biol. Psychiatr. 2008;64(4):266–272. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.03.017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Miller G., Chen E., Cole S.W. Health psychology: developing biologically plausible models linking the social world and physical health. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2009;60:501–524. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163551. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Nelson-Coffey S.K., Fritz M.M., Lyubomirsky S., Cole S.W. Kindness in the blood: a randomized controlled trial of the gene regulatory impact of prosocial behavior. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2017;81:8–13. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2017.03.025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. O’Connor M.F., Schultze-Florey C.R., Irwin M.R., Arevalo J., Cole S.W. Divergent gene expression responses to complicated grief and non-complicated grief. Brain Behav. Immun. 2014;37:78–83. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2013.12.017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Padgett D.A., Sheridan J.F., Dorne J., Berntson G.G., Candelora J., Glaser R. Social stress and the reactivation of latent herpes simplex virus type 1. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 1998;95(12):7231–7235. doi: 10.1073/pnas.95.12.7231. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Perelló M., Chacon F., Cardinali D.P., Esquifino A.I., Spinedi E. Effect of social isolation on 24-h pattern of stress hormones and leptin in rats. Life Sci. 2006;78(16):1857–1862. doi: 10.1016/j.lfs.2005.08.029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Powell N.D., Sloan E.K., Bailey M.T., Arevalo J.M., Miller G.E., Chen E., Kobor M.S., Reader B.F., Sheridan J.F., Cole S.W. Social stress up-regulates inflammatory gene expression in the leukocyte transcriptome via β-adrenergic induction of myelopoiesis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2013;110(41):16574–16579. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1310655110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Qualls N., Levitt A., Kanade N., Wright-Jegede N., Dopson S., Biggerstaff M., Reed C., Uzicanin A., CDC Community Mitigation Guidelines Work Group Community mitigation guidelines to prevent pandemic influenza - United States, 2017. MMWR. Recommendations and reports : Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommend. Rep. 2017;66(1):1–34. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.rr6601a1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Scheier M.F., Carver C.S., Bridges M.W. Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): a reevaluation of the Life Orientation Test. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1994;67(6):1063–1078. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.67.6.1063. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Shams S., Seguin D., Facciol A., Chatterjee D., Gerlai R. Effect of social isolation on anxiety-related behaviors, cortisol, and monoamines in adult zebrafish. Behav. Neurosci. 2017;131(6):492–504. doi: 10.1037/bne0000220. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Slavich G.M., Cole S.W. The emerging field of human social genomics. Clin. Psychol. Sci. : J. Assoc. Psychol. Sci. 2013;1(3):331–348. doi: 10.1177/2167702613478594. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Steptoe A., Kunz-Ebrecht S., Owen N., Feldman P.J., Willemsen G., Kirschbaum C., Marmot M. Socioeconomic status and stress-related biological responses over the working day. Psychosom. Med. 2003;65(3):461–470. doi: 10.1097/01.psy.0000035717.78650.a1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Tadvi A.Y., Bandi J.R. An epidemiological cross-sectional study to assess the level of stress and its association with hypertension in young adult population of age group 20 to 40 years in an urban slum of Mumbai, Maharashtra, India. Int. J. Commun. Med. Public Health. 2017;4(2):348–351. doi: 10.18203/2394-6040.ijcmph20170253. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Takahashi A., Flanigan M.E., McEwen B.S., Russo S.J. Aggression, social stress, and the immune system in humans and animal models. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 2018;12:56. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2018.00056. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Tindle H.A., Chang Y.F., Kuller L.H., Manson J.E., Robinson J.G., Rosal M.C., Siegle G.J., Matthews K.A. Optimism, cynical hostility, and incident coronary heart disease and mortality in the Women’s Health Initiative. Circulation. 2009;120(8):656–662. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.827642. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Uchida Y., Kitayama S., Akutsu S., Park J., Cole S.W. Optimism and the conserved transcriptional response to adversity. Health Psychol. : Off. J. Div. Health Psychol. Am. Psychol. Assoc. 2018;37(11):1077–1080. doi: 10.1037/hea0000675. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Ursache A., Merz E.C., Melvin S., Meyer J., Noble K.G. Socioeconomic status, hair cortisol and internalizing symptoms in parents and children. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2017;78:142–150. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2017.01.020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Volaco A., Cavalcanti A.M., Filho R.P., Précoma D.B. Socioeconomic status: the missing link between obesity and diabetes mellitus? Curr. Diabetes Rev. 2018;14(4):321–326. doi: 10.2174/1573399813666170621123227. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Wadman R., Durkin K., Conti-Ramsden G. Social stress in young people with specific language impairment. J. Adolesc. 2011;34(3):421–431. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.06.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Webster Marketon J.I., Glaser R. Stress hormones and immune function. Cell. Immunol. 2008;252(1-2):16–26. doi: 10.1016/j.cellimm.2007.09.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. World Health Organization (1) 2020. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Situation Report—37.https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200226-sitrep-37-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=6126c0a4_2 February 25, 2020. Accessed February 26, 2020. Available from: [Google Scholar]
  63. World Health Organization (2) Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): situation report. 2020. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports Accessed February 26, 2020. Available from: 72, 2020.
  64. Xu S., Li Y. Beware of the second wave of COVID-19. Lancet. 2020;395(10233):1321–1322. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30845-X. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Brain, Behavior, & Immunity - Health are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES