Evidence Hub

A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Chronic Stress on the Prefrontal Transcriptome in Animal Models and Convergence with Existing Human Data

Jinglin Xiong, M. Hagenauer, Cosette A. Rhoads, E. Flandreau, Nancy Rempel-Clower, Erin Hernandez, Duy Manh Nguyen, Annaka Saffron et al.

bioRxiv, 2025

21,379 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

Background Chronic stress is a major risk factor for psychiatric disorders, including anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Chronic stress can cause structural alterations like grey matter atrophy in key emotion-related areas such as the prefrontal cortex (PFC). To identify biological pathways affected by chronic stress in the PFC, researchers have performed transcriptional profiling (RNA-sequencing, microarray) to measure gene expression in rodent models. However, transcriptional signatures in the PFC that are shared across different chronic stress paradigms and laboratories remain relatively unexplored. Methods We performed a meta-analysis of publicly available transcriptional profiling datasets within the Gemma database. We identified six datasets that characterized the effects of either chronic social defeat stress (CSDS) or chronic unpredictable mild stress (CUMS) on gene expression in the PFC in mice (n=117). We fit a random effects meta-analysis model to the chronic stress effect sizes (log(2) fold changes) for each transcript (n=21,379) measured in most datasets. We then compared our results with two other published chronic stress meta-analyses, as well as transcriptional signatures associated with psychiatric disorders. Results We identified 133 genes that were consistently differentially expressed across chronic stress studies and paradigms (false discovery rate (FDR)<0.05). Fast Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (fGSEA) revealed 53 gene sets enriched…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in animal, not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 21,379 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free