Cited by 66Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchEpigenetics and DNA MethylationResilience and Mental Health

A Systematic Review of DNA Methylation and Gene Expression Studies in Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Posttraumatic Growth, and Resilience

Mehta, Divya, Miller, Olivia, Bruenig, Dagmar, David, Georgina, Shakespeare‐Finch, Jane·2020·Journal of Traumatic Stress

Abstract

Most people will experience a traumatic event within their lifetime. One commonly recognized response to trauma exposure is posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The biological underpinnings of PTSD, including epigenetic mechanisms of DNA methylation and gene expression, have been studied intensively. However, psychological posttrauma responses vary widely and can include positive outcomes, such as posttraumatic growth (PTG) and, more commonly, resilience. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the current DNA methylation and gene expression data with respect to three potential posttrauma responses: PTSD, PTG, and resilience. A literature search identified 486 studies, 51 of which were deemed eligible for inclusion (total N = 10,633). All included studies examined PTSD and consistently implicated DNA methylation and gene expression changes in hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and inflammatory genes. Ten studies acknowledged resilience as a posttrauma response, but only two studies examined epigenetics and gene expression using a scale to measure resilience. Low resilience was associated with gene expression patterns in immune and dopamine genes, and high resilience was associated with a blunted inflammatory response. No studies examined epigenetic or gene expression changes associated with PTG. These findings highlight a focus on pathogenic research, which has failed to adequately acknowledge and measure positive posttrauma outcomes of PTG and resilience. Future…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jts.22472

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mehta, D., Miller, O., Bruenig, D., David, G., & Shakespeare‐Finch, J.
Affiliations
Queensland University of Technology (AU)
Corresponding author
Mehta, Divya
Venue
Journal of Traumatic Stress
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-01-17
Volume
33
Issue
2
Pages
171-180
ISSN
  • 0894-9867 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-6598
OpenAlex
W2967779005
Cited by
66
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6
FWCI
0.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Traumatic Stress (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Epigenetics and DNA Methylation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Resilience and Mental Health
Keywords
post-traumatic stress disorder, posttraumatic growth, resilience, DNA methylation, gene expression, epigenetics, hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, inflammatory genes, immune-related genes, dopamine genes, trauma exposure
MeSH terms
Posttraumatic Growth, Psychological, Adaptation, Psychological, Gene Expression Regulation, Humans, Stress, Physiological, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, DNA Methylation, Resilience, Psychological

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review