Search

We critically re-examine Fredrickson et al.'s renewed claims concerning the differential relationship between hedonic and eudaimonic forms of well-being and gene expression, namely that people who experience a preponderance of eudaimonic well-being have gene expression profiles that are associated with more favorable health outcomes. By means of an extensive reanalysis of their data, we identify several discrepancies between what these authors claimed and what their data support; we further show that their different analysis models produce mutually contradictory results. We then show how Fredrickson et al.'s most recent article on this topic not only fails to adequately address our previously published concerns about their earlier related work, but also introduces significant further problems, including inconsistency in their hypotheses. Additionally, we demonstrate that regardless of which statistical model is used to analyze their data, Fredrickson et al.'s method can be highly sensitive to the inclusion (or exclusion) of data from a single subject. We reiterate our previous conclusions, namely that there is no evidence that Fredrickson et al. have established a reliable empirical distinction between their two delineated forms of well-being, nor that eudaimonic well-being provides any overall health benefits over hedonic well-being.

The Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas, a widely cultivated marine bivalve mollusc, is becoming a genetically and genomically enabled model for highly fecund marine metazoans with complex life-histories. A genome sequence is available for the Pacific oyster, as are first-generation, low-density, linkage and gene-centromere maps mostly constructed from microsatellite DNA makers. Here, higher density, second-generation, linkage maps are constructed from more than 1100 coding (exonic) single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), as well as 66 previously mapped microsatellite DNA markers, all typed in five families of Pacific oysters (nearly 172,000 genotypes). The map comprises 10 linkage groups, as expected, has an average total length of 588 cM, an average marker-spacing of 1.0 cM, and covers 86% of a genome estimated to be 616 cM. All but seven of the mapped SNPs map to 618 genome scaffolds; 260 scaffolds contain two or more mapped SNPs, but for 100 of these scaffolds (38.5%), the contained SNPs map to different linkage groups, suggesting widespread errors in scaffold assemblies. The 100 misassembled scaffolds are significantly longer than those that map to a single linkage group. On the genetic maps, marker orders and intermarker distances vary across families and mapping methods, owing to an abundance of markers segregating from only one parent, to widespread distortions of segregation ratios caused by early mortality, as previously observed for oysters, and to genotyping errors. Maps made from framework markers provide stronger support for marker orders and reasonable map lengths and are used to produce a consensus high-density linkage map containing 656 markers., (Copyright © 2015 Hedgecock et al.)

Fredrickson et al. [Fredrickson BL, et al. (2013) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110(33):13684-13689] claimed to have observed significant differences in gene expression related to hedonic and eudaimonic dimensions of well-being. Having closely examined both their claims and their data, we draw substantially different conclusions. After identifying some important conceptual and methodological flaws in their argument, we report the results of a series of reanalyses of their dataset. We first applied a variety of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis techniques to their self-reported well-being data. A number of plausible factor solutions emerged, but none of these corresponded to Fredrickson et al.'s claimed hedonic and eudaimonic dimensions. We next examined the regression analyses that purportedly yielded distinct differential profiles of gene expression associated with the two well-being dimensions. Using the best-fitting two-factor solution that we identified, we obtained effects almost twice as large as those found by Fredrickson et al. using their questionable hedonic and eudaimonic factors. Next, we conducted regression analyses for all possible two-factor solutions of the psychometric data; we found that 69.2% of these gave statistically significant results for both factors, whereas only 0.25% would be expected to do so if the regression process was really able to identify independent differential gene expression effects. Finally, we replaced Fredrickson et al.'s psychometric data with random numbers and continued to find very large numbers of apparently statistically significant effects. We conclude that Fredrickson et al.'s widely publicized claims about the effects of different dimensions of well-being on health-related gene expression are merely artifacts of dubious analyses and erroneous methodology.