The psychoneuroimmuneendocrine system, epigenetics, and the integration of morphogenetic fields: a systematic review of their role in unconscious ontogenesis.
Samuel Ruesga Mundo, Carlos Francisco Moreno, Rafael Bustos Saldaña
{"title":"The psychoneuroimmuneendocrine system, epigenetics, and the integration of morphogenetic fields: a systematic review of their role in unconscious ontogenesis.","authors":"Samuel Ruesga Mundo, Carlos Francisco Moreno, Rafael Bustos Saldaña","doi":"10.3389/fnsys.2026.1663524","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Unconscious/implicit processes are increasingly conceptualized as biologically instantiated, multisystem regulatory functions rather than purely psychological constructs. This review examines whether an integrative framework linking psychoneuroimmuneendocrine (PINE) regulation, epigenetic mechanisms, and principles of morphogenetic organization can help organize evidence relevant to \"unconscious ontogenesis.\"</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To systematically review empirical evidence on PINE-related regulation and epigenetic modifications associated with unconscious/implicit processing, and to evaluate developmental morphogenetic principles as an organizing conceptual template (distinct from direct evidence of adult unconscious processing).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Scopus (1990-2024), plus gray literature sources, for experimental and observational studies, systematic reviews/meta-analyses, and a limited set of theoretical/historical works used only for conceptual context. Unconscious/implicit processing was operationalized as outcomes measured with implicit or non-conscious paradigms (behavioral tasks) and/or biological proxies of automatic regulation (e.g., autonomic, endocrine, immune, epigenetic, or neuroimaging markers) when the study design or authors' framework explicitly linked these measures to implicit/unconscious processing. Risk of bias was assessed with RoB 2, ROBINS-I, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and GRADE as appropriate; theoretical works were excluded from quantitative synthesis and bias assessment. No language restrictions were applied at the search stage; non-English studies were screened via available abstracts and full texts were used when accessible.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 1,245 records identified, 58 studies met inclusion criteria; 30 contributed to the quantitative synthesis. Evidence most consistently supported associations between PINE-system dysregulation and stress-adaptive behavioral/physiological outcomes, as well as between environmental exposures and epigenetic modifications relevant to neurodevelopment and stress regulation. In contrast, morphogenetic fields and morphogen-gradient principles were supported as established developmental biology mechanisms but did not provide direct quantitative evidence for adult unconscious processes, and were therefore treated exclusively as a conceptual organizational layer.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Available evidence supports PINE regulation and epigenetic mechanisms as empirically grounded contributors to multisystem integration relevant to unconscious/implicit regulation. Morphogenetic principles are best interpreted as a developmental organizing template rather than as empirically supported mechanisms of unconscious processing, generating testable hypotheses for future prospective and mechanistic studies.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier [CRD42024594352].</p>","PeriodicalId":12649,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience","volume":"20 ","pages":"1663524"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13230023/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2026.1663524","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Unconscious/implicit processes are increasingly conceptualized as biologically instantiated, multisystem regulatory functions rather than purely psychological constructs. This review examines whether an integrative framework linking psychoneuroimmuneendocrine (PINE) regulation, epigenetic mechanisms, and principles of morphogenetic organization can help organize evidence relevant to "unconscious ontogenesis."
Objective: To systematically review empirical evidence on PINE-related regulation and epigenetic modifications associated with unconscious/implicit processing, and to evaluate developmental morphogenetic principles as an organizing conceptual template (distinct from direct evidence of adult unconscious processing).
Methods: We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Scopus (1990-2024), plus gray literature sources, for experimental and observational studies, systematic reviews/meta-analyses, and a limited set of theoretical/historical works used only for conceptual context. Unconscious/implicit processing was operationalized as outcomes measured with implicit or non-conscious paradigms (behavioral tasks) and/or biological proxies of automatic regulation (e.g., autonomic, endocrine, immune, epigenetic, or neuroimaging markers) when the study design or authors' framework explicitly linked these measures to implicit/unconscious processing. Risk of bias was assessed with RoB 2, ROBINS-I, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and GRADE as appropriate; theoretical works were excluded from quantitative synthesis and bias assessment. No language restrictions were applied at the search stage; non-English studies were screened via available abstracts and full texts were used when accessible.
Results: From 1,245 records identified, 58 studies met inclusion criteria; 30 contributed to the quantitative synthesis. Evidence most consistently supported associations between PINE-system dysregulation and stress-adaptive behavioral/physiological outcomes, as well as between environmental exposures and epigenetic modifications relevant to neurodevelopment and stress regulation. In contrast, morphogenetic fields and morphogen-gradient principles were supported as established developmental biology mechanisms but did not provide direct quantitative evidence for adult unconscious processes, and were therefore treated exclusively as a conceptual organizational layer.
Conclusion: Available evidence supports PINE regulation and epigenetic mechanisms as empirically grounded contributors to multisystem integration relevant to unconscious/implicit regulation. Morphogenetic principles are best interpreted as a developmental organizing template rather than as empirically supported mechanisms of unconscious processing, generating testable hypotheses for future prospective and mechanistic studies.
背景:无意识/内隐过程越来越被概念化为生物实例化的多系统调节功能,而不是纯粹的心理构造。这篇综述探讨了一个连接心理神经免疫内分泌(PINE)调节、表观遗传机制和形态发生组织原则的综合框架是否有助于组织与“无意识个体发生”相关的证据。目的:系统回顾与无意识/内隐加工相关的pine相关调控和表观遗传修饰的经验证据,并评估发育形态发生原则作为组织概念模板(不同于成人无意识加工的直接证据)。方法:我们检索了PubMed/MEDLINE、Web of Science和Scopus(1990-2024),以及灰色文献来源,包括实验和观察研究、系统综述/元分析,以及一组仅用于概念背景的有限理论/历史著作。当研究设计或作者的框架明确地将这些测量与内隐/无意识加工联系起来时,无意识/内隐加工被操作化为内隐或无意识范式(行为任务)和/或自动调节的生物代理(如自主、内分泌、免疫、表观遗传或神经成像标记)测量的结果。采用rob2、ROBINS-I、Newcastle-Ottawa量表和GRADE评估偏倚风险;理论作品被排除在定量综合和偏倚评估之外。在搜索阶段没有使用语言限制;通过可获得的摘要筛选非英语研究,并在可获得的情况下使用全文。结果:在1245条记录中,58项研究符合纳入标准;30人对数量综合作出贡献。证据一致支持松林系统失调与应激适应性行为/生理结果之间的联系,以及环境暴露与神经发育和应激调节相关的表观遗传修饰之间的联系。相比之下,形态发生场和形态梯度原理被支持为成熟的发育生物学机制,但没有为成人无意识过程提供直接的定量证据,因此仅被视为概念组织层。结论:现有证据支持PINE调控和表观遗传机制是与无意识/内隐调控相关的多系统整合的经验基础贡献者。形态发生原理最好被解释为一种发育组织模板,而不是经验支持的无意识加工机制,为未来的前瞻性和机制研究产生可测试的假设。系统评价注册:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/,标识符[CRD42024594352]。
期刊介绍:
Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience publishes rigorously peer-reviewed research that advances our understanding of whole systems of the brain, including those involved in sensation, movement, learning and memory, attention, reward, decision-making, reasoning, executive functions, and emotions.