How Your Body Clock Shapes Inflammation

Understanding the link between the body clock and inflammation could revolutionize treatment for conditions like arthritis.
Understanding the link between the body clock and inflammation could revolutionize treatment for arthritis.

New research from RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences has uncovered how the body’s internal clock, or circadian rhythm, regulates inflammation in the immune system. The findings reveal that immune cells called macrophages behave differently depending on the time of day, paving the way for treatments that work harmoniously with the body’s natural rhythms.

Macrophages are immune cells that act as first responders, detecting harmful substances and triggering inflammation when needed. They assemble large protein complexes called inflammasomes, which function like “smoke detectors” to alert the immune system to potential danger.

The study, published in The FASEB Journal, showed that activating a specific inflammasome called NLRP3 fluctuates based on the 24-hour circadian clock. This rhythm determines when macrophages are most effective at detecting threats and have the energy to respond. A critical driver of this process is the mitochondria, often referred to as the cell’s “powerhouses,” which fuel these immune responses.

Inflammation and the Time of Day

“When macrophages ‘think’ it’s morning, their inflammasome activation is faster and stronger,” explained Professor Annie Curtis, the study’s principal investigator from RCSI’s School of Pharmacy and Biomolecular Sciences. “This heightened immune response aligns with the early part of the day, when we are awake and more likely to face injuries or infections.”

This discovery helps explain why symptoms of inflammatory conditions, such as arthritis, tend to worsen in the morning.

“Overactive inflammasomes are a key factor in diseases like arthritis,” said Dr. James O’Siorain, lead author of the study. “Our findings suggest that therapies targeting these inflammasomes could be more effective when timed to the body’s natural immune rhythms.”

Implications for Treatment

The research opens up possibilities for tailoring treatments for inflammatory diseases based on the time of day. For example, medications designed to regulate inflammasome activity might be most effective when administered during peak macrophage activity in the morning.

The study highlights how an improved understanding of the connection between circadian rhythms and immune function could lead to more precise and effective therapies for inflammation-induced conditions.

Supported by funding from Taighde Éireann – Research Ireland, this study underscores the importance of timing in medicine, offering a new perspective on managing diseases where inflammation plays a central role.

How Brain Inflammation (in MS) Affects Behavior in Men and Women Differently

An Australian-first study has lifted the lid on how couples living with rheumatoid arthritis cope with the debilitating disease finding that those who cope with problems together had less psychological distress and better relationships.

For people with multiple sclerosis (MS), understanding how brain inflammation impacts behavior can provide insight into some of the common symptoms they experience. New research from the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) sheds light on how inflammation in the hippocampus—a part of the brain critical for memory and emotions—affects motivation and behavior, with clear differences between males and females.

What’s the Connection Between Brain Inflammation and Behavior?

The hippocampus is central to memory, learning, and emotional regulation, but it’s also affected by inflammation in diseases like MS, Alzheimer’s, and depression. This inflammation, called neuroinflammation, often results in symptoms like:

  • Apathy
  • Struggles with daily activities
  • Changes in food preferences

Interestingly, these symptoms tend to be more severe in women than in men.

“While inflammation in the hippocampus isn’t the sole reason for behavior changes, it likely sets off a chain reaction in the brain that influences how we think and act,” explained Dr. Laura Bradfield, Director of the Brain and Behaviour Lab at UTS.

What Did the Study Find?

Using mice, researchers at UTS simulated neuroinflammation by introducing a bacterial toxin called lipopolysaccharide into the hippocampus. This toxin triggers an immune response in the brain, mimicking the inflammation seen in diseases like MS.

The findings were fascinating:

  • In both male and female mice, activity and movement levels increased.
  • Females showed more significant changes in food-seeking behaviour, suggesting inflammation affects their motivation differently.

The research also highlighted the role of microglia and astrocytes, two types of brain cells that interact with neurons during inflammation, showing how complex these changes are at a cellular level.

Why Do Women Experience Stronger Effects?

The study suggests that hormones like estrogen might play a role in how neuroinflammation affects the brain. These sex-specific differences could explain why women with MS often experience more severe cognitive and behavioural symptoms.

What Does This Mean for MS Patients?

For those living with MS, this research offers hope for more personalized treatments. By targeting hippocampal neuroinflammation, future therapies might alleviate symptoms like memory issues, apathy, and difficulty with daily tasks—potentially improving brain health, especially for women.

“These findings open the door to developing treatments that consider how men and women respond differently to brain inflammation,” said Dr. Kiruthika Ganesan, the study’s lead author.

What’s Next?

The researchers are calling for more studies to understand:

  • How hormones influence these sex-specific effects.
  • The long-term impact of neuroinflammation on brain health.

For now, the study serves as a reminder of how critical it is to consider sex-specific differences in developing therapies for MS and other neurological conditions.

By tailoring treatments to these differences, there’s potential to not only reduce symptoms but also improve overall quality of life for people with MS.

4o

Cutting early life exposure to parental smoking may lower Multiple Sclerosis risk in genetically prone

Interplay of genes + environment alter key aspects of brain structure at young age, boosting susceptibility
The interplay of genes + environment alters key aspects of brain structure at a young age, boosting susceptibility.

Reducing early exposure to parental smoking may decrease the risk of developing multiple sclerosis (MS) in individuals who are genetically predisposed to the disease, according to research published in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry.

Research indicates that the interaction between genetic factors and environmental influences, such as smoking, changes essential aspects of brain structure during early childhood. This alteration may contribute to the development of the disease, suggesting there might be a critical window of opportunity to prevent it.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an autoimmune disease typically diagnosed between the ages of 20 and 40. Researchers explain that it is unclear whether it results from early inflammatory brain damage or a latent neurodegenerative process accompanied by inflammation.

While the exact onset of the disease process remains unclear, evidence of brain volume loss and diminished cognitive performance before the appearance of clinical signs and symptoms indicates that these changes may occur before a formal diagnosis.

Studies on migration show that early life environmental factors have a key role, but they add that exactly how these interact isn’t yet known.

The researchers used data from the population-based Dutch Generation R study to shed more light on how and when the interplay of environmental and genetic risk factors might affect brain volume and, thus, facilitate future MS development.

Participants in this study had good-quality data on genotype and/or the known environmental risk factors of Epstein Barr virus infection, vitamin D levels, weight (BMI), parental tobacco exposure, and outdoor activity at the age of 5, plus high-quality brain scan images at the ages of 9 and 13.

In all, the researchers drew on imaging data showing brain volume for 5350 participants and brain microstructure for 5649 participants, none of whom had been diagnosed with MS. 

Polygenic risk scores derived from DNA samples were used to assess the genetic risk of developing MS, with the genetic variant rs10191329 used as a marker of future MS severity.

In all, 642 children tested positive for Epstein-Barr virus infection, and 405 had been exposed to household parental smoking.

The final analysis was based on genetic data from 2817 participants and brain volume and microstructure imaging data from 2970 participants.

This showed an interplay between genetic and environmental risk factors for MS associated with certain aspects of brain structure during childhood and early teens.

Specifically, higher genetic risk for MS was associated with a strong immune response to Epstein-Barr virus infection, and it was also associated with increased susceptibility to the negative effects of household parental smoking on brain development.

Higher MS genetic risk and household parental smoking interacted and were associated with lower total brain volume and grey matter volume, including thalamic volume. 

No associations were observed for carriers of the rs10191229 genetic valiant.

This is an observational study, so no firm conclusions about cause and effect can be drawn.

The researchers explain the findings by pointing out that higher Epstein-Barr virus antibodies may be caused by defective immune system control of this virus due to genetic risk for MS, possibly facilitating the development of the disease later in life.

And the prevailing theory is that tobacco smoke produces chronic inflammation of the respiratory tract, thereby increasing the inflammatory activity of the immune system, they add.

“Our results importantly add another potential mechanism of tobacco smoke exposure in individuals with higher polygenic MS risk. The increased brain vulnerability to the effects of parental smoking may increase the exposure of [central nervous system] antigens to the developing immune system, increasing the risk of a brain-specific autoimmune disease,” they suggest.

“How this increased vulnerability influences other MS risk factors may open a window for prevention of MS by limiting childhood exposure to household smoking or other toxic exposures associated with MS (i.e., household chemicals), and should be a focus for further studies” they conclude.

Cellular traffic congestion in chronic diseases like diabetes and inflammatory disorders suggests new therapeutic targets

Proteolethargy

Chronic diseases such as diabetes are on the rise and are costly and challenging to treat. Whitehead Institute Member Richard Young and colleagues have discovered a common denominator driving these diverse diseases, which may prove to be a promising therapeutic target: Proteolethargy, or reduced protein mobility, in the presence of oxidative stress.

Jennifer Cook-Chrysos/Whitehead Institute

Chronic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes and inflammatory disorders like rheumatoid arthritis, significantly impact humanity. They are among the leading causes of disease burden and deaths worldwide, posing both physical and economic challenges. Furthermore, the number of individuals affected by these diseases is rising.

Treating chronic diseases has proven challenging because they do not have a single, straightforward cause, such as a specific gene mutation that a treatment could target. However, research conducted by Richard Young, a member of the Whitehead Institute, and his colleagues, published in the journal Cell on November 27, reveals that many chronic diseases may share a common factor driving their dysfunction: reduced protein mobility. This means that approximately half of the proteins active in cells tend to slow down their movement when the cells are in a chronic disease state, which diminishes the proteins’ functions. The researchers’ findings suggest that protein mobility could be a crucial factor in the decreased cellular function observed in chronic diseases, making it a promising target for therapy.

In this paper, Young and his colleagues, including postdoc Alessandra Dall’Agnese, graduate students Shannon Moreno and Ming Zheng, and research scientist Tong Ihn Lee, describe their discovery of a shared mobility defect they call proteolethargy. They explain the underlying causes of this defect, how it leads to cell dysfunction, and propose a new therapeutic hypothesis for treating chronic diseases.

“I’m excited about the potential impact of this research on patients,” says Dall’Agnese. “I hope this leads to the development of a new class of drugs that can restore protein mobility, which could help individuals with various diseases that share this common mechanism.”

According to Lee, this project involved biologists, physicists, chemists, computer scientists, and physician-scientists. “Bringing together this diverse expertise is a strength of the Young lab. By examining the problem from various perspectives, we gained valuable insights into how this mechanism might function and its potential to reshape our understanding of the pathology of chronic diseases.”

Commuter delays cause work stoppages in the cell

How do proteins moving slowly through a cell lead to significant cellular dysfunction? Dall’Agnese explains that every cell functions like a tiny city, with proteins acting as the workers who keep everything running smoothly. Proteins must travel through dense traffic within the cell, moving from where they are produced to where they are needed. The quicker their commute, the more efficient their work becomes. Now, imagine a city that starts experiencing traffic jams on all its roads. Stores may not open on time, groceries could get stuck in transit, and meetings might be postponed. Essentially, all operations within the city slow down.

The slowdown of cellular operations in cells with reduced protein mobility follows a similar pattern. Normally, most proteins move rapidly throughout the cell, colliding with other molecules until they find the one they need to interact with or affect. When a protein moves more slowly, it encounters fewer other molecules, making it less likely to perform its function effectively. Young and colleagues discovered that these slowdowns in protein movement result in measurable decreases in the proteins’ functional output. When numerous proteins are unable to complete their tasks on time, cells begin to face various issues, which are commonly observed in chronic diseases.

Discovering the protein mobility problem

Young and his colleagues first suspected that cells affected by chronic diseases might have issues with protein mobility after observing changes in the behaviour of the insulin receptor. The insulin receptor is a signalling protein that reacts to insulin’s presence, prompting cells to absorb sugar from the bloodstream. In individuals with diabetes, cells become less responsive to insulin, a condition known as insulin resistance, which leads to elevated blood sugar levels. In research published in Nature Communications in 2022, Young and his colleagues reported that the mobility of insulin receptors could be significant in the context of diabetes.

Knowing that many cellular functions are altered in diabetes, the researchers considered the possibility that altered protein mobility might somehow affect many proteins in cells. To test this hypothesis, they studied proteins involved in a broad range of cellular functions, including MED1, a protein involved in gene expression; HP1α, a protein involved in gene silencing; FIB1, a protein involved in the production of ribosomes; and SRSF2, a protein involved in splicing of messenger RNA. They used single-molecule tracking and other methods to measure how each of those proteins moves in healthy cells and in cells in disease states. All but one of the proteins showed reduced mobility (about 20-35%) in the disease cells.

“I’m excited that we were able to transfer physics-based insight and methodology, which are commonly used to understand the single-molecule processes like gene transcription in normal cells, to a disease context and show that they can be used to uncover unexpected mechanisms of disease,” Zheng says. “This work shows how the random walk of proteins in cells is linked to disease pathology.”

Moreno concurs: “In school, we’re taught to consider changes in protein structure or DNA sequences when looking for causes of disease, but we’ve demonstrated that those are not the only contributing factors. If you only consider a static picture of a protein or a cell, you miss out on discovering these changes that only appear when molecules are in motion.”

Can’t commute across the cell, I’m all tied up right now

Next, the researchers needed to determine what was causing the proteins to slow down. They suspected that the defect had to do with an increase in cells of the level of reactive oxygen species (ROS), molecules that are highly prone to interfering with other molecules and their chemical reactions. Many types of chronic-disease-associated triggers, such as higher sugar or fat levels, certain toxins, and inflammatory signals, lead to an increase in ROS, also known as an increase in oxidative stress. The researchers measured the mobility of the proteins again in cells that had high levels of ROS and were not otherwise in a disease state and saw comparable mobility defects, suggesting that oxidative stress was to blame for the protein mobility defect.

The final part of the puzzle was why some, but not all, proteins slow down in the presence of ROS. SRSF2 was the only one of the proteins that was unaffected in the experiments, and it had one clear difference from the others: its surface did not contain any cysteines, an amino acid building block of many proteins. Cysteines are especially susceptible to interference from ROS because it will cause them to bond with other cysteines. When this bonding occurs between two protein molecules, it slows them down because the two proteins cannot move through the cell as quickly as either protein alone.

About half of the proteins in our cells contain surface cysteines, so this single protein mobility defect can impact many different cellular pathways. This makes sense when one considers the diversity of dysfunctions that appear in the cells of people with chronic diseases: dysfunctions in cell signalling, metabolic processes, gene expression and gene silencing, and more. All of these processes rely on the efficient functioning of proteins—including the diverse proteins studied by the researchers. Young and colleagues performed several experiments to confirm that decreased protein mobility does, in fact, decrease a protein’s function. For example, they found that when an insulin receptor experiences decreased mobility, it acts less efficiently on IRS1, a molecule to which it usually adds a phosphate group.

From understanding a mechanism to treating a disease

Discovering that decreased protein mobility in the presence of oxidative stress could be driving many of the symptoms of chronic disease provides opportunities to develop therapies to rescue protein mobility. In the course of their experiments, the researchers treated cells with an antioxidant drug called N—acetyl cysteine—something that reduces ROS—and saw that this partially restored protein mobility.

The researchers are pursuing a variety of follow-ups to this work, including the search for drugs that safely and efficiently reduce ROS and restore protein mobility. They developed an assay that can be used to screen drugs to see if they restore protein mobility by comparing each drug’s effect on a simple biomarker with surface cysteines to one without. They are also looking into other diseases that may involve protein mobility, and are exploring the role of reduced protein mobility in aging.

“The complex biology of chronic diseases has made it challenging to come up with effective therapeutic hypotheses,” says Young, who is also a professor of biology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “The discovery that diverse disease-associated stimuli all induce a common feature, proteolethargy, and that this feature could contribute to much of the dysregulation that we see in chronic disease, is something that I hope will be a real game changer for developing drugs that work across the spectrum of chronic diseases.”

Restricting sugar consumption in utero and in early childhood significantly reduces risk of midlife chronic disease

New research shows combined use of sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1-RAs) is likely to offer additional protection against heart and kidney disease in patients with diabetes

A new study has found that a low-sugar diet in utero and in the first two years of life can meaningfully reduce the risk of chronic diseases in adulthood. This provides compelling new evidence of the lifelong health effects of early-life sugar consumption.

A study published in the journal Science reveals that children who had sugar restrictions during their first 1,000 days after conception faced up to a 35% lower risk of developing Type 2 diabetes and a 20% reduced risk of hypertension in adulthood. The research indicates that low sugar intake by mothers during pregnancy was sufficient to lower these health risks, and maintaining sugar restrictions after birth further enhanced the benefits.

Using an unintended “natural experiment” from World War II, researchers at the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences, McGill University in Montreal, and the University of California, Berkeley, examined how sugar rationing during the war influenced long-term health outcomes.

The United Kingdom introduced limits on sugar distribution in 1942 as part of its wartime food rationing program. Rationing ended in September 1953.

The researchers used contemporary data from the U.K. Biobank, a database of medical histories and genetic, lifestyle and other disease risk factors, to study the effect of those early-life sugar restrictions on health outcomes of adults conceived in the U.K. just before and after the end of wartime sugar rationing.

“Studying the long-term effects of added sugar on health presents challenges,” explains Tadeja Gracner, a senior economist at the USC Dornsife Center for Economic and Social Research and the study’s corresponding author. “It is difficult to identify situations where individuals are randomly exposed to different nutritional environments early in life and tracked over a span of 50 to 60 years. The end of rationing provided us with a unique natural experiment that helped us overcome these obstacles.”

On average, during rationing, sugar intake was about 8 teaspoons (40 grams) per day. When rationing ended, sugar and sweets consumption skyrocketed to about 16 teaspoons (80 grams) per day. 

Notably, rationing did not involve extreme food deprivation overall. Diets generally appeared to have been within today’s guidelines set by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the World Health Organization, which recommend no added sugars for children under two and no more than 12 teaspoons (50g) of added sugar daily for adults. 

The immediate and large increase in sugar consumption but no other foods after rationing ended created an interesting natural experiment: Individuals were exposed to varying levels of sugar intake early in life, depending on whether they were conceived or born before or after September 1953. Those conceived or born just before the end of rationing experienced sugar-scarce conditions compared to those born just after who were born into a more sugar-rich environment.

The researchers then identified those born in the U.K. Biobank data collected over 50 years later. Using a very tight birth window around the end of sugar rationing allowed the authors to compare midlife health outcomes of otherwise similar birth cohorts.  

While living through the period of sugar restriction during the first 1,000 days of life substantially lowered the risk of developing diabetes and hypertension, for those later diagnosed with either of those conditions, the onset of disease was delayed by four years and two years, respectively. 

Notably, exposure to sugar restrictions in utero alone was enough to lower risks, but disease protection increased postnatally once solids were likely introduced. 

The researchers say the magnitude of this effect is meaningful as it can save costs, extend life expectancy, and, perhaps more importantly, improve quality of life.

In the United States, individuals with diabetes face average annual medical expenses of approximately $12,000. Additionally, an earlier diagnosis of diabetes is associated with a significantly reduced life expectancy; specifically, for each decade that diagnosis occurs earlier, life expectancy decreases by three to four years.

The researchers note that these numbers underscore the value of early interventions that could delay or prevent this disease.

Experts continue to raise concerns about children’s long-term health as they consume excessive amounts of added sugars during their early life, a critical period of development. Adjusting child sugar consumption, however, is not easy—added sugar is everywhere, even in baby and toddler foods, and children are bombarded with TV ads for sugary snacks, say the researchers.

“Parents need information about what works, and this study provides some of the first causal evidence that reducing added sugar early in life is a powerful step towards improving children’s health over their lifetimes,” says study co-author Claire Boone of McGill University and University of Chicago.  

Co-author Paul Gertler of UC Berkeley and the National Bureau of Economics Research adds: “Sugar early in life is the new tobacco, and we should treat it as such by holding food companies accountable to reformulate baby foods with healthier options and regulate the marketing and tax sugary foods targeted at kids.” 

This study is the first of a larger research effort exploring how early-life sugar restrictions affected a broader set of economic and health outcomes in later adulthood, including education, wealth, and chronic inflammation, cognitive function and dementia.