YSM Issue 93.2
THE NEW 98.6 DEGREESHow and why human body temperature has loweredCOUNTERCOUNTERBYKELLYFARLEYKELLYPOINTIMAGE COURTESY OF ROY PERRYWhen you go to the doctor, the first measurementtaken—whether it’s an annual check-up or a sickcall—is your body temperature. Over the years, themethod has varied, from mercury thermometers under thearmpit to infrared thermometers scanned over the forehead. Butthe standard indicator of health has remained the same since1851, when it was first reported by the German physician CarlReinhold August Wunderlich. As you’ve probably heard before,the normal human body temperature is 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit.Julie Parsonnet and her colleagues at Stanford, however, have foundevidence that disrupts this paradigm: they recently reported that thathuman body temperature has steadily decreased over the past twocenturies to a current average of 97.9 degrees Fahrenheit. In the mostcomprehensive analysis to date, their study examined hundreds ofthousands of temperature measurements from three databases rangingfrom the end of the Industrial Revolution to present day. In the end,they found a constant decrease in temperature from decade to decade.Parsonnet’s study is important not because it shows that humanbody temperature is lower but because it shows that it has droppedsince the nineteenth century. Medical professionals have known forthe past few decades that healthy human body temperature is lowerthan the 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit standard. A Russian pharmacychain founded in 1991 is even named 36.6—the Celsius equivalentto 97.9 degrees Fahrenheit—in honor of the more accurate lowertemperature. Scientists previously assumed that 98.6 degreesFahrenheit must have been wrong at the time of measurementas well, blaming differences in historical measurement methodsand instrument calibration. According to Parsonnet, the originalnumber may not have been wrong at all. It is just no longer accuratefor modern humans. The question is: why?“Temperature is a marker of metabolism,” Parsonnet said. Withlower body temperatures, our metabolism must be slower. Perhapsthis change is caused by our more temperate environments.With heating and air conditioning, modern Americans livein the “thermoneutral zone” of sixty-four to seventy-twodegrees Fahrenheit in which our bodies do not have to increasemetabolism to keep warm. With inactive modes of transport andsedentary desk jobs, we also move less, further suppressing ourmetabolic rate and possibly explaining the rise in obesity.Parsonnet prefers an alternate explanation: our cleanerenvironments. Thanks to sewage systems, hand sanitizer, antibiotics,and modern infrastructure, we have decreased the rates of formerlywidespread infections, such as syphilis, rheumatic heart disease, andtuberculosis. Thanks to vaccination, we have minimized infectiousdiseases of the past and have hopes to apply the same to infectiousdiseases of the present. All of this leads to decreased inflammation,which in turn leads to lower metabolism and thus a lower bodytemperature. It is uncertain whether this decreased inflammation istrue everywhere; the modern temperatures in the study were collectedin the United States. Moving forward, Parsonnet is interested inexamining temperatures in developing countries as well.If the “normal” human body temperature is lower, does thischallenge the way we approach fever and medical diagnosis?Though taking your temperature may be the first thing your doctordoes, it is never the last. Think about the family history, bloodpressure readings, throat swabs, blood draws, and everything elsethat goes into a sick call. We are drawn towards binaries: sick versushealthy, feverish versus normal. But temperature varies fromperson to person and even within a person over the course of a day.The real question is not why our 98.6 degrees Fahrenheitstandard was wrong but rather why we rely on it so heavilywhen every person is an individual. There is no overall “normal”human standard. Instead, “There is a ‘normal’ for each personthat depends on their age, sex, weight, height, and the timeof day their temperature was measured,” Parsonnet said. Herteam is already working on an algorithm that determines whatis abnormal for an individual patient at any particular time. Inthe age of big data and personalized medicine, we are beginningto see patients as individuals instead of averages. Today, we aresurprised that the 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit standard has beenreplaced by 97.9 degrees Fahrenheit. In the future, we may besurprised that we relied on an average at all. ■Barondess, J. (2014). Scanning the Chronic Disease Terrain: Prospectsand Opportunity. Transactions of the American Clinical and ClimatologyAssociation, 125(2014), 45-56.Fischer, K. (2020, January 20). Forget 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Humans AreCooling Off — Here’s Why. Healthline.Protsiv, M., Ley, C., Lankester, J., Hastie, T., & Parsonnet, J. (2020). DecreasingHuman Body Temperature in the United States Since the IndustrialRevolution. eLife 9e49555.28 Yale Scientific Magazine September 2020 www.yalescientific.org
VS.SCIENCETHE APOCALYPSEANTIBIOTICRESISTANCEBY VICTORIAVERAIMAGE COURTESY OF WIKIMEDIA COMMONSSince the discovery of penicillin, the first commercializedantibiotic, in 1928, our society has dramatically improved.We have raised life expectancy, improved quality of life,and altogether created a healthier world. However, it’s not justus who have adapted. Bacteria have entered a new age as well,one characterized by increasing resistance to the antibiotics wecreate. Antibiotic resistance was first observed in 1947, aroundsix years after commercial production of penicillin began. Sincethen, the problem has become much more widespread. This posesa scary new problem for us. In the future, might it be possiblefor an infected piercing or scrape to bring us to our deathbeds?Worldwide, scientists have been working tirelessly to prepare forwhen our main line of defense finds itself compromised. Whilestudying antibiotic-producing bacteria known as actinomycetes,researchers in the Wright lab at McMaster University inCanada stumbled upon possible solutions: two new functionalantibiotics, and a way to predict more.All this was a result of mapping ancestry. Rather than directlysearching for a new antibiotic, Wright’s research team sought toinvestigate more broad-ended ideas. The motivating factor was asimple question: “What are the origins of antibacterial resistance?”Wright said. Many antibiotics, including penicillin, are derived frombiological organisms. Wright and his team first sought out ancestralhistory of the antibiotic properties of actinomycetes, bacteriafound in soil that manufacture many of our current antibiotics.Actinomycetes derive their antibiotic-producing capabilities frombiosynthetic gene clusters (BGCs)—groups of two or more genesthat, coupled together, encode a pathway for the production of aspecific metabolite, such as a product with the antibiotic propertieswe need. The researchers first gathered sequences of antibioticBGCs from multiple actinomycete species. Then, they began slowlybuilding phylogenetic trees—diagrams mapping out evolutionaryrelationships—of the BGCs, looking for a common ancestor. Asthis effort advanced, they noticed previously untapped antibioticBGCs. This gave rise to another fundamental question: “Where dothese things come from?” Wright asked.As the researchers continued to investigate, they found that someof these newly discovered gene clusters encoded products thatblocked bacteria in entirely different ways than existing antibiotics.These genes could then be purified and expressed—taken from thebacteria in question and “shown [without other genes] in the way,”www.yalescientific.orgWright said—to create new antibiotics. The researchers had founda way to predict possible antibiotics derived from actinomycetes.Due to this mapping, they were able to specifically find two newfunctioning glycopeptide antibiotics: complestatin and corbomycin.Glycopeptide antibiotics combat bacteria by binding to peptidoglycan,an important substance that makes up cell wall. Complestatin andcorbomycin have a novel mode of action. Unlike other antibiotics,which prevent the bacterial cell wall from being built, complestatinand corbomycin keep it from being broken down, a critical stepduring bacterial reproduction. As a result, the targeted bacteria cannotdivide and increase their numbers, and their harmful properties areblocked. In mouse models, complestatin and corbomycin diminishedinfection while maintaining a low rate of resistance development, apromising sign in this early stage of research.Wright’s team faced several challenges on the way. For one, the mereact of constructing phylogenetic trees presented difficulties, as they hadto comb through many genetic sequences to find the links proving theirevolutionary relationships. Similarly, challenges also arose in purifyingand expressing these genes once they were identified. The researchersfaced a game of trial and error, changing a range of conditions toinvestigate their effects on the production of functional antibiotics bythe bacteria. It was “like fishing in a pond,” Wright said; in this case,they were looking for a rather small fish in a very large pond.Where will this new discovery head? “Our plan is to continue tolook for new antibiotics of this new family,” Wright said, noting thathis lab has already identified several potential leads. He also hopes toextend the methods used in this paper to investigate another antibioticfamily. “We have not yet decided on which one, but we are very hopefulthat the method will uncover new compounds,” Wright said.Antibiotic resistance, especially today, is a larger problem thanyou might envision. A world where antibiotics no longer work isa world where a small cut could have a prognosis as foreboding ascancer. We have to start looking at more creative ways to solve thisgrowing crisis. Wright’s team has begun thinking outside the boxalready, which begs the question: what can we expect next? ■Culp, E.J., Waglechner, N., Wang, W. et al. (2020). Evolutionguideddiscovery of antibiotics that inhibit peptidoglycanremodelling. Nature 578, 582–587. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-1990-9September 2020 Yale Scientific Magazine 29
- Page 1 and 2: Yale ScientificTHE NATION’S OLDES
- Page 3 and 4: C O N T E N T S46202830Q&ANEWSFEATU
- Page 5 and 6: The Editor-in-Chief SpeaksWORKING T
- Page 7 and 8: WHAT’S IN THEEARTH’S MANTLE?HOW
- Page 9 and 10: Molecular BiologyNEWSMICROMOLECULE,
- Page 11 and 12: NanoscienceFOCUSLimitations of Trad
- Page 13 and 14: Computational BiologyFOCUSDRIVERSPR
- Page 15 and 16: Computational BiologyFOCUSinto a sa
- Page 17 and 18: EcologyFOCUSResultsTo analyze the e
- Page 19 and 20: second approach: engineering qubits
- Page 21 and 22: Agricultural ScienceFEATUREDOGS ON
- Page 23 and 24: Computer ScienceFEATUREwill recidiv
- Page 25 and 26: Genomics / Clinical ResearchFEATURE
- Page 27: BioengineeringFEATUREIMAGE COURTESY
- Page 31 and 32: ALUMNI ALUMNIPROFILEFrom his humble
THE NEW 98.6 DEGREES
How and why human body temperature has lowered
COUNTERCOUNTER
BY
KELLY
FARLEY
KELLY
POINT
IMAGE COURTESY OF ROY PERRY
When you go to the doctor, the first measurement
taken—whether it’s an annual check-up or a sick
call—is your body temperature. Over the years, the
method has varied, from mercury thermometers under the
armpit to infrared thermometers scanned over the forehead. But
the standard indicator of health has remained the same since
1851, when it was first reported by the German physician Carl
Reinhold August Wunderlich. As you’ve probably heard before,
the normal human body temperature is 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit.
Julie Parsonnet and her colleagues at Stanford, however, have found
evidence that disrupts this paradigm: they recently reported that that
human body temperature has steadily decreased over the past two
centuries to a current average of 97.9 degrees Fahrenheit. In the most
comprehensive analysis to date, their study examined hundreds of
thousands of temperature measurements from three databases ranging
from the end of the Industrial Revolution to present day. In the end,
they found a constant decrease in temperature from decade to decade.
Parsonnet’s study is important not because it shows that human
body temperature is lower but because it shows that it has dropped
since the nineteenth century. Medical professionals have known for
the past few decades that healthy human body temperature is lower
than the 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit standard. A Russian pharmacy
chain founded in 1991 is even named 36.6—the Celsius equivalent
to 97.9 degrees Fahrenheit—in honor of the more accurate lower
temperature. Scientists previously assumed that 98.6 degrees
Fahrenheit must have been wrong at the time of measurement
as well, blaming differences in historical measurement methods
and instrument calibration. According to Parsonnet, the original
number may not have been wrong at all. It is just no longer accurate
for modern humans. The question is: why?
“Temperature is a marker of metabolism,” Parsonnet said. With
lower body temperatures, our metabolism must be slower. Perhaps
this change is caused by our more temperate environments.
With heating and air conditioning, modern Americans live
in the “thermoneutral zone” of sixty-four to seventy-two
degrees Fahrenheit in which our bodies do not have to increase
metabolism to keep warm. With inactive modes of transport and
sedentary desk jobs, we also move less, further suppressing our
metabolic rate and possibly explaining the rise in obesity.
Parsonnet prefers an alternate explanation: our cleaner
environments. Thanks to sewage systems, hand sanitizer, antibiotics,
and modern infrastructure, we have decreased the rates of formerly
widespread infections, such as syphilis, rheumatic heart disease, and
tuberculosis. Thanks to vaccination, we have minimized infectious
diseases of the past and have hopes to apply the same to infectious
diseases of the present. All of this leads to decreased inflammation,
which in turn leads to lower metabolism and thus a lower body
temperature. It is uncertain whether this decreased inflammation is
true everywhere; the modern temperatures in the study were collected
in the United States. Moving forward, Parsonnet is interested in
examining temperatures in developing countries as well.
If the “normal” human body temperature is lower, does this
challenge the way we approach fever and medical diagnosis?
Though taking your temperature may be the first thing your doctor
does, it is never the last. Think about the family history, blood
pressure readings, throat swabs, blood draws, and everything else
that goes into a sick call. We are drawn towards binaries: sick versus
healthy, feverish versus normal. But temperature varies from
person to person and even within a person over the course of a day.
The real question is not why our 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit
standard was wrong but rather why we rely on it so heavily
when every person is an individual. There is no overall “normal”
human standard. Instead, “There is a ‘normal’ for each person
that depends on their age, sex, weight, height, and the time
of day their temperature was measured,” Parsonnet said. Her
team is already working on an algorithm that determines what
is abnormal for an individual patient at any particular time. In
the age of big data and personalized medicine, we are beginning
to see patients as individuals instead of averages. Today, we are
surprised that the 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit standard has been
replaced by 97.9 degrees Fahrenheit. In the future, we may be
surprised that we relied on an average at all. ■
Barondess, J. (2014). Scanning the Chronic Disease Terrain: Prospects
and Opportunity. Transactions of the American Clinical and Climatology
Association, 125(2014), 45-56.
Fischer, K. (2020, January 20). Forget 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Humans Are
Cooling Off — Here’s Why. Healthline.
Protsiv, M., Ley, C., Lankester, J., Hastie, T., & Parsonnet, J. (2020). Decreasing
Human Body Temperature in the United States Since the Industrial
Revolution. eLife 9e49555.
28 Yale Scientific Magazine September 2020 www.yalescientific.org