YSM Issue 93.2

yalescientific
from yalescientific More from this publisher
06.10.2020 Views

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

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!