Search

Aging is associated with a number of physiologic changes including perturbed circadian rhythms; however, mechanisms by which rhythms are altered remain unknown. To test the idea that circulating factors mediate age-dependent changes in peripheral rhythms, we compared the ability of human serum from young and old individuals to synchronize circadian rhythms in culture. We collected blood from apparently healthy young (age 25-30) and old (age 70-76) individuals at 14:00 and used the serum to synchronize cultured fibroblasts. We found that young and old sera are equally competent at initiating robust ~24 hr oscillations of a luciferase reporter driven by clock gene promoter. However, cyclic gene expression is affected, such that young and old sera promote cycling of different sets of genes. Genes that lose rhythmicity with old serum entrainment are associated with oxidative phosphorylation and Alzheimer's Disease as identified by STRING and IPA analyses. Conversely, the expression of cycling genes associated with cholesterol biosynthesis increased in the cells entrained with old serum. Genes involved in the cell cycle and transcription/translation remain rhythmic in both conditions. We did not observe a global difference in the distribution of phase between groups, but found that peak expression of several clock-controlled genes ( PER3, NR1D1, NR1D2, CRY1, CRY2, and TEF ) lagged in the cells synchronized ex vivo with old serum. Taken together, these findings demonstrate that age-dependent blood-borne factors affect circadian rhythms in peripheral cells and have the potential to impact health and disease via maintaining or disrupting rhythms respectively., Competing Interests: JS, AM, NL, YL, CH, GG, CS, SZ No competing interests declared, AS Reviewing editor, eLife, (© 2023, Schwarz et al.)

Study Objectives: The diagnosis of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is based on a constellation of symptoms which center around fatigue. However, fatigue is commonly reported in the general population by people without CFS. Does the biology underlying fatigue in patients with CFS also drive fatigue experienced by individuals without CFS?, Methods: We used UK Biobank actigraphy data to characterize differences in physical activity patterns and daily temperature rhythms between participants diagnosed with CFS compared to controls. We then tested if single nucleotide variants (SNVs) previously associated with CFS are also associated with the variation of these actigraphic CFS correlates and/or subjective fatigue symptoms in the general population., Results: Participants diagnosed with CFS (n = 295) had significantly decreased overall movement (Cohen's d = 0.220, 95% CI of -0.335 to -0.106, p-value = 2.42x10-15), lower activity amplitudes (Cohen's d = -0.377, 95% CI of -0.492 to -0.262, p-value = 1.74x10-6), and lower wrist temperature amplitudes (Cohen's d = -0.173, 95% CI of -0.288 -0.059, p-value = 0.002) compared to controls (n = 63,133). Of 30 tested SNVs associated in the literature with CFS, one was associated in the control population with subjective fatigue and one with actigraphic measurements (FDR < 0.05)., Conclusions: The genetic overlap of CFS risk with actigraphy and subjective fatigue phenotypes suggests that some biological mechanisms underlying pathologic fatigue in CFS patients also underlie fatigue symptoms at a broader population level. Therefore, understanding the biology of fatigue in general may inform our understanding of CFS pathophysiology., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Sleep Research Society. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) increase the risk of adverse cardiovascular events via suppression of cyclooxygenase (COX)-2-derived prostacyclin (PGI 2 ) formation in heart, vasculature, and kidney. The Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Celecoxib Integrated Safety versus Ibuprofen Or Naproxen (PRECISION) trial and other large clinical studies compared the cardiovascular risk of traditional NSAIDs (i.e. naproxen), which inhibit both COX isozymes, with NSAIDs selective for COX-2 (i.e. celecoxib). However, whether pharmacologically equipotent doses were used - that is, whether a similar degree of COX-2 inhibition was achieved - was not considered. We compared drug target inhibition and blood pressure response to celecoxib at the dose used by most patients in PRECISION with the lowest recommended naproxen dose for osteoarthritis, which is lower than the dose used in PRECISION., Methods: Sixteen healthy participants (19-61 years) were treated with celecoxib (100 mg every 12h), naproxen (250 mg every 12h), or placebo administered twice daily for seven days in a double-blind, crossover design randomized by order. On Day 7 when drug levels had reached steady state, the degree of COX inhibition was assessed ex vivo and in vivo . Ambulatory blood pressure was measured throughout the final 12h dosing interval., Results: Both NSAIDs inhibited COX-2 activity relative to placebo, but naproxen inhibited COX-2 activity to a greater degree (62.9±21.7%) than celecoxib (35.7±25.2%; p<0.05). Similarly, naproxen treatment inhibited PGI 2 formation in vivo (48.0±24.9%) to a greater degree than celecoxib (26.7±24.6%; p<0.05). Naproxen significantly increased blood pressure compared to celecoxib (differences in least-square means of mean arterial pressure: 2.5 mm Hg (95% CI: 1.5, 3.5); systolic blood pressure: 4.0 mm Hg (95% CI: 2.9, 5.1); diastolic blood pressure: 1.8 mm Hg (95% CI: 0.8, 2.8); p<0.05 for all). The difference in systolic blood pressure relative to placebo was associated with the degree of COX-2 inhibition (p<0.05)., Conclusions: Celecoxib 200 mg/day inhibited COX-2 activity to a lesser degree than naproxen 500 mg/day, resulting in a less pronounced blood pressure increase. While the PRECISION trial concluded the non-inferiority of celecoxib regarding cardiovascular risk, this is based on a comparison of doses that are not equipotent.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02502006 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02502006).