Literature DB >> 29148844

Circadian phase, circadian period and chronotype are reproducible over months.

Thomas Kantermann1,2, Charmane I Eastman3.   

Abstract

The timing of the circadian clock, circadian period and chronotype varies among individuals. To date, not much is known about how these parameters vary over time in an individual. We performed an analysis of the following five common circadian clock and chronotype measures: 1) the dim light melatonin onset (DLMO, a measure of circadian phase), 2) phase angle of entrainment (the phase the circadian clock assumes within the 24-h day, measured here as the interval between DLMO and bedtime/dark onset), 3) free-running circadian period (tau) from an ultradian forced desynchrony protocol (tau influences circadian phase and phase angle of entrainment), 4) mid-sleep on work-free days (MSF from the Munich ChronoType Questionnaire; MCTQ) and 5) the score from the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ). The first three are objective physiological measures, and the last two are measures of chronotype obtained from questionnaires. These data were collected from 18 individuals (10 men, eight women, ages 21-44 years) who participated in two studies with identical protocols for the first 10 days. We show how much these circadian rhythm and chronotype measures changed from the first to the second study. The time between the two studies ranged from 9 months to almost 3 years, depending on the individual. Since the full experiment required living in the laboratory for 14 days, participants were unemployed, had part-time jobs or were freelance workers with flexible hours. Thus, they did not have many constraints on their sleep schedules before the studies. The DLMO was measured on the first night in the lab, after free-sleeping at home and also after sleeping in the lab on fixed 8-h sleep schedules (loosely tailored to their sleep times before entering the laboratory) for four nights. Graphs with lines of unity (when the value from the first study is identical to the value from the second study) showed how much each variable changed from the first to the second study. The DLMO did not change more than 2 h from the first to the second study, except for two participants whose sleep schedules changed the most between studies, a change in sleep times of 3 h. Phase angle did not change by more than 2 h regardless of changes in the sleep schedule. Circadian period did not change more than 0.2 h, except for one participant. MSF did not change more than 1 h, except for two participants. MEQ did not change more than 10 points and the categories (e.g. M-type) did not change. Pearson's correlations for the DLMO between the first and second studies increased after participants slept in the lab on their individually timed fixed 8-h sleep schedules for four nights. A longer time between the two studies did not increase the difference between any of the variables from the first to the second study. This analysis shows that the circadian clock and chronotype measures were fairly reproducible, even after many months between the two studies.

Entities:  

Keywords:  chronotype; circadian period; circadian phase; morningness-eveningness; phase angle; tau

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29148844      PMCID: PMC6055478          DOI: 10.1080/07420528.2017.1400979

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Chronobiol Int        ISSN: 0742-0528            Impact factor:   2.877


  53 in total

1.  A self-assessment questionnaire to determine morningness-eveningness in human circadian rhythms.

Authors:  J A Horne; O Ostberg
Journal:  Int J Chronobiol       Date:  1976

2.  Social jetlag: misalignment of biological and social time.

Authors:  Marc Wittmann; Jenny Dinich; Martha Merrow; Till Roenneberg
Journal:  Chronobiol Int       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 2.877

Review 3.  Noisy and individual, but doable: shift-work research in humans.

Authors:  Thomas Kantermann; Sophie M T Wehrens; Melissa A Ulhôa; Claudia Moreno; Debra J Skene
Journal:  Prog Brain Res       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 2.453

4.  Sex of college students moderates associations among bedtime, time in bed, and circadian phase angle.

Authors:  Eliza Van Reen; Katherine M Sharkey; Brandy M Roane; David Barker; Ronald Seifer; Tifenn Raffray; Tamara L Bond; Mary A Carskadon
Journal:  J Biol Rhythms       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 3.182

5.  The direction of shift-work rotation impacts metabolic risk independent of chronotype and social jetlag--an exploratory pilot study.

Authors:  Thomas Kantermann; Françoise Duboutay; Damien Haubruge; Shelagh Hampton; Andrea L Darling; Jacqueline L Berry; Myriam Kerkhofs; Karim Zouaoui Boudjeltia; Debra J Skene
Journal:  Chronobiol Int       Date:  2014-09-04       Impact factor: 2.877

6.  Sex and ancestry determine the free-running circadian period.

Authors:  Charmane I Eastman; Victoria A Tomaka; Stephanie J Crowley
Journal:  J Sleep Res       Date:  2017-03-23       Impact factor: 3.981

7.  Cancer chronotherapy: a drug delivery challenge.

Authors:  W J Hrushesky
Journal:  Prog Clin Biol Res       Date:  1990

Review 8.  Health consequences of electric lighting practices in the modern world: A report on the National Toxicology Program's workshop on shift work at night, artificial light at night, and circadian disruption.

Authors:  Ruth M Lunn; David E Blask; Andrew N Coogan; Mariana G Figueiro; Michael R Gorman; Janet E Hall; Johnni Hansen; Randy J Nelson; Satchidananda Panda; Michael H Smolensky; Richard G Stevens; Fred W Turek; Roel Vermeulen; Tania Carreón; Claire C Caruso; Christina C Lawson; Kristina A Thayer; Michael J Twery; Andrew D Ewens; Sanford C Garner; Pamela J Schwingl; Windy A Boyd
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2017-07-27       Impact factor: 7.963

9.  Is light-at-night a health risk factor or a health risk predictor?

Authors:  Thomas Kantermann; Till Roenneberg
Journal:  Chronobiol Int       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 2.877

10.  Life between clocks: daily temporal patterns of human chronotypes.

Authors:  Till Roenneberg; Anna Wirz-Justice; Martha Merrow
Journal:  J Biol Rhythms       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 3.182

View more
  6 in total

1.  Robust stability of melatonin circadian phase, sleep metrics, and chronotype across months in young adults living in real-world settings.

Authors:  Andrew W McHill; Akane Sano; Cassie J Hilditch; Laura K Barger; Charles A Czeisler; Rosalind Picard; Elizabeth B Klerman
Journal:  J Pineal Res       Date:  2021-02-16       Impact factor: 12.081

Review 2.  Circadian Rhythms in Attention.

Authors:  Pablo Valdez
Journal:  Yale J Biol Med       Date:  2019-03-25

Review 3.  Social Jetlag and Related Risks for Human Health: A Timely Review.

Authors:  Rocco Caliandro; Astrid A Streng; Linda W M van Kerkhof; Gijsbertus T J van der Horst; Inês Chaves
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2021-12-18       Impact factor: 6.706

4.  Working around the Clock: Is a Person's Endogenous Circadian Timing for Optimal Neurobehavioral Functioning Inherently Task-Dependent?

Authors:  Rachael A Muck; Amanda N Hudson; Kimberly A Honn; Shobhan Gaddameedhi; Hans P A Van Dongen
Journal:  Clocks Sleep       Date:  2022-02-11

5.  Understanding Sleep-Wake Behavior in Late Chronotype Adolescents: The Role of Circadian Phase, Sleep Timing, and Sleep Propensity.

Authors:  Christin Lang; Cele Richardson; Gorica Micic; Michael Gradisar
Journal:  Front Psychiatry       Date:  2022-03-11       Impact factor: 4.157

6.  No Effect of Chronotype on Hunger or Snack Consumption during a Night Shift with Acute Sleep Deprivation.

Authors:  Andrew M Reiter; Gregory D Roach; Charli Sargent
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2022-03-22       Impact factor: 5.717

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.