The Spectral Sensitivity of Human Circadian Phase Resetting and Melatonin Suppression to Light Changes Dynamically with Light Duration

Human circadian, neuroendocrine, and neurobehavioral responses to light are mediated primarily by melanopsin-containing intrinsically-photosensitive retinal ganglion cells (ipRGCs) but they also receive input from visual photoreceptors. Relative photoreceptor contributions are irradiance- and duration-dependent but results for long-duration light exposures are limited. We constructed irradiance-response curves and action spectra for melatonin suppression and circadian resetting responses in participants exposed to 6.5-h monochromatic 420, 460, 480, 507, 555, or 620 nm light exposures initiated near the onset of nocturnal melatonin secretion. Melatonin suppression and phase resetting action spectra were best fit by a single-opsin template with lambdamax at 481 and 483 nm, respectively. Linear combinations of melanopsin (ipRGC), short-wavelength (S) cone, and combined long- and medium-wavelength (L+M) cone functions were also fit and compared. For melatonin suppression, lambdamax was 441 nm in the first quarter of the 6.5-h exposure with a second peak at 550 nm, suggesting strong initial S and L+M cone contribution. This contribution decayed over time; lambdamax was 485 nm in the final quarter of light exposure, consistent with a predominant melanopsin contribution. Similarly, for circadian resetting, lambdamax ranged from 445 nm (all three functions) to 487 nm (L+M-cone and melanopsin functions only), suggesting significant S-cone contribution, consistent with recent model findings that the first few minutes of a light exposure drive the majority of the phase resetting response. These findings suggest a possible initial strong cone contribution in driving melatonin suppression and phase resetting, followed by a dominant melanopsin contribution over longer duration light exposures

Analysis Method and Experimental Conditions Affect Computed Circadian Phase from Melatonin Data

Accurate determination of circadian phase is necessary for research and clinical purposes because of the influence of the master circadian pacemaker on multiple physiologic functions. Melatonin is presently the most accurate marker of the activity of the human circadian pacemaker. Current methods of analyzing the plasma melatonin rhythm can be grouped into three categories: curve-fitting, threshold-based and physiologically-based linear differential equations. To determine which method provides the most accurate assessment of circadian phase, we compared the ability to fit the data and the variability of phase estimates for seventeen different markers of melatonin phase derived from these methodological categories. We used data from three experimental conditions under which circadian rhythms - and therefore calculated melatonin phase - were expected to remain constant or progress uniformly. Melatonin profiles from older subjects and subjects with lower melatonin amplitude were less likely to be fit by all analysis methods. When circadian drift over multiple study days was algebraically removed, there were no significant differences between analysis methods of melatonin onsets (P = 0.57), but there were significant differences between those of melatonin offsets (P<0.0001). For a subset of phase assessment methods, we also examined the effects of data loss on variability of phase estimates by systematically removing data in 2-hour segments. Data loss near onset of melatonin secretion differentially affected phase estimates from the methods, with some methods incorrectly assigning phases too early while other methods assigning phases too late; missing data at other times did not affect analyses of the melatonin profile. We conclude that melatonin data set characteristics, including amplitude and completeness of data collection, differentially affect the results depending on the melatonin analysis method used

Impact of Common Diabetes Risk Variant in MTNR1B

The risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D) is increased by abnormalities in sleep quantity and quality, circadian alignment, and melatonin regulation. A common genetic variant in a receptor for the circadian-regulated hormone melatonin (MTNR1B) is associated with increased fasting blood glucose and risk of T2D, but whether sleep or circadian disruption mediates this risk is unknown. We aimed to test if MTNR1B diabetes risk variant rs10830963 associates with measures of sleep or circadian physiology in intensive in-laboratory protocols (n = 58–96) or cross-sectional studies with sleep quantity and quality and timing measures from self-report (n = 4,307–10,332), actigraphy (n = 1,513), or polysomnography (n = 3,021). In the in-laboratory studies, we found a significant association with a substantially longer duration of elevated melatonin levels (41 min) and delayed circadian phase of dim-light melatonin offset (1.37 h), partially mediated through delayed offset of melatonin synthesis. Furthermore, increased T2D risk in MTNR1B risk allele carriers was more pronounced in early risers versus late risers as determined by 7 days of actigraphy. Our results provide the surprising insight that the MTNR1B risk allele influences dynamics of melatonin secretion, generating a novel hypothesis that the MTNR1B risk allele may extend the duration of endogenous melatonin production later into the morning and that early waking may magnify the diabetes risk conferred by the risk allele

Equity in Higher Education: a roundtable discussion

No abstract available

Classifying performance impairment in response to sleep loss using pattern recognition algorithms on single session testing

There is currently no “gold standard” marker of cognitive performance impairment resulting from sleep loss. We utilized pattern recognition algorithms to determine which features of data collected under controlled laboratory conditions could most reliably identify cognitive performance impairment in response to sleep loss using data from only one testing session, such as would occur in the “real world” or field conditions. A training set for testing the pattern recognition algorithms was developed using objective Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT) and subjective Karolinska Sleepiness Scale (KSS) data collected from laboratory studies during which subjects were sleep deprived for 26 – 52 hours. The algorithm was then tested in data from both laboratory and field experiments. The pattern recognition algorithm was able to identify performance impairment with a single testing session in individuals studied under laboratory conditions using PVT, KSS, length of time awake and time of day information with sensitivity and specificity as high as 82%. When this algorithm was tested on data collected under real-world conditions from individuals whose data were not in the training set, accuracy of predictions for individuals categorized with low performance impairment were as high as 98%. Predictions for medium and severe performance impairment were less accurate. We conclude that pattern recognition algorithms may be a promising method for identifying performance impairment in individuals using only current information about the individual’s behavior. Single testing features (e.g., number of PVT lapses) with high correlation with performance impairment in the laboratory setting may not be the best indicators of performance impairment under real-world conditions. Pattern recognition algorithms should be further tested for their ability to be used in conjunction with other assessments of sleepiness in real-world conditions to quantify performance impairment in response to sleep loss

Functional decoupling of melatonin suppression and circadian phase resetting in humans

Continuous experimental light exposures show that, in general, the conditions that produce greater melatonin suppression also produce greater phase shift, leading to the assumption that one can be used as a proxy for the other. We tested this association in 16 healthy individuals who participated in a 9‐day inpatient protocol by assessing melatonin suppression and phase resetting in response to a nocturnal light exposure (LE) of different patterns: (i) dim‐light control (<3 lux; n = 6) or (ii) two 12‐min intermittent bright light pulses (IBL) separated by 36 min of darkness (∼9500 lux; n = 10). We compared these results with historical data from additional LE patterns: (i) dim‐light control (<3 lux; n = 11); (ii) single continuous bright light exposure of 12 min (n = 9), 1.0 h (n = 10) or 6.5 h (n = 6); or (iii) an IBL light pattern consisting of six 15‐min pulses with 1.0 h dim‐light recovery intervals between them during a total of 6.5 h (n = 7). All light exposure groups had significantly greater phase‐delay shifts than the dim‐light control condition (P < 0.0001). While a monotonic association between melatonin suppression and circadian phase shift was observed, intermittent exposure patterns showed significant phase shifts with disproportionately less melatonin suppression. Each and every IBL stimulus induced a similar degree of melatonin suppression, but did not appear to cause an equal magnitude of phase shift. These results suggest unique specificities in how light‐induced phase shifts and melatonin suppression are mediated such that one cannot be used as a proxy measure of the other

Functional decoupling of melatonin suppression and circadian phase resetting in humans

Continuous experimental light exposures show that, in general, the conditions that produce greater melatonin suppression also produce greater phase shift, leading to the assumption that one can be used as a proxy for the other. We tested this association in 16 healthy individuals who participated in a 9‐day inpatient protocol by assessing melatonin suppression and phase resetting in response to a nocturnal light exposure (LE) of different patterns: (i) dim‐light control (<3 lux; n = 6) or (ii) two 12‐min intermittent bright light pulses (IBL) separated by 36 min of darkness (∼9500 lux; n = 10). We compared these results with historical data from additional LE patterns: (i) dim‐light control (<3 lux; n = 11); (ii) single continuous bright light exposure of 12 min (n = 9), 1.0 h (n = 10) or 6.5 h (n = 6); or (iii) an IBL light pattern consisting of six 15‐min pulses with 1.0 h dim‐light recovery intervals between them during a total of 6.5 h (n = 7). All light exposure groups had significantly greater phase‐delay shifts than the dim‐light control condition (P < 0.0001). While a monotonic association between melatonin suppression and circadian phase shift was observed, intermittent exposure patterns showed significant phase shifts with disproportionately less melatonin suppression. Each and every IBL stimulus induced a similar degree of melatonin suppression, but did not appear to cause an equal magnitude of phase shift. These results suggest unique specificities in how light‐induced phase shifts and melatonin suppression are mediated such that one cannot be used as a proxy measure of the other