Romanovsky Andrej A
Trauma Research, St. Joseph's Hospital, 350 W. Thomas Rd., Phoenix, AZ 85013, USA.
Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2004 Oct;287(4):R992-5. doi: 10.1152/ajpregu.00068.2004. Epub 2004 Jun 10.
Fever and anapyrexia are the most studied thermoregulatory responses. They are defined as a body temperature (T(b)) increase and decrease, respectively, occurring because of a shift in the set point (SP) and characterized by active defense of the new T(b). Although models of T(b) control with a single SP (whether obvious or hidden) have been criticized, the SP-based definitions have remained unchallenged. In this article, the SP-based definitions of fever and anapyrexia were subjected to two tests. In test 1, they were compared with experimental data on changes in thresholds for activation of different thermoeffectors. Changes in thresholds were found compatible with an SP increase in some (but not all) cases of fever. In all cases of what is called anapyrexia, its mechanism (dissociation of thresholds of different effectors) was found incompatible with a decrease in a single SP. In test 2, experimental data on the dependence of T(b) on ambient temperature (T(a)) were analyzed. It was found that the febrile level of T(b) is defended in some (but not all) cases. However, strong dependence on T(a) was found in all cases of anapyrexia, which agrees with threshold dissociation but not with a decrease of the SP. It is concluded that fever (as defined) has only limited experimental support, whereas anapyrexia (as defined) does not exist. Two solutions are offered. A palliative is to accept that SP-based terms (anapyrexia, cryexia, regulated hypothermia, and such) are inadequate and should be abandoned. A radical solution is to transform all definitions based on comparing T(b) with the SP into definitions based on balancing active and passive processes of T(b) control.
发热和退热是研究最多的体温调节反应。它们分别被定义为由于体温调定点(SP)的改变而导致的体温(T(b))升高和降低,并以对新的T(b)进行主动防御为特征。尽管具有单一SP(无论明显还是隐藏)的T(b)控制模型受到了批评,但基于SP的定义一直未受到挑战。在本文中,基于SP的发热和退热定义接受了两项检验。在检验1中,将它们与不同体温调节效应器激活阈值变化的实验数据进行了比较。发现在某些(但不是所有)发热病例中,阈值变化与SP升高相符。在所有所谓退热的病例中,发现其机制(不同效应器阈值的解离)与单一SP的降低不相符。在检验2中,分析了T(b)对环境温度(T(a))依赖性的实验数据。发现在某些(但不是所有)病例中,T(b)的发热水平得到了维持。然而,在所有退热病例中都发现了对T(a)的强烈依赖性,这与阈值解离相符,但与SP的降低不相符。结论是,(所定义的)发热仅有有限的实验支持,而(所定义的)退热并不存在。提出了两种解决方案。一种权宜之计是承认基于SP的术语(退热、低温症、调节性体温过低等)不充分并应予以摒弃。一种根本的解决方案是将所有基于T(b)与SP比较的定义转变为基于T(b)控制的主动和被动过程平衡的定义。