4.2 Article

No melatonin suppression by illumination of popliteal fossae or eyelids

Journal

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL RHYTHMS
Volume 15, Issue 3, Pages 265-269

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/074873040001500307

Keywords

popliteal; illumination; melatonin suppression; circadian rhythm; pineal; extraocular photoreception; light mask

Funding

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL55983] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIA NIH HHS [AG15763, AG12364] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A recent report that popliteal illumination shifted the circadian rhythms of body temperature and melatonin challenged the longstanding belief that light phase-shifting the circadian system in mammals is mediated only through the retina. The authors tested effects of popliteal illumination and illumination provided through the eyelids on melatonin suppression. In randomized, counterbalanced orders, healthy volunteers received three treatments from midnight until 2:00 AM, one on each of three visits to the laboratory. Treatments included (1) no illumination from light pads applied to the popliteal fossae, with light mask maintained at < 3 lux (control); (2) light mask illuminated at 1700 lux, with popliteal light pads extinguished; and (3) popliteal light pads illuminated (13,000 lux) and light mask at < 3 lux (control). Saliva specimens were sampled at midnight, at 1:00 AM, and at 2:00 AM. Mean salivary melatonin concentrations rose from an average of 30.8 (3.9) pg/ml at midnight (baseline), to 33.2 (4.0) pg/ml at 1:00 AM, and to 37.2 (3.8) pg/ml at 2:00 AM in all three conditions, but no statistical differences were found using repeated-measures ANOVA. No evidence of melatonin suppression by either popliteal or closed eyelid light stimulation was found. These data suggest that bright retinal illumination is necessary for suppression of melatonin mediated through the suprachiasmatic nuclei.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available