ShareThis Page

3 Americans win Nobel Prize in medicine for uncovering the science behind our biological clocks

| Monday, Oct. 2, 2017, 7:42 p.m.
Nobel prize winner Jeffrey C. Hall speaks to a reporter at his home in Cambridge, Maine, Monday, Oct. 2, 2017. Hall, along with Michael Rosbash and Michael W. Young, won the $1.1 million prize for their work on finding genetic mechanisms behind circadian rhythms, which adapt the workings of the body to different phases of the day, influencing sleep, behavior, hormone levels, body temperature and metabolism.
Nobel prize winner Jeffrey C. Hall speaks to a reporter at his home in Cambridge, Maine, Monday, Oct. 2, 2017. Hall, along with Michael Rosbash and Michael W. Young, won the $1.1 million prize for their work on finding genetic mechanisms behind circadian rhythms, which adapt the workings of the body to different phases of the day, influencing sleep, behavior, hormone levels, body temperature and metabolism.
Rockefeller University biologist Michael Young stands in his lab after winning the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine on October 2, 2017 in New York City.
Getty Images
Rockefeller University biologist Michael Young stands in his lab after winning the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine on October 2, 2017 in New York City.
2017 Nobel Prize Winner Michael Rosbash in the field of Psychology or Medicine, addresses students, faculty and media during a press conference at Brandeis University's Rappaport Treasure Hall on October 2, 2017, in Waltham, Mass.
AFP/Getty Images
2017 Nobel Prize Winner Michael Rosbash in the field of Psychology or Medicine, addresses students, faculty and media during a press conference at Brandeis University's Rappaport Treasure Hall on October 2, 2017, in Waltham, Mass.

The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine has been awarded to a trio of American scientists whose work revealed the mechanisms of a cellular clock regulating biological changes in complex organisms across a 24-hour span.

Working at Brandeis University in the 1980s, Jeffrey C. Hall and Michael Rosbash conducted work that uncovered the genetic basis of circadian rhythms in fruit flies. Michael W. Young collaborated with Hall and Rosbash from Rockefeller University in New York to isolate the gene, named “period” by scientists who had earlier surmised its existence.

Hall, Rosbash and Young would go on to discover a variety of genetic and cellular mechanisms that keep circadian clocks ticking in sync with the Earth's daily rotation.

Rosbash remains on the faculty at Brandeis University, and Young at Rockefeller University. Hall is at the University of Maine.

The work honored by the Nobel Committee sheds light on how all multicellular creatures undergo regular changes in body temperature, hormones, metabolism and behavior that keep time with different phases of the day.

While the scientists honored by the Nobel committee conducted much of their pioneering work on fruit flies, the circadian clock whose workings they elucidated is a powerful factor in human health as well. It helps explain how jet lag and other disruptions to our evolved cycles of sleeping and waking can wear us down and contribute to disease.

Their research has laid the foundation for research into how the time of day influences everything from the way we think to how our bodies store calories or respond to medications. In a world that's open for business 24/7, research has shown that people who try to defy their circadian rhythms will eventually come up against the biological limits of their cells' internal clocks.

“Since the seminal discoveries by the three laureates, circadian biology has developed into a vast and highly dynamic research field, with implications for our health and well being,” the Nobel committee said in its announcement Monday.

In its citation for the $1.1 million prize, the Nobel Assembly at Sweden's Karolinska Institute said the researchers “were able to peek inside our biological clock and elucidate its inner workings.”

That process unfolded in many steps.

In 1984, Hall, Rosbash and Young isolated the period gene. It would take several more years of research for Hall and Rosbash to detect that the protein encoded by that gene — called PER — went through a daily cycle of accumulating during the night and was being depleted in the course of the day.

But how was that rhythm sustained? Hall and Rosbash surmised that some feedback loop was at work, whereby the buildup of PER protein inside the cell might dial down the period gene's activity. But they puzzled over how that shutoff signal was sent from the cytoplasm, where PER protein was produced, to the cell nucleus, where the genetic machinery is located.

That mystery was solved in 1994, with Michael Young's discovery of a second clock gene, which he called timeless. That gene also appeared to be required for organisms to maintain normal circadian rhythm, by encoding the production of a protein called TIM.

Over time, Young would go on to discover a third timekeeper gene, which he called doubletime, that would allow a more precise alignment of protein levels with a 24-hour cycle. Hall, Rosbash and Young have identified additional proteins required for the activation of the period gene, as well as for the mechanism by which light can synchronize the clock.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.